Odd ethical question for pro-lifers

[c_mcanall]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

(1) One, no matter what choice we’d make in this situation, we’re not choosing evil. There’s a difference between allowing peril to someone and causing it. They were falling before we even got there.

(2) Secondly, we have two options, based on two ethical principles. One, we rescue our friend/family member first, out of the principle that our first obligation is to those closest to us. Two, we rescue the 10 people first, out of the principle of trying to bring about a greater good. This second response in no way denies that we greatly love our friend/family member, in fact even more than the 10 people, but rather simply that we think it might be the more just thing to save the 10 people first. At this point, I’m not sure if either answer is necessarily wrong. Both are clearly good intentioned. I must admit that, in all honesty, my instinct in the situation would be to immediately rescue my friend/family member first. However, when having time to think about it, I question whether this is truly the best thing to do, or simply motivated by my own selfish desire to save the one person I actually know and love first? Again, I don’t have definite answer right now, and I’d like to hear others’ thoughts.

(3) Thirdly, both options affirm the dignity of the human person first and foremost. Things such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, in contrast, place the financial welfare mother (and other lesser reasons) above the dignity of the human person—this is why they are intrinsically evil acts.

If anybody has thoughts on these three points especially, I’d like to hear them. With that covered, I now want to briefly comment a bit more on the absurdity of the situation, as well as clarify a false idea that has been spreading.

After I said that the idea was unrealistic, Justin responded with the following:

“It’s the same situation, as the war that I just keep insisting on talking about . . . just boiled down to more simplistic terms.”

I have to disagree. First of all, the numbers would be a bit higher on the side of the unborn people. Secondly, if the scenario perfectly applies to war, then I must know every single person as friend/family that is fighting in the war. In contrast, the million+ unborn in the wombs of mothers all over the U.S., for some odd reason, cannot be considered family to each of them. As I said earlier, I still think that this scenario is an impossible one, and in my opinion, the impossibility of it is a sign of the difficulty Justin has with simply confronting the questions that I give to him. I’m sure he’ll disagree, and I look forward to his thoughts.

CONTINUED BELOW>>>

 

[c_mcanall]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

A couple more comments now…

Justin later added the following thought:

“But the point, the important point, is the question of when one becomes human . . . and the fact you’d save 10 embryos over 1 real human . . . to me that sounds scary”

The question “of when one becomes human” is truly the most important point. Yet this is the very point Justin then seems to ignore AGAIN. This is just another example of how Justin assumes that the embryos are not human. I’ve tried offering dialogue over the questions of defining human personhood, both in this discussion and in previous ones, and the common thing for Justin to do is simply jump around the question at hand (particularly the one on “abortion agnosticism”), usually bringing up the War in Iraq, and now this strange scenario.

Lastly, I wanted to quote Justin on the following:

“Choose: (1) 10 embryos, that have the “potential” to be human or (2) 1 person . . . from falling from a cliff. So you chose 10 groups of cells over 1 human being.”

This further emphasizes my previous point. But I also include this to make sure it be known to everyone that part of the scenario was NOT that I had the choice of “throwing Justin into a pit of fire.” I’ve been told that this is what some people are hearing from him and the truth of the matter is that this was IN NO WAY part of the original scenario I was given.

Justin, I hope none of this sounded harsh. I am very grateful that you are putting so much thought into this. You’re definitely causing me to seriously think about my beliefs, as well as their implications, more so than before. Thank you, and I look forward to your thoughts in response, along with those of everyone else.

THE END

=======================

Anything I should not have said? Anything else I should have said? Please do share.

 

[pittsburghjeff]

Just ask him

“When did you stop beating your wife?”

It’s the same kind of hypo he gave you

The only true answer is that you do what you can to save every human life.

We simply aren’t forced with a choice between “brothers being drafter” and unborn babies being killed.

The unborn babies are in certain danger. A vote for Kerry is a vote to assure their continued death.

George Bush isnt putting our troops out there with the intent to have them killed. He is trying to win the war on terror. Our troops have the weapons and the protection of the US armed forces behind them. The unborn have no protection - only our voices, if we choose to speak to them.

 

[bear06]

The whole “instinctively I’d save my friend first” argument is gnawing at me. If it came down to your friend or a 4 year old, I’d think you’d try for the defenseless first. I, personally, can’t see that I’d leave a 4 year old on a cliff while I saved an adult no matter who it was. I can see the inclination between saving a friend over 1 embryo because I think we can ALL sometimes diminish the value of that life for lack of seeing what it is. Thankfully, we’ll probably never have to deal with this situation!!!

 

[Philip76]

Why didn’t your friend put to you a situation where you had one friend and ONE embryo at the top of the cliff? That would have removed the 10 to 1 greater good angle from the decision and at least you would have been dealing with two human lives and the ability to save only one of them.

Your friend needs to decide what he wants to know from you. It seems that in his desire to trip you up, he has neglected to form the dilemma properly.

He doesn’t prove anything by telling you he’s disgusted that you’d save 10 embryos over 1 adult. That’s just re-stating your opinion, (that the embryos are humans and deserve protection) which he already knows. He’s trying to show that you think an embryo is more important than an adult, but his question complicates it and your answer can be interpreted as a statement that 10 people are more important than one.

Tell him he needs to do better than that, and ask him to come up with a new question.