E
Exalt
Guest
A hospital has caught on fire. You have a choice between saving one seven-day-old baby or a 1000 blastocysts. Who do you save?
- Status
D
deb1
Guest
For those who don’t know here is the definition of a blastocysts
The undifferentiated cells formed by cleavage of the fertilized ovum. This includes cells in the cleavage, morula, and blastula stages of the embryo
first of all, I don’t think that I could save the blastocytes because they would need special equipment to be kept alive. All I need to save the infant is my own two arms. So, I would save the infant.
Questions like these only serve to make me understand how wise the Church is on her stance about in vitro fertilization.
The undifferentiated cells formed by cleavage of the fertilized ovum. This includes cells in the cleavage, morula, and blastula stages of the embryo
first of all, I don’t think that I could save the blastocytes because they would need special equipment to be kept alive. All I need to save the infant is my own two arms. So, I would save the infant.
Questions like these only serve to make me understand how wise the Church is on her stance about in vitro fertilization.
P
Philothea53
Guest
Since they are all human persons in one stage or another of life, the only responsible thing to do would be to save them all.
D
Daddums
Guest
I’d save the baby because the blastocysts are just parts of their mothers’ bodies and there is no reason to save body parts.
Daddums
P
Philothea53
Guest
Not true. The blastocyst is the fertilized egg just prior to implantation. The outer part becomes the placenta and the inner is the embryo.I’d save the baby because the blastocysts are just parts of their mothers’ bodies and there is no reason to save body parts.
Daddums
R
rpp
Guest
Such questions are like asking which of your children you would allow to die.
Silly logic.
Silly logic.
M
markomalley
Guest
S
seekerz
Guest
I would save the live baby simply because there is a quandary over where or if the blastocysts should be implanted since IVF is against Church teaching anyway.
To me they are all babies, but considering the blastocysts should not have been created and left in their state of frozen suspension to begin with, I would go for the one who is already born (that is, if it were not possible to save all 1,001).
To me they are all babies, but considering the blastocysts should not have been created and left in their state of frozen suspension to begin with, I would go for the one who is already born (that is, if it were not possible to save all 1,001).
N
nichjake
Guest
I wouldn’t bother with the blastocysts…a baby would have (most likely) 2 parents who are rather attached and would be emotionally destroyed if their newborn were left to die. The blastocysts on the other hand…whosever they were would prolly be upset but not nearly as much as the parents of the infant. I know…I’m a bit weird in my reasoning, but what can I say…I don’t like kids so in order to entertain the question I have to think of the parents.
D
deb1
Guest
If everyone followed Church teaching would there even be any blostocytes to begin with?
I still say that it would be physically impossibly to save the blastocytes without special equipement. So, I would save the baby because I only need two arms to do so.
I still say that it would be physically impossibly to save the blastocytes without special equipement. So, I would save the baby because I only need two arms to do so.
A
Atlanta_Jen
Guest
This.
If they were MY baby vs MY blastocysts, the answer would be the same. And yes, I respect the sanctity of life and understand that life is created at conception, but I agree with the others…lifeboat and all that.
D
Daddums
Guest
Yes but the placenta and embryo are also just parts of the mother’s body. If they weren’t then the whole women’s right to choose what to do with her own body argument wouldn’t make any sense.
Daddums
S
seekerz
Guest
Really? I know about four limbs, one brain and very many squish internal organs, but a placenta and an embryo? Do all women walk around with those particular “body parts” inside them, if not are those who don’t possess them somehow deficient? What vital function do the placenta/embryo perform for the average adult female? Just listen to yourself for a second.Yes but the placenta and embryo are also just parts of the mother’s body. If they weren’t then the whole women’s right to choose what to do with her own body argument wouldn’t make any sense.
Daddums
The so called ‘right to choose’ was partly based on the view that the placenta/embryo are part of a woman’s body, not the other way around as you seem to be saying.
One place I’ll agree with you though: without the belief that embryo/placenta are a woman’s body parts, the ‘right’ to choose does not make sense. Now are you ready to go a step further and accept that any entity which waltzes out of a woman’s womb after nine months and thenceforth exists entirely independently of her person, cannot be termed ‘her body parts’?
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Common sense says go for the baby. The blastocysts are frozen in a liquid nitrogen container and you cannot lift it. If they are removed from the container they will likely die anyway before they can be put into a new container of liquid nitrogen. Bye Baby Blastocysts!
F
FLCathMom
Guest
I have heard this question posed before. It is an attempt to reason that a blastocyst is not as valuable as a baby because everyone would choose to save the living baby.
The reason we choose the baby is because we become emotionally attached to the baby when we see it. Think of this, if you had a choice between saving a room full of children across the world who you will never see, or one standing right in front of you, you most likely will choose the one right in front of you because of the emotional attachment. It is a selfish choice. I would choose the one I could see because I don’t want to feel the emotional pain of seeing a child die.
A child’s only self-defense mechanism is its cuteness- that inspires emotional attachment which causes adults to care for it.
The reason we choose the baby is because we become emotionally attached to the baby when we see it. Think of this, if you had a choice between saving a room full of children across the world who you will never see, or one standing right in front of you, you most likely will choose the one right in front of you because of the emotional attachment. It is a selfish choice. I would choose the one I could see because I don’t want to feel the emotional pain of seeing a child die.
A child’s only self-defense mechanism is its cuteness- that inspires emotional attachment which causes adults to care for it.
D
deb1
Guest
Another example…if there is a room full of children in a burning building, just because I save the first two that I can reach doesn’t mean that the others aren’t worthy of life. It just means that I only have two arms and will not be able to save everyone.
S
Sabda
Guest
I have heard this question too and I think it’s a silly question. So, original poster which child would you save? Would you save the older child or the younger children?
For the record I would do my best to save them all because they are ALL created in the likeness and image of God.
For the record I would do my best to save them all because they are ALL created in the likeness and image of God.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Well said – I actually LOL’ed.
It makes me think of Puss In Boots from the Shrek movies.
But you are absolutely right – the question is moot.
Peace,
Dante
D
deb1
Guest
I would like Exalt to answer this question, if you are in a burning building and you can only save one child, which one would you save? A three month old infant or a nine month old infant?
- Status