• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pro-Lifer Dilemma

Zep said:
They should try using real examples instead. Ed knows there are plenty of them: abortion, race, religion...
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think it is completely appropriate. And it's not entirely implausible either though to be certain plausibility isn't requisite for hypotheticals and moral dilemmas.

Einstein famously posited the hypothetical "If I could ride a beam of light..." Now, you could attack Einsteins hypothetical saying that it is not real world because 1.) people can't ride beams of light and 2.) people can't travel at the speed of light but that wouldn't invalidate the hypothetical.

I'm sorry Zep but this is a really good ethical dilemma. I understand that you don't like it but your feelings really aren't germane to the hypothetical. It is logically valid and goes directly to the claims of those who believe that life begins at conception.
 
Some things to consider in the situation of picking and choosing who lives and who dies, not in any particular order:

1. Age: A 98 year old has led a long life. A five year old has not. It would seem that having lived "your fair share" should count.

2. Quality of life. A five year old who's been completely comatose since birth versus a twenty year old who's not. The five year old won't know what he's missing. (eta: This should probably be better termed "sentience", instead of quality of life.)

3. Character of the parties involved. In a choice between someone nice and a total jerk, the jerk is going to lose.

4. Relationship to you. My friends come before strangers, strangers come before enemies, family comes before friends (the relatives I like, anyway). Lovers might trump family, but only if it's True Love Brand Love.

5. The wishes of the parties involved. If you know at least one of the parties involved, you might know how they'd prefer you to act. I'd rather save my grandparents than certain of my cousins, but I know my grandparents would prefer for me to save my cousins, so I probably would to spare them upset and survivor's guilt and awkward Thanksgivings. On the other hand, if my mother would prefer me to nobly let her go up in flames so that somebody's kid could survive, well, the kid is toast. I like my mother enough to not give a damn what she'd want in that situation. Ethics are funny.

In the case of the embryos verus the toddler, I'd save the toddler. The embryos aren't even aware they're alive yet, so death isn't as big a deal for them.
 
Crazytree said:
You are in a house that is on fire. In one room is a two-year-old child. In another room is a petri dish with 5 viable embryos.

You only have time to get to one room in time.

Which do you save?
Click to expand...

Being moderately pro-life I'd say I don't see a dilemma. The embryos have the potential to become fully human, the child is already fully human.

I think a lot of these questions arise because of binary thinking, either or, when there is actually a full spectrum of possible situations and conclusions.

For instance, "partial birth abortion." The "solutions" presented are; a. carry to term or, b. abort (and kill the fetus). That late in pregancy, deliver the baby and put it up for adoption.

IIRichard
 
RandFan said:
I disagree. I think it is completely appropriate. And it's not entirely implausible either though to be certain plausibility isn't requisite for hypotheticals and moral dilemmas.

Einstein famously posited the hypothetical "If I could ride a beam of light..." Now, you could attack Einsteins hypothetical saying that it is not real world because 1.) people can't ride beams of light and 2.) people can't travel at the speed of light but that wouldn't invalidate the hypothetical.

I'm sorry Zep but this is a really good ethical dilemma. I understand that you don't like it but your feelings really aren't germane to the hypothetical. It is logically valid and goes directly to the claims of those who believe that life begins at conception.
Click to expand...
Yes, I appreciated all that before I even wrote my first response. But I disagree that it is a "good" ethical dilemma in that, as IIRichard has just pointed out, it is trying to create a completely binary situation where one does not actually exist, even within the parameters set initially. Trying too hard, in my opinion, and failing.
 
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I have a very binary view of what constitutes a human life and what does not. A toddler is a a human life, a fertilized embryo is not.
 
Crazytree said:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I have a very binary view of what constitutes a human life and what does not. A toddler is a a human life, a fertilized embryo is not.
Click to expand...

But the problem with binary views of life is that you must then find the point at which not-human-life becomes human life. When is that?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Some things to consider in the situation of picking and choosing who lives and who dies, not in any particular order:

1. Age: A 98 year old has led a long life. A five year old has not. It would seem that having lived "your fair share" should count.

2. Quality of life. A five year old who's been completely comatose since birth versus a twenty year old who's not. The five year old won't know what he's missing. (eta: This should probably be better termed "sentience", instead of quality of life.)

3. Character of the parties involved. In a choice between someone nice and a total jerk, the jerk is going to lose.

4. Relationship to you. My friends come before strangers, strangers come before enemies, family comes before friends (the relatives I like, anyway). Lovers might trump family, but only if it's True Love Brand Love.

5. The wishes of the parties involved. If you know at least one of the parties involved, you might know how they'd prefer you to act. I'd rather save my grandparents than certain of my cousins, but I know my grandparents would prefer for me to save my cousins, so I probably would to spare them upset and survivor's guilt and awkward Thanksgivings. On the other hand, if my mother would prefer me to nobly let her go up in flames so that somebody's kid could survive, well, the kid is toast. I like my mother enough to not give a damn what she'd want in that situation. Ethics are funny.

In the case of the embryos verus the toddler, I'd save the toddler. The embryos aren't even aware they're alive yet, so death isn't as big a deal for them.
Click to expand...


These points, which I suppose are valid for most among us, are probably the result of thousands of years of evolution. It's the genes fighting to survive. Self before others, unless the others are your kids. Family before strangers. Young before old. Healthy before sick. Everything points to prosperity, doesn't it ?

Yet, we have now reached a point where we prolong the lives of the doomed and we try to make tolerable the lives of the severely disabled. We spend resources for people who can't help the "improvement" of the species. And we've been doing this with increasing rate during the last hundreds of years. This is civilization, and sometimes it looks like it is counter-intuitive to evolution.

But what if we reach a stage where Earth overpopulation is threatening the existence of humanity ? Then a decrease of the population would be the appropriate evolutionary measure, yet we will probably not have the time to evolve in such a way that extermination becomes moral. We will still be saving the baby and letting the old man die, even if it will not be the logical thing to do anymore.

Between a dying old man and a baby I'd like to be able to save the old man. I think we are slowly reaching the point that helping those whom we expect less from is going to be more important than ensuring an increasing population of the species. Sometime soon out civilization will have to ignore evolution. Evolution has done its job, we are now -or will soon be- in a position to take the wheel ourselves. So I'd like to be able to save the old man, but I guess I'd still save the baby.
 
FOR EXAMPLE: Embryos lying around somewhere in a Petri dish? ...are so delicate that they would be dead within minutes of not properly cared for. Especially in a fire. The child would probably be more "robust" and likely to survive that situation. :rolleyes:
 
Zep said:
FOR EXAMPLE: Embryos lying around somewhere in a Petri dish? ...are so delicate that they would be dead within minutes of not properly cared for. Especially in a fire. The child would probably be more "robust" and likely to survive that situation. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

On the other hand, that child might have set the fire to begin with, whereas the embryos are likely innocent of arson.
 
Zep said:
Yes, I appreciated all that before I even wrote my first response. But I disagree that it is a "good" ethical dilemma in that, as IIRichard has just pointed out, it is trying to create a completely binary situation where one does not actually exist, even within the parameters set initially. Trying too hard, in my opinion, and failing.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but it is only applicable to those who believe that life begins at concpetion. If you don't then of course it is non-starter.
 
TragicMonkey said:
But the problem with binary views of life is that you must then find the point at which not-human-life becomes human life. When is that?
Click to expand...
Not possible I'm affraid. We can't be so precise anymore than we can precisely determine when day begins and night ends.
 
RandFan said:
Fair enough but it is only applicable to those who believe that life begins at concpetion. If you don't then of course it is non-starter.
Click to expand...
Of course - I did see the initial point too.

Perhaps I could suggest a counter-hypothetical?

Consider you are a pro-life scientist researching beginning-of-life issues. However in the course of your work you discover that there is indeed a definite point at which life technically "begins" in an embryo, and it is approximately 1 month after conception, in humans. How might this affect your views on contraception, RU486, and early termination of pregnancies?
 
Zep said:
Of course - I did see the initial point too.

Perhaps I could suggest a counter-hypothetical?

Consider you are a pro-life scientist researching beginning-of-life issues. However in the course of your work you discover that there is indeed a definite point at which life technically "begins" in an embryo, and it is approximately 1 month after conception, in humans. How might this affect your views on contraception, RU486, and early termination of pregnancies?
Click to expand...
If your "pro-life" position was based on when life begins and not in the sanctity of potential life and you were an objective and rational scientist then you should accept as moral, contraception, RU486 and the early termintion of pregnancies.

ETA: Yes, I assume you are taking my somewhere. I'm ready.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
But the problem with binary views of life is that you must then find the point at which not-human-life becomes human life. When is that?
Click to expand...
That's a very fair point, but under the terms of the OP, an academic one. Only the most hardcore pro-lifer would consider a fertilised embryo, which might not produce a child even if implanted, to have the same rights as a person who is already capable of independent existence.
 
The five embryos would probably be a lot quieter than the baby. That's an important consideration while waiting around outside for the ambulances and fire trucks to show up.
 
AnotherSillyAlias said:
Unless of course you take too long getting out of the building and you end up with a krispy kiddie with bits missing. This might reduce the charm a little.
Click to expand...

I just assumed that if the kid didn't make it, you would drop it inside the building and claim you couldn't find it. No need to turn a failed rescue into a blame game, with people suing you for not succeeding.

eta: Oh, my. There's nothing like ethical hypotheticals for making a thoroughly gruesome conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom