[Helmling]

Indulge me as I paint a hypothetical scenario:

A building is burning. Burning quickly. There is little time left.

Inside, at the far end of the west wing, there is a nursery, where one baby has been left behind.

At the far end of the east wing, there is a storage tank of embryos. There are 10,000 frozen human embryos.

There will be time only to go down one hall. You, standing before this inferno about to consume the building, can save only one:

A single baby or 10,000 embryos.

If you truly think that human embryos are actual human beings, fully vested with all inalienable human rights, then this is a simple, if unfortunate choice.

And if that is indeed the case, then you must now see that you are a monster.

[Railroader]

You convinced me.

[RAILhead]

Heh

So what if there were Grandmas at each end?

[Railroader]

Or an atheist at one end and a Christian at the other?

Or a bus full of people or Mary Jane?

Choices...

[GSixZero]

I'm posting in this thread to let you all know that this is a bad place to be.

[Shaddim]

It thinks, therefore it is. I'm not talking about potential, just the now.

Want to see directed will?

So, does an embryo think? No? What about the baby? Yes? No?

Let's determine where conscious thought begins and draw a thick line.

[RAILhead]

Better yet: a totally, crazy-hawt chick in one wing — and a totally, crazy-hawt chick in the other!

THEY HUMANITY!!!!111!

[Dakar the Fourth]

A poll wouldn't have hurt.

[Monique]

Embryos are not, can they live outside a tank or a mother no; so they cannot be human.

As for thinking there are a lot of people that act all the time without using their brains so I guess they would not be human.

[Doofy]

It's obviously which to save when one thinks about it.

The embryos are obviously all commies, since they're all living together in one storage tank. As such, they wouldn't thank you for saving them anyways, since all that heroics stuff is for those awful independent people and the correct way to be saved is through some kind of government subsidy combined with a proper health and safety analysis.

The baby is all alone, so obviously is some kind of freedom-loving libertarian type. Who's much more likely to thank you by buying you a beer afterwards.

No-brainer really. Die, embryos, die.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Whoa, thanks whoever added the poll.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Whoa, thanks whoever added the poll.

welcome.

[Railroader]

I believe we have a post and run.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think you can give someone more than 12 hours to reply.

[Railroader]

13?

[kido331]

Frozen embryos are not developing. Steps would need to be taken before they could develop. As opposed to a viable embryo in the early stages of pregnancy where steps would need to be taken to prevent its development. Don't get me wrong, I don't think embryos should be fully protected under the law as human beings, but I also don't think that protection should only come about at birth. What if instead of a tank of embryos you had a brain dead woman carrying a late term baby?

The simple fact is it is easy to discard embryos for the same reason it is easy to chop down a tree - they don't scream while they are dying.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by kido331 

The simple fact is it is easy to discard embryos for the same reason it is easy to chop down a tree - they don't scream while they are dying.

Good analogy. The only flaw is that figuratively is puts the tree and embryo on the same level.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I believe we have a post and run.

I am kind of a regular, so I'm not sure why you'd say that.

For the record, though, I am regretting making this post. It was inspired by something someone said in one of the other threads, but it came directly in the middle of other thinking (which is on display in another thread, as you well know) that culminated in a personal decision not to make self-assured posts exactly like this one.

Bad timing.

But as I look back at my own post, I do think the logic is sound for digging out the emotive biases at work in the issue of whether not an embryo is a human being (for the record, I voted "don't make me think so hard" as an undecided vote). However, the hypothetical scenario leaves much to be desired. There are many assumptions at work in it, but I think the most important one is that human life is valuable at all. So I think a starting point must be:

Why is human life valuable?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why is human life valuable?

Value through association? So long as you're not self-loathing, then you value at least one human life. If you think humans do good (or are, at very least capable of it) and you value good, then why would you not value humans in general?

[Monique]

Do we have a clue how big is an embryo?

I was wondering when we would see the words pro-life appear in this thread.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Monique 

I was wondering when we would see the words pro-life appear in this thread.

The only mention of the words "pro-life" in this thread was you, just.

[RAILhead]

I thought size didn't matter to you women...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Do we have a clue how big is an embryo?

I was wondering when we would see the words pro-life appear in this thread.

6week old tubal pregnancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...e049_lores.jpg

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Value through association? So long as you're not self-loathing, then you value at least one human life. If you think humans do good (or are, at very least capable of it) and you value good, then why would you not value humans in general?

The jump there from valuing one's own life to valuing others' doesn't seem logical, so I'm not sure if there's anything we can mine there.

And this reasoning about doing good could just as easily work for doing evil forcing us into some economic exercise to determine whether the potential good outweighed the potential evil actions of human beings--not to mention that the whole notion of what is "good" is itself problematic.

I'm thinking these standards won't work for any rigorous exploration.

[mduell]

I'm not very good at assessing burn rates of buildings. I'd run out.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Monique 

Do we have a clue how big is an embryo?

I was wondering when we would see the words pro-life appear in this thread.

I bet you're littler than me. Does that mean I have the right to squash you?

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I bet you're littler than me. Does that mean I have the right to squash you?

???

You mean like U.S/Iraq? I guess yes then.

Do I win a prize?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer 

???

You mean like U.S/Iraq? I guess yes then.

Do I win a prize?

So... we're in Iraq because they're littler than us? These weren't the reasons given us by both Clintons, Albright, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Biden.

You may win forum moron, but I'm not judging.

[vmarks]

Please get back on topic.

[ebuddy]

If there's a storage tank of frozen-anything in a fire that is apparently not already melting, I'm guessing it would be best to grab the baby and jump in. You know, wait it out.

Then again, if the storage tank of embryos had even dropped a few degrees, it's already too late.

None of this matters though because assuming everyone's following law, those embryos are already non-viable. There's nothing to save. Grab the baby and bail.

[dcmacdaddy]

Hmmm . . . Let's see now, try to save an actual living breathing human being or try to save a bunch of matter that might lead to the creation of an actual living breathing human being?


I will choose the former option.
What a dumb way to phrase the question.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... we're in Iraq because they're littler than us? These weren't the reasons given us by both Clintons, Albright, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Biden.

You may win forum moron, but I'm not judging.

He does have a point. We'd have never gone to war for any of the many and changing noble reasons our political leaders cited if we didn't know we could easily beat them.

[vmarks]

get back on topic please.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The jump there from valuing one's own life to valuing others' doesn't seem logical, so I'm not sure if there's anything we can mine there.

Wanna be so nice as to explain why?

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

A single baby or 10,000 embryos.

I say the living baby wins over the possibility of 10,000 babies.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Why is human life valuable?

Is human life more valuable than all others? To rephrase the scenario, the building is on fire and you can save either your two family pets you've loved for 15 years, or the 90 year old man down the hall you've never met. Which life is more valuable? Why?

[nonhuman]

If you can explain to me how I could possible save a tank full of frozen embryos, then I might consider the possibility of saving them over the baby. However it's very easy to grab a baby and run out of a burning building. It's much less easy to grab a giant tank full of 10,000 embryos complete with refrigeration unit without which the embryos will all die anyway, and run out of a burning building.

Edit:
However the question in the poll is completely different. Of course embryos are human, they are comprised of cells defined by human DNA. Your toenails are also human, but I'd certainly save a baby over your toenails. The question of whether or not they're human beings is somewhat different and more complex. My answer to that used to be yes, now I'm less certain.

[Railroader]

90 year old man.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Why the qualifier human embryo? After all, if its all the same lump of tissue, why does it matter what type were talking about?

Would anyone save a bunch of human embryos, over a bunch of horse embryos, if you could choose only one?

Also, no one could ever be faulted for saving the baby in this scenario. It's no more a moral dilemma than saving a mother vs her unborn baby if there are pregnancy complications.

This is an odd argument, because of the irony that were talking about a situation where there is no CHOICE in the matter.

[Chuckit]

There is choice in the matter. If you have an opportunity to save a mother or a baby, that's also a choice. I think the point here is that our idea of the worth of a life is more emotional than empirical or logical.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Why the qualifier human embryo? After all, if its all the same lump of tissue, why does it matter what type were talking about?

Would anyone save a bunch of human embryos, over a bunch of horse embryos, if you could choose only one?

Also, no one could ever be faulted for saving the baby in this scenario. It's no more a moral dilemma than saving a mother vs her unborn baby if there are pregnancy complications.

This is an odd argument, because of the irony that were talking about a situation where there is no CHOICE in the matter.

You bring up a good point. What if the choice was human embryos and mice embryos? Which would people save from being destroyed in the fire?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You bring up a good point. What if the choice was human embryos and mice embryos? Which would people save from being destroyed in the fire?

Do you really expect that anyone would go for the mice embryos, other than a nutso? I think we can safely assume that most people value human potential over mouse potential.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by railroader 

you bring up a good point. What if the choice was human embryos and mice embryos? Which would people save from being destroyed in the fire?

why do you keep these things together!?!?!!

Aaaaaaiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Wanna be so nice as to explain why?

I mean that there's no logical imperative. Yes, we *could* say that because I value my own life I should value the lives of others, but what in the nature of valuation would require us to make this connection. One could simply counter that the reason for valuing my own life is that it is my own, and nothing else.

I'm really doubting that there's any objective standard for human life being valuable, but it sure would help things out if I was wrong.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If you can explain to me how I could possible save a tank full of frozen embryos, then I might consider the possibility of saving them over the baby. However it's very easy to grab a baby and run out of a burning building. It's much less easy to grab a giant tank full of 10,000 embryos complete with refrigeration unit without which the embryos will all die anyway, and run out of a burning building.

Edit:
However the question in the poll is completely different. Of course embryos are human, they are comprised of cells defined by human DNA. Your toenails are also human, but I'd certainly save a baby over your toenails. The question of whether or not they're human beings is somewhat different and more complex. My answer to that used to be yes, now I'm less certain.

Assume they were packed to travel.

[Shaddim]

Is a newborn baby a human being? Being implies that it's self-aware, one could argue that humans don't reach that state until they're 2-3 years old (or older).

Hell, I have a 45 y/o neighbor who barely fits that classification.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Is a newborn baby a human being? Being implies that it's self-aware, one could argue that humans don't reach that state until they're 2-3 years old (or older).

Hell, I have a 45 y/o neighbor who barely fits that classification.

Princeton Professor Peter Singer has written about this subject
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

JUSTIFYING INFANTICIDE AND NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA

As we have seen, euthanasia is non-voluntary when the subject has never had the capacity to choose to live or die. This is the situation of the severely disabled infant or the older human being who has been profoundly intellectually disabled since birth. Euthanasia or other forms of killing are also non- voluntary when the subject is not now but once was capable of making the crucial choice, and did not then express any preference relevant to her present condition.

The case of someone who has never been capable of choosing to live or die is a little more straightforward than that of a person who had, but has now lost, the capacity to make such a decision. We shall, once again, separate the two cases and take the more straightforward one first. For simplicity, I shall concentrate on infants, although everything I say about them would apply to older children or adults whose mental age is and has always been that of an infant.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Assume they were packed to travel.

Only if they're packed in a modified Barbasol can then.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Princeton Professor Peter Singer has written about this subject
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

I was wondering when he'd come up.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Only if they're packed in a modified Barbasol can then.

But that could only hold like, what 13 embryos? Of course, they were dinosaur embryos, so I'm sure they were like, much bigger than human embryos.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

why do you keep these things together!?!?!!

Aaaaaaiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I think I may have released too much information already.