You are out side two buildings, one building has a 5 year old child and the other building is a cyrogenics lab with thousands of fertalized eggs waiting to be reinserted into women. Both buildings are on fire. You only have time to go into one building, do you go into the building and save the 5 year old child or do you go into the building with the thousands of fertalized eggs and save the thousands of babies?
2006-06-12 04:28:49 · 38 answers · asked by anastasia_bevahousen 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
People who are against abortion feel that a fertalized egg is a human being, so wouldn't saving 1000 people be better than saving 1?
2006-06-12 04:33:59 · update #1
You are right, if pro-lifers are going to preach that fertilized eggs are living humans, then they should treat and value them as such. Therefore, if possible, I'd save the 1,000 fertilized eggs.
However, I'm sure I'd receive a lot of heat from the media, and pro-choicers. The decision to save the 1,000 fertilized eggs over a child would definitely anger them.
2006-06-12 14:40:58 · answer #1 · answered by man_id_unknown 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Im Saving The 5 Year Old Conscious Kid Who's Organic. We Shouldn't Play The Role Of God By Tampering With Human Genetics. If THAT Building Was On Fire, It Was For A Reason!!!
2006-06-12 04:38:12 · answer #2 · answered by Can't Make A Good Avatar!!! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see what this has to do with abortion. Abortion is a choice made by a person to terminate the life of an unborn child. I do believe that once the eggs are fertilized that they are life, but until they are placed where they will grow they don't have a future, therefore I would choose to save the 5 year old child who does have a future and a past.
2006-06-12 04:50:37 · answer #3 · answered by sunshine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
JAngel said it best. The egg only becomes a person by being inside the mothers womb. You save the 5 yr old. Only God knows if the eggs will become people or not.
Your are just trying to come up with an argument to trip up Christians who think all life is precious.
Like JAngel said, if klling you would save 5 other people who could use your organs be right? Of course not!
2006-06-12 04:53:12 · answer #4 · answered by alabamakevin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, the five year old is more important. There is greater value on the life of a person already living than on the possibility of life. The five year old has made an impact on the very future of the world, the fertilized embryos have not. I'm against abortion, but it is better to save a living, breathing, effective human being than the possibility of thousands of living, breathing, effective human beings because there is still only the possibility, not the actuality.
2006-06-12 04:38:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A fertilized egg is not a baby so your question makes no sense.
Anti-abortionists are no different than the KKK or any other nutcase group. Their shrill hysteria is hardly basis for making intelligent decisions. If a fetus is a "baby," then so is a tomato since the tomato, when eaten by either potential parent, eventually becomes part of the reproduction process.
We need to give food, water and all other minerals the same status as humans since they might become a human some day.
Anti-abortionists should be in loony bins where they belong.
2006-06-12 04:35:38 · answer #6 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would save the 5 year old. I couldn't care less about thousands of fertalized eggs.
2006-06-12 04:38:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A fertilized egg is just that, a fertilized egg. But in just a couple of weeks inside the mothers womb that egg because a living child with a heartbeat... And that my friend is a living human. I mean its easier to have more compassion for a living being that someone has gotten to know, but a baby living and growing in a mother's womb is just as precious. What if you were a perfect match to save several people's lives with your organs and someone decided to kill you to save 5-6 people with your organs, would it be right?
2006-06-12 04:39:30 · answer #8 · answered by JAngel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all the question of abortion doesnt even come into question here. You are under the assumption that all of the eggs will come out full term, but besides that there is no question that I would save the little 5 yr old child that is already with us. I would go with the sure thing...
2006-06-12 04:34:39 · answer #9 · answered by bigjimmyguy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would go ointo the room and save the 5 year old chil. the eggs are not a life yet so why save something that isnt yet. the eggs can be regotten from the women if they want children that bad but why let an innocent child die for some eggs
2006-06-12 04:33:38 · answer #10 · answered by hotchik20002 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You save the life that currently exists as a breathing, living sentient human. One must save the life that is, not the life that might be.
Not sure what abortion has to do with this question. That part doesn't make any sense.
---------------------------------
No, a fertilized egg is human, and should not be deliberately destroyed, but it is not equal in value to a living human being, yet. But that doesn't make it OK to destroy.
BTW, I would save the child if the alternative rescue was 10 old nursing home people, too. And they'd probably agree with that decision.
So your trying to tie this with abortion is disingenuous and not equivalent.
2006-06-12 04:33:23 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋