Pro-life people: What is the morally right thing to do?

Question

Suppose you are running out of a burning building, inside of which are still (a) your six-year-old sister and (b) a small jar containing ten human embryos. You can save either your sister or the jar of embryos, but not both. Whom would you save, and why? (Justify your answer.)

**I am pro-life and somebody asked me this question in a debate. Although I think that I would save my sister, I'm wondering if anybody has any insights on what is the morally right thing to do in this situation.

Answer 1

In this scenario, you can only choose one (the ones not chosen die). In the true abortion scenario, however, we can choose to let all live. However, if the only point of this scenario is to show that my sister's life is MORE valuable than the ten embryos, ok. I chose my sister. But the reason I chose her is because I know her and that would be where my heart is. I would have also chosen her over a stranger (but that doesn't mean murdering strangers ought to be acceptable). And even if we can say the life of the older person is more valuable than the unborn (which I'm not sure we can), that doesn't justify murdering any life that doesn't have to be murdered, does it?

So to conclude...in the example I just provided, both the stranger and the embryo were deemed "less valuable" in my eyes than my sister....but this doesn't mean they don't deserve the same right to life that me and my sister both enjoy. The right to life belongs to everyone, even the unborn.

Answer 2

I would save my sister. The embryos are human, and have a right to live, but they won't live anyway unless they are implanted, too many "ifs" involved to risk your sisters life.

However I don't think I'd really be debating about the morality, honestly at that time I would be thinking much more selfishly that I LOVE my little sister. Might not be the right attitude to have, but that's what I'd be thinking.

The question you were asked isn't that fair, because most people, even if they were forced to choose between two 6 year old children, and one was in their family and the other a stranger, they would choose the one in their family. Not necessarily right, but the natural thing to do.

Answer 3

Pro-Life
I believe you completely miss the point of the controversy. No worries your not alone...
The issue has to do with the principle of life...

- Does human life have a natural value or relative value?

If it has natural value then all human rights and laws apply naturally.

If it has relative value then it is disposable.

Examine this case: A pregnant woman is injured severely. When the paramedics arrive what is their first concern, the unborn baby or the mother? The mother for obvious reasons, without the mother the child faces almost certain death. If the mother cannot be saved then they try to save the unborn baby. When faced with similar situations we choose what we understand to be the best possible set of actions for all parties involved.

In many cases the mother is saved and the child is born just fine, other cases where the child is lost, and of course cases where the mother dies and the child lives.

My point is that these issues have little to do with violating the principle of life, because the parties involved are trying to save lives, not take them.

The same scenario that you illustrated. The decisions that a person makes are dependent on the number of factors and variables. Each resulting in different outcomes.

This does not have anything to do with the willful extermination of life, as in abortion clinics, which is a violation of the principle of life.

I suppose in your scenario, I would have to save my sister, it is not that the ten human embyos have diminished in value. But it is that I have a six year relationship with my little sister. I have more love for my sister because I know her.

It is that same scenario to choose between your sisters or a stranger. Although all life is precious, my sisters life in more valuable to me than a strangers. By choosing one, you are not killing the other, they were both going to die, you choose to save one. Even if you choose the life of the stranger you are still faced with the same dilemma. Ideally you want to save both. No one can make you feel guilty for saving your loved one or if you saved the other. Without your intervention both would have died.

Do you see my point?... Journey Well...

Answer 4

As a firefighter, I would say that you save the persons that poses the least risk to all concerned. If the young sister is upstairs behind a wall of fire, which is not accessible, then that would force me to save the embryos. If the sister is closest and safest to reach, then absolutely I would go for the sister and leave behind the embryos.

In life and death situations the assessment for survival is dependent upon the rescuer, the victim, and the threatening elements. Each fire presents its unique considerations that are not easily defined by textbook answer.

Given the elements, the smoke, the visibility, the heat, the integrity of the structure that is burning, and the amount of time that has elapsed in the scenario, ALL play into the reality of who survives. Value judgments do not necessarily play into the decision process. Life is in jeopardy, and who can be saved is the quandary. Save as many as possible while keeping yourself viable for future rescues is the key.

All Life is sacred, that is why I risk my life for strangers that I neither know, judge or qualify value. God leads me to where I need to be, to save whom He needs rescued through my knowledge and expertise. Courage is facing that fear of death, and risking your life for another because profoundly I know that each Life is a Gift from God.

Answer 5

Okay, first, I am pro-choice. But I am anti-abortion. I believe that I have choices too, and that abortion does not have to be one of them. See, they don't get the corner on the "choice" market! I make choices every day! Let's call a spade a spade.

So off my soapbox and back to your question. This quandry is made to point that life in any form is cheap. You'd save one person or ten hypothetical people? And essentially, the purpose of abortion is to remove the consequences from the action and to make irresponsible women and girls think that they can just have sex without the repercussions. And I think THAT is a terrible tragedy. The truth is that life IS precious and that unborn babies DO matter and that they ARE supposed to become people.

Now in THAT situation, I'd grab my sister. The jar would probably burn my hand.

Answer 6

First of all, I think I could could carry a jar AND a 6-year old. But assuming I had to make a choice, I would probably choose my sister. Embryos are POTENTIAL life, and should be protected, but an actual human being gets a little higher place on the ladder.

Answer 7

I'm afraid if I left my sister in there, her ghost would haunt me the rest of my life. How scary can a jar of embryos be?

Answer 8

Pro Choice (:

Answer 9

The sister because I know very little about the handling of such embryos and based on my ignorance I would assume they would probably die upon trying to save them anyways.

Answer 10

You save your six year old sister! Do you really have to ask this?. Morally right, of course your sister and if anybody says differently their a moron.