I heard a question posed yesterday and it really made me curious how pro-life people will answer.
You are in a building that is used for the storage of frozen embryos. A fire breaks out and you can either save a baby or the freezer unit that holds 1000 viable embryos --- which do you save?
Unless, of course, the freezer wasn't fire-safe. In which case, the embryos would probably have melted already anyway. So I guess it doesn't matter- still better to save the baby (poor baby!)
The baby. It's already alive. The embryos have the potential for life under the right circumstances, but there have been many embryos in the right circumstances (ie-in their mother's womb) which have not survived.
And yes, I am pro-life. And yes, I am pro-choice...the two are not mutually exclusive.
Basically the question is asking "Do pro-lifers value unborn children as much as those already born?"...for me, yes.
For me, this is no different than asking which of my children I would save if I could only save one. I would save the first one I could and they try to save the other. One has no more value than the other.
Agree. But sometimes the question needs to be: Do we as pro-lifers value children AFTER they've been born? Value them enough to provide the social services needed to ensure they're healthy, educated, happy, etc. Hmmm.
Count me in with the group that suggests that the embryos would be in fire-proof freezers connected to a back-up generator.
If it were in my power to save a life I would. I would grab that baby but I seriously doubt I could heft some type of freezer and get it out of a burning building. I'm just not that strong and if I took the frozen embryos out of the freezer wouldn't that kill them too?
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts.
Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.