RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello All,
I recently saw a post on twitter that stated they have an argument that pro-lifers are unable to be consistent on in their beliefs. The argument that is proposed is a hypothetical situation that would be very rare or almost impossible but it deserves a response. Here is the question:
I recently saw a post on twitter that stated they have an argument that pro-lifers are unable to be consistent on in their beliefs. The argument that is proposed is a hypothetical situation that would be very rare or almost impossible but it deserves a response. Here is the question:
"You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. Your options are:
A.) Save the child
B.) Save the 1000 embryos
C.) everybody dies
Which one do you choose and why?"
While this argument creates a situation that is very unlikely it doesn't invalidate the importance of human life of an unborn child. However, I am interested in seeing on how others would respond to this question.A.) Save the child
B.) Save the 1000 embryos
C.) everybody dies
Which one do you choose and why?"