glassjester
Well-known member
Why is it more practical to save the infant?
Save 100 lives or save 1? Given an equal chance of survival for both parties, I'd save the 100. Reason demands it.
Abortion///cont.
- Thread starter quip
- Start date
Why is it more practical to save the infant?
Save 100 lives or save 1? Given an equal chance of survival for both parties, I'd save the 100. Reason demands it.
So, for the record: You'd save the 100 embryos in vials over an infant?
glassjester
Well-known member
Given an equal chance of survival for both parties, yes.
From the fire? (That was a given) Else, explain.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes.
Yes, what?
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes.
That was a given from the hypothetical so, why the mention survivability at all?
glassjester
Well-known member
Isn't it possible they'd immediately die outside of whatever conditions keep them viable in the lab? I mentioned equal chances of survival because if the 100 embryos are all immediately doomed, then reason would dictate that I rescue the infant.
glassjester
Well-known member
If so, I'd choose to save one life rather than zero lives.
Seems to me you're noting a discrepancy between the two.
Do you still contend them as being equal...an equal choice between human beings?
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes. They have an equal right to life.
To liken it to the swimmer scenario - if there's one swimmer I definitely can save, and one that might already be beyond saving, the rational choice is to definitely save a life.
This does not imply an unequal right to life.
Of course. That's not the case with my hypothetical.
glassjester
Well-known member
Why?