Is One Child of More Value than Many Embryos?

10/27/2017

There's an old pro-abortion argument that has received a lot of attention on twitter lately. It goes something like this:

Imagine that you are in a burning building along with a five year old child and an incubator of human embryos. You know that you can save either the single child or the entire incubator full of embryos, but you cannot save both. Which one will you choose to save? If you chose to save the child, then you have proven that a child is more valuable than a human embryo which means that unborn humans do not have as much moral value as born humans.

There have been several excellent responses to this argument, but I'd like to point out the two responses that I think are the best of the lot.

First, the question presents what is known as a false dichotomy which is just a fancy way of saying that there are more possible answers than the two that were provided. For the Christian, the answer to the question of whether to save the child or the embryos should always be "both."

I would do my best to save both the single child and the container of embryos, and I would leave the outcome in the hands of the Lord. If He chooses to reward my efforts by allowing me to save both, then He is worthy of being praised. If He prevents me from saving one or the other in order to turn hearts back toward Him, then He is still just as worthy to be praised. And if He sees fit to bring me home to Him during my attempts, then I'll praise Him more than I ever possibly could on this earth. No matter what the outcome, my job is simply to do my best and leave the results up to Him.

Of course, the pro-abortionist is never going to accept this third option, but that's not because he has a logically valid reason for rejecting it. The only reason that the pro-abortionist does not accept this option is that he doesn't believe that God would intervene in such a situation. He wants us to answer his question as if God either did not exist or did not care about the outcome, but that is impossible. If God did not exist or did not care about the outcome, then that would mean that there is no such thing as moral values in the first place. All ethical assessments would be mere illusions, and it would be just as proper to throw the child and the embryos into the fire as to pull them out of it.

In order to draw a moral conclusion from this question, we must include the existence of a living and caring God, and the inclusion of such a God immediately opens up the third option of attempting to save both while leaving the results up to Him.

Second, In addition to the false dichotomy, the pro-abortionist is also guilty of committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. His argument is:

1) If the child is more valuable, then you will save the child.
2) You saved the child.
3) Therefore, the child is more valuable.

You can see the fallacy by substituting different terms into the syllogism.

1) If I am robbed, then I will have no money.
2) I have no money.
3) Therefore I have been robbed.

1) If it is night, then I cannot see the sun.
2) I cannot see the sun.
3) Therefore it is night.

1) If a man is decapitated, he will die.
2) The man has died.
3) Therefore, he has been decapitated.

As you can see from these other examples, the problem with the fallacy of affirming the consequent is that there may be other explanations for the second premise. I may have spent all my money. It may be cloudy outside. The man may have had a heart attack. There may be other reasons for choosing the child which have nothing to do with the intrinsic moral value of prenatal life.

Demonstrating that the "then" part of an "if ... then" statement is true never proves that the "if" part is true.

These two responses seem to me to be the best responses available to this popular pro-abortion argument. I trust that you will find them useful as this argument continues to circulate throughout the internet.

10 Comments

Chaz Nadon

10/27/2017 12:14:07 pm

There is no false dichotomy. You just want to avoid the question. The fact is embryos are not equal to born kids.

Bill Fortenberry

10/27/2017 12:24:57 pm

Hi, Chaz. Thanks for commenting. Would you mind explaining how you know that embryos are not equal to born kids?

Joseph

10/28/2017 07:09:26 am

My answer is that failure to save one or the other is not the same as killing one or the other. If a situation were to occur in which this choice were actually to be made, you choose whichever you choose.

The point of the pro-life message isn’t that all must be saved. It’s that God has not given us leave to kill any. Without that leave, we do not have the right to abort. This lack of a right to abort does not convey any responsibility to save, it only forbids aborting.
So their question is irrelevant as well as fallacious.

Marisa

10/31/2017 04:06:33 pm

Your point is completely valid but this thought experiment is still valid because Patrick Tomlinson who came up with it wasn't intending it to be a pro-choice argument but rather an argument against pro-life people who argue specifically that the life of a single embryo is equal to that of a child. His entire question was would you save the 5 year old child or 1000 embryos from the fire if you could only save one or the other? You are right that it isn't the same thing because it was never intended to be an argument in favor of legal abortion just to point out that most people don't actually value the life of an embryo the same as the life of a child so it's hypocritical when people argue that they are of equal value.

There is a good reason they are not of equal value, miscarriages are much more common than 5 year olds dying. A long time ago before modern medicine people didn't even always have a name picked out for their child when it was born and sometimes didn't name them until they were no longer infants since miscarriage and infant deaths were so common. With modern medicine and more stable food supplies miscarriages and infant deaths are less common but miscarriages still happen fairly often.

I am pro-choice but I think it's completely reasonable to believe that it is not our right to choose if an embryo should die. My feelings on the matter are that if we eliminated the need for women to risk their lives to give birth by creating synthetic wombs then aborting a fetus from a synthetic womb should be illegal but since women have to risk their lives to give birth then they should have the right to decide what happens to their bodies. It's much more complicated than I should not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Every person should get to choose what happens to their own body. If suddenly the roles were reversed and men had wombs instead of women, not every man but many more would suddenly become pro-choice. Some people truly would not change their opinion but there are many hypocrites and/ or sexist people out there who because they don't have to deal with pregnancy are against legal abortion.

11/1/2017 04:36:45 am

Marisa, are you seriously claiming that embryos are less valuable than infants because embryos die more often than infants?

11/1/2017 03:53:47 pm

I'm saying subconsciously most people don't value embryos as much as a toddler because they know that it isn't even certain that they will be born because of how common miscarriages are. I'm saying it's a subconscious view point that becomes noticeable in thought experiments like this one.

A fetus develops a heart beat so it is then alive but in some sense of the term alive it isn't, since it has not been born and it is not apart of the world until it is born. The fetus can literally not live without sustaining itself through the life of the mother until around the third trimester. That is why I personally feel an embryo is not worth the life of a toddler, because they have not been born. Until it is born the fetus is in a state of being both alive and not alive simultaneously.

The existence of souls is an unknown and when they enter the body is also an unknown. Christian's mostly believe the soul enters the body at conception although I have met some who believe it happens when the embryo attachs to the uterine wall, but Muslim's traditionally believe it enters the body around the third trimester although I hear that some of them these days believe it enters the body at conception. There is no way to know if the soul exists or when it enters the body if it does exist. It is impossible to have evidence of its existence, everyone either chooses to believe or disbelieve. I am an agnostic who personally believes that the soul probably exists.

11/2/2017 04:51:37 am

To claim that the child is both alive and not alive simultaneously is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. This law is one of the (if not just "the") foundational concepts of logic. Nothing can be both true and not true at the same time. To claim that the child is both alive and not alive would be like claiming that one plus one equals both two and not two at the same time. You are certainly free to believe such a thing, but that belief is self-contradictory and foolish.

One very simple method of proving that the prenatal child is alive was proposed by Dr. Theodric Beck nearly 200 years ago, and his reasoning is still valid today. Dr. Beck wrote:

"The foetus, previous to the time of quickening, must be either dead or alive. … Foetuses do actually die in the uterus before quickening, and then all the signs of death are present. The embryo, therefore, before that crisis, must be in a state different from that of death, and this can be no other than life. … [T]he fact is certain, that the foetus enjoys life long before the sensation of quickening is felt by the mother. Indeed, no other doctrine appears to be consonant with reason or physiology, but that which admits the embryo to possess vitality from the very moment of conception."

Dr. Beck's reasoning is very simple:

1) Only something which is alive can die.
2) The prenatal child can die.
3) Therefore, the prenatal child is alive.

Would you agree that Dr. Beck's proof demonstrates that the prenatal child is alive and disproves the claim that the child is not alive?

11/7/2017 04:48:10 am

The law of non-contradiction is a highly variable law that many philosophers had different opinions on but under Plato's definition it only works when considering something in a fixed state. Your next question then becomes whether or not a fixed state is actually possible or purely hypothetical, if you believe the world is in a state of constant flux like Heraclitus then a fixed state is impossible. Also non-contradiction only works with logic problems when you have a clear definition. Alive is not a word that is clearly defined since there are different definitions.

Dr. Beck has a flaw in his logic in that he has decided that there are only two states of being when there is no way to know that. He makes the assertion that if it isn't dead then a fetus must be alive but that only must be true if there are only two states.

You define Dr. Beck's definition as only something alive can die since a fetus can die it must be alive. That is one definition but another possible definition of alive is a creature that has been born and can die. Are we really alive if we are not a part of the world, it all depends on your point of view. Most people only say that an animal is alive after it has been born. When you are asked how many years you have been alive the person asking doesn't mean from the day you were conceived they mean from the day you were born. Most people feel you aren't really "alive" until you are born, so a fetus is both sort of alive but also not alive yet, a fetus in the process of becoming alive. As Plato pointed out the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold for things of the world in a state of change.

Someone whose heart is beating but is brain dead and in a coma, are they alive or are they dead? They are both until you describe the specifics of what you mean by alive and dead. If you believe in the soul then your definition of dead might be when the soul leaves the body but it is impossible to know if the soul has left the body of the person in the coma so it is unknowable whether or not they are alive or dead under that definition.

If your definition of alive is when the soul enters and is in the body then that is unknowable when a fetus becomes alive, many believe the soul enters at conception but there is no way to know that. I mean there is no way to even know if the soul exists but many of us choose to believe in it.

I am sorry that I am rambling. Basically under your definition and belief that there are only two states alive or dead then yes under that hypothetical a fetus is alive. But I am of the belief that there are more than two states of being, that there is a state that is in between being both alive and dead that is kind of both at the same time and neither. I'm trying to think of a good example and I don't know if this one is perfect but a fetus is like a file in the process of being downloaded, you can't access the files as it is being downloaded only after it has been downloaded to your computer can it be accessed or in the case of a fetus only after it is born is the baby fully alive and a member of the world.

11/9/2017 05:34:15 am

It is interesting that you bring up both Plato and Heraclitus in conjunction with the law of non-contradiction. If I recall correctly, Plato disproved the Heracleitean epistemology in his Theaetetus, and in fact, Plato's argument against Protagoras and Heraclitus relies very heavily on the law of non-contradiction. Do you actually hold to the same view as Heraclitus? If so, I would be interested in learning how you would answer Plato's arguments in Theaetetus.

Stephanie

8/6/2019 01:41:18 pm

I completely agree with your post, though the first thing that came into my mind was Schrodinger's Embryo :P

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Is One Child of More Value than Many Embryos?

Leave a Reply.

Search

Topics

Archives