1000 Fetuses or 1 Baby
A reader of The Dallas Morning News Religion blog poses an ethical challenge. Say two buildings are on fire, one containing a thousand fetuses, the other a single six-month old baby. Which do you save?
After the first thirteen reader comments, I notice that no one has answered that he would save the fetuses before the baby. I'm not surprised. Because everyone understands, even if he won't admit it, that fetuses aren't equivalent to six month old babies.
Yes, a fetus is alive. Yes, a fetus is human. No, a fetus is not entitled to all the same legal rights as a six month old baby. That's not to say society couldn't decide to grant such rights. It's just that society hasn't and it won't. There's no moral imperative that it should.
The reason that all these special cases (abortion, the mentally retarded, coma victims, the brain dead, etc.) are ethical challenges is because people recognize that these are special cases. Some people take the simplistic position and say that all such cases are the same and society should do everything within its power to keep the life-force alive in all cases. But then those same people don't actually do as they say. The example of millions of natural abortions in the first hours or days of pregnancy, before the mother is even aware she's pregnant, is a good example where virtually no one is trying to do anything to save this huge loss of life.
The majority of society takes a more nuanced position, a stance that recognizes the unique features of each situation, a stance that balances the rights of the individual against the rights of the mother, the rights of the family, the interests of society. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the profound mystery of life, no matter how desperate some are to insist there is.
14 comments:
The "baby-fetus" situation is extreme and verges on the absurd.
When would that actually happen?
How would one get the fetus "test tubes" out quickly and safely without help?
It is too broad and is missing details.
It is a moral-philosophical-religious question with legal implications.
Yes, a fetus is entitled to comparable legal rights as a six month old baby. The reason, the "fetus" is alive/human. This seems to be one of the centralized issues of the current abortion debate among the states.
It's a thought experiment. Since you claim a fetus is entitled to comparable legal rights as six-month old baby, you should argue that the 1000 test tubes should be rescued before the six-month old baby. Pardon me if I don't believe any human being would actually do that.
First, I can't "argue" without having the details. Not enough info. Again, it's way too hypothetical. And, yes, I will pardon you for thinking that nobody would actually take the fetus over the baby.
But that is beside the point. Without being so far-fetched by an extreme scenerio, both should have legal rights. This should be obvious. Some things don't need argument. As the baby deserves humane treatment and legal respect, so the "internal" baby does too.
In fact, fetuses and babies both do have legal rights, just not equal legal rights. And that's because no one ever answers this question in favor of the test tubes. People instinctively understand this difference, even if they take political positions otherwise.
The question posed is faulty. But one reason why people don't pick the fetus is b/c the baby is tangible as opposed to the fetus being inside the mother or in a test tube. However, if a fetus is born prematurely then I suspect having the the fetus in veiw would put the fetus on a level playing field with a 6-month old. In fact, the drs. would strive to do all they could in the emergency birth. Doesn't that say innately say something to us? Why then does being on the inside or outside change things? We are misinformed by our lack of sight of a fetus. Funny how no pregnant couple talks about their fetus. We know instinctly and practically what "it" is.
Neither the baby nor the test tube zygotes are inside a mother's womb. There's a sleeping baby in one building and a rack of 1000 test tubes in the other. Both are tangible, although a microscope might be needed to see what's in the test tubes.
You still haven't given a reasonable explanation why no one (including you) admits that they would instinctively save the 1000 lives instead of the 1. But I think you are close. It's because you can see and hear and touch the baby. It has ten fingers and ten toes. It reacts to stimuli and feels pain. Observers can sense all this. None of this applies to the test tube zygotes. Just as no reasonable human saves the test tubes, neither does our legal system grant the same legal rights to the test tubes as to the baby. If it did, there are countless situations where we'd have to save the test tubes instead of the baby. And no one wants to do that.
Why not ask about 1000 six-month olds and one six-year old? Which one do you save? See how your question is so extreme and even unfair? What if one of the fetus is from my wife and me? Doesn't that change the situation? See, the question is too extreme and problematic, as I said. It's not a cut-and-dry question and thus there is no hard-and-fast answer as you're looking for. It depends.
Like I said before, the quick answer about many people saving the six-month old is b/c it's tangible. People don't see and touch fetus. Depending on the stage of development, there are body parts and organs present. A heart/heart beat is present very early on (even when the baby is the size of a bean). If these realities could become visual during the fire, then it makes the question a lot harder than a superficial and automatic "save the six-month baby." And, no, I disagree with you about the fetus not feeling anything. Sorry, your wrong. Drs. testify about fetus responses during abortions. The human life has instinct to survive. Not to mention, there are people with such grave mental-emotional-physical problems that they may not realize an assisted suicide. Does that make it right b/c there is no reaction? Is a gunmen in a hospital doing people a favor by claiming "mercy killing" and, o by the way, they didn't know!?
I'd save the 1000 six-month olds. You wouldn't?
And by the way, zygotes have no sensation of pain, nor anything else.
You answered witout the details. You would want to make an informed decision. Is the six-year-old your child? Is the six-year-old frantically crying out for help using your name? Surely, both details could change the matter. Furthermore, is the six-year-old unconscious b/c of the smoke and therefore death probable? Do you have the help to save the 1000 babies? It's an aweful situation that is extreme and may God forbid it from happening to either of us. The question fails to make a point.
Moving on, first it was about fetus babies but now zygotes. You can't bait-and-switch. But even still, it doesn't matter. Same principle. And again, the lack of pain doesn't absolve morality. Morality is not only about pain in the process (or whatever you want to call "it" scientifically).
You aren't thinking this through. Imagine any conditions you want. I'll still save the six-month-old baby over the 1000 test tubes.
P.S. The reason I've talked about test tubes and zygotes instead of fetuses is because I didn't picture how 1000 "fetuses" could be alive in a building except at the very earliest states of development, the zygote or blastocyst stage.
When it comes to the rights of the unborn, I would appeal to the valued American ideals and standards from the "laws of the land:"
"Certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS...LIFE,LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness" (Declaration).
"SECURE the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our POSTERITY" (Preamble, US Const.).
"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice FOR ALL" (Pledge).
The unborn, "zygote" and "fetus," are protected, in principle, under these banners just as much as a six-month-old.
As for "miscarriages," it is not possible to protect all days-old "zygotes." For one, as you said, often they are unknown. This does not minimize our view of the sanctity of life no more than the fact that I don't see a dr. every day of my life just to make sure I'm healthy. Likewise, it is impossible to keep checking a female for conception and the health of "it." However, when a zygote (pregnacny) is realized, there are numerous precautions that are followed.
Even with all your insistence on equal rights for zygotes, you still refuse to say the obvious, that you'd save the 1000 test tubes before the six-month old baby. Your silence on this question says more than all your talk about equal rights.
Ultimately, I refuse to answer such a hypothetical question, especially b/c it's irrelevant. You're being rediculous with the scenerio. The pseudo-case fails to make a point. Your insistence says a lot.
Medical oaths, socio-political principles from US foundations, and philosophical-religious principles are all applicable. Without the objective contribution of all of these, we don't have good footing. Just b/c many are emotionally-driven and logically-inconsistent (largely b/c objective principle, well-reasoned positions, and "homework" are missing) about a "hyper" and vague situation doesn't say much.
Didn't you say there weren't many responses to this? The topic of the "unborn" is necessary but not these little side streets that go no where while purporting to be a highway.
In answering the question, you are free to apply whatever medical oaths, socio-political principles, well-reasoned positions, and "homework" you wish. Surely, with all the thought you've given to the rights of the unborn, it's a simple matter of saying whether you'd rescue the 1000 fetuses or the 1 six-month-old baby. But you won't answer. You say it's because the question is irrelevant. I suspect it's because you, like everyone else, would rescue the baby.
Post a Comment