The Point: Who Would You Save?

How do you answer this one? For the Colson Center, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

You’re in a burning fertility clinic and see a five-year-old child crying for help, and a frozen container labeled “1000 Viable Human Embryos.” You can only save one. What do you choose?

Author Patrick Tomlinson says the obvious right answer “destroys the pro-life argument.” His words, not mine.

He asserts that if we choose to save the five-year-old instead of the 1000 embryos, we don’t really believe humans are equally valuable from conception.

Got you worried? Well, it shouldn’t. As Daniel Payne points out at The Federalist, the argument is a self-evident non-sequitur fallacy.

There are lots of valid, pro-life reasons to save the five-year-old, including her ability to suffer, the relationship  she has with family, and the high likelihood of survival compared with the embryos.

But most importantly, this scenario isn’t analogous at all to the way unborn human beings are actually killed these days. They don’t die in tragic accidents; they’re intentionally killed by doctors and pharmacists, in the name of reproductive freedom. All Tomlinson’s scenario proves is the fogginess of pro-choice thinking.

 


Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.