Okay, I had a teacher at my church ask us this question, this is a very difficult question.

 

 

 

Okay, here's the scenario:

 

 

 

This couple had a child need Jeff. Jeff had some sort of condition(I can't remember) with his heart. The doctors did everything they could to help Jeff, but he is not doing better. Then one day, a doctor comes up with something. He figures out that the mother could basically give birth to a new child that could donate blood to Jeff, so he can live. To do this, they will do surgery on the Mother, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO DESTROY THREE EMBREYOS(this means that it will prevent three babies from being born) to get the new baby. The egg will be stored in a egg storing room and then the new baby will be born and donate blood to Jeff, saving Jeff's life. The blood can only come from a child who comes from Jeff's mother.

 

 

 

HOWEVER!

 

 

 

There are also things that are bad about saving Jeff's life:

 

Three embreyos will be destroyed, preventing three lives from happening.

 

When the new baby grows up, he may feel used.

 

 

 

So, here is the question:

 

 

 

Would you create the baby and save Jeff's life?

 

 

 

My answer:

 

 

 

I wouldn't do it. It will prevent three lives from happening. Plus, the parents don't really love the baby, they will just use him.

 

 

 

As for Jeff, I'm sorry but, he will probably die, it might be better then living a life with that condition.

Life > Death. Also, that isn't preventing three lives from being created at all. Under similar logic, women's menstrual cycles are evil.

 

 

 

Although this whole thing is ridiculous. There are blood banks for a reason. Are you sure you aren't confusing a stem cell idea with another?

The doctor is stupid. He should know that there's a potential probability of that baby having a one in four chance of matching his brothers blood type. C'mon, it's a simple Punnet Square! Unless of course, they are destroying the embryos because they don't match the blood type.

 

 

 

Either way, I wouldn't do it.

L

 

Although this whole thing is ridiculous. There are blood banks for a reason. Are you sure you aren't confusing a stem cell idea with another?

 

 

 

Forgot to add that part.

Why not? If a life can be saved without actually killing somebody but rather making somebody I don't see why you wouldn't do it.

 

 

 

And how exactly are 3 lives being prevented? The intended child is still going to be born...

Life > Death. Also, that isn't preventing three lives from being created at all. Under similar logic, women's menstrual cycles are evil.

 

 

 

Although this whole thing is ridiculous. There are blood banks for a reason. Are you sure you aren't confusing a stem cell idea with another?

 

 

 

 

 

Someone that understands =D.

Why not? If a life can be saved without actually killing somebody but rather making somebody I don't see why you wouldn't do it.

 

 

 

And how exactly are 3 lives being prevented? The intended child is still going to be born...

 

 

 

Three embreyos are destroyed, which prevents three lives from happening.

A much simpler example illustrating a similar point:

 

 

 

A town is flooded and a mother and her two children are trying to reach safety. The two children are 5 and 15. Neither can swim. The mother can only save one child. Who does she save?

 

 

 

The 15 year old because more effort has been put into their life. More time has been invested raising them.

Life > Death. Also, that isn't preventing three lives from being created at all. Under similar logic, women's menstrual cycles are evil.

 

 

 

Although this whole thing is ridiculous. There are blood banks for a reason. Are you sure you aren't confusing a stem cell idea with another?

 

 

 

 

 

Someone that understand =D.

 

There's a difference. An embryo is referring to an egg which has been fertilized. Menstrual cycles only dispose of an egg that has yet to become fertile.

Life > Death. Also, that isn't preventing three lives from being created at all. Under similar logic, women's menstrual cycles are evil.

 

 

 

Although this whole thing is ridiculous. There are blood banks for a reason. Are you sure you aren't confusing a stem cell idea with another?

 

 

 

Wait, embryos are zygotes right?

 

 

 

If they are just regular old unfertilized eggs, destroy them.

 

 

 

But if embryo=zygote, then it presents a problem to some pro-life people.

 

 

 

Anyway, I say destroy them either way. Haven't developed a nervous system yet. Just cellular blobs.

 

 

 

Also--I don't think this situation is rooted in real-life possibility. Pretty sure it's a scenario dreamed up by somebody to pose a 'challenging' question.

A much simpler example illustrating a similar point:

 

 

 

A town is flooded and a mother and her two children are trying to reach safety. The two children are 5 and 15. Neither can swim. The mother can only save one child. Who does she save?

 

 

 

The 15 year old because more effort has been put into their life. More time has been invested raising them.

 

 

 

What mom knows how to swim but her 15 year old son doesn't? A 15 year old would be able to make some effort to save his own life don't you think?

Oh, my bad. I just knew they had something to do with eggs and that they were icky. I guess it still has the concept of "could be" lives being destroyed.

 

 

 

I still don't understand why these doctors have to get rid of the three other embryos.

A much simpler example illustrating a similar point:

 

 

 

A town is flooded and a mother and her two children are trying to reach safety. The two children are 5 and 15. Neither can swim. The mother can only save one child. Who does she save?

 

 

 

The 15 year old because more effort has been put into their life. More time has been invested raising them.

 

 

 

Or, save the 5 year old because the 15 year old should damn well be able to save himself the limey bastard.

Well, assuming that that scenario did happen, I'd let Jeff die, though not because I feel that destroying embryos is wrong(1*), but because by the time the new child is born, Jeff would have died anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

1*:By your logic, embryos are not yet born, and thus are not alive. Preventing birth isn't killing, but merely preventing birth. If you consider preventing birth to be killing, then if you kill a woman, you are killing a potentially infinite amount of people.

A much simpler example illustrating a similar point:

 

 

 

A town is flooded and a mother and her two children are trying to reach safety. The two children are 5 and 15. Neither can swim. The mother can only save one child. Who does she save?

 

 

 

The 15 year old because more effort has been put into their life. More time has been invested raising them.

 

 

 

What mom knows how to swim but her 15 year old son doesn't? A 15 year old would be able to make some effort to save his own life don't you think?

 

Think inside the box!

Oh, my bad. I just knew they had something to do with eggs and that they were icky. I guess it still has the concept of "could be" lives being destroyed.

 

 

 

I still don't understand why these doctors have to get rid of the three other embryos.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think the question previously referred to the parents blood type and was copied improperly. In the Punnet Square below, there's a 1:2:1 ratio of a child with that specific blood type. I couldn't find a picture of actual blood types or a 1:1:1:1 ratio, so bare with me.

 

1*:By your logic, embryos are not yet born, and thus are not alive. Preventing birth isn't killing, but merely preventing birth. If you consider preventing birth to be killing, then if you kill a woman, you are killing a potentially infinite amount of people.

 

Actually, it's more like a potential...

 

 

 

300 people.

Oh, my bad. I just knew they had something to do with eggs and that they were icky. I guess it still has the concept of "could be" lives being destroyed.

 

 

 

I still don't understand why these doctors have to get rid of the three other embryos.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think the question previously referred to the parents blood type and was copied improperly. In the Punnet Square below, there's a 1:2:1 ratio of a child with that specific blood type. I couldn't find a picture of actual blood types or a 1:1:1:1 ratio, so bare with me.

 

 

 

 

Blood-types (allele notation 'I') aren't that simple. I believe there are multiple alleles.

 

 

 

So you'd need to take into account the dominant alleles: I^A, I^ B, and recessive allele I^o.

 

 

 

Then again, I have no idea what you are trying to calculate, so never mind : p

1*:By your logic, embryos are not yet born, and thus are not alive. Preventing birth isn't killing, but merely preventing birth. If you consider preventing birth to be killing, then if you kill a woman, you are killing a potentially infinite amount of people.

 

Actually, it's more like a potential...

 

 

 

300 people.

 

 

 

Well, since were already dealing with extreme circumstances here, why not provide extreme responses?

 

One woman might bring birth to 2 children, those 2 children could also eventually produce 4 more children (2 each), and so this chain of 'possible outcomes' continues, and out of this, it is possible that it could be infinite, just unlikely.

Is it just me or does anyone else hate hypothetical situations? They make everything seem so black and white and tend to ignore most logic.

No. And that scenario reminds me of the Jodi Picult(sp) book where a girl has cancer, and her sister was born merely for her blood to be used.

Oh, my bad. I just knew they had something to do with eggs and that they were icky. I guess it still has the concept of "could be" lives being destroyed.

 

 

 

I still don't understand why these doctors have to get rid of the three other embryos.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think the question previously referred to the parents blood type and was copied improperly. In the Punnet Square below, there's a 1:2:1 ratio of a child with that specific blood type. I couldn't find a picture of actual blood types or a 1:1:1:1 ratio, so bare with me.

 

 

 

 

Blood-types (allele notation 'I') aren't that simple. I believe there are multiple alleles.

 

 

 

So you'd need to take into account the dominant alleles: I^A, I^ B, and recessive allele I^o.

 

 

 

Then again, I have no idea what you are trying to calculate, so never mind : p

 

You're correct, I was trying to find the 1:4 chance that the situation describes, but I found little luck searching for "blood Punnet Squares" on Google. So I just took the easy way out, and represented them in the simplest manner.

Actually, it's more like a potential...

 

 

 

300 people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not just from that one woman though, but from the family bloodline after her.

 

 

 

 

 

.......you really think a woman could have 300?

This is interesting, some of us are approaching the question with science, others with logic, yet most of us aren't actually approaching the question as it was designed; to force us to make decisions based on morality alone.

This is interesting, some of us are approaching the question with science, others with logic, yet most of us aren't actually approaching the question as it was designed; to force us to make decisions based on morality alone.

 

 

 

Well that's the trick, isn't it?

 

Both outcomes land you a moral slap in the face.

 

 

 

You need some outside supplement to help justify one over the other, right?