{{A Very Difficult Question}}

[M_u_s_ii_X]

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.

 

 

 

The mother saves the 5 year old and the father saves the 15 year old. :D

 

 

 

On topic:

 

 

 

I wouldn't do it. :(

[mervinator_9]

Just give Jeff a [bleep]ing chance, the boy just wants to live!

 

 

 

Anyway, pretty complex issue and boiling it down to right/wrong, yes/no kinda cheapens it imo.

 

 

 

If i were put in the situation with just the information you've given, then Id have the baby to save Jeffs live.

[Howlin0001]

Just give Jeff a [bleep] chance, the boy just wants to live!

 

 

 

Anyway, pretty complex issue and boiling it down to right/wrong, yes/no kinda cheapens it imo.

 

 

 

If i were put in the situation with just the information you've given, then Id have the baby to save Jeffs live.

 

 

 

And you don't want the three embryos to have a chance?

[deathdrow]

Just give Jeff a [bleep] chance, the boy just wants to live!

 

 

 

Anyway, pretty complex issue and boiling it down to right/wrong, yes/no kinda cheapens it imo.

 

 

 

If i were put in the situation with just the information you've given, then Id have the baby to save Jeffs live.

 

 

 

And you don't want the three embryos to have a chance?

 

i wouldn't consider an embryo as something that's alive yet.

[gman019]

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.

 

 

 

Okay, wow. As soon as I saw "a question our pastor from our church asked", I became very biased. BUT, I'm going to do my best to put that aside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're assuming they will use the baby for the rest of their lives. The parents would care for the baby just as well as they cared for Jeff as he grew up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three embryos destroyed: If the parents never decided to have a child again after Jeff in the first place, what's the big deal? If they did, can't they start a new? The baby isn't going to make any choices, and your view is going to let someone who has already developed and started growing die? WHAT THE [bleep]?

 

 

 

Jeff should die instead of living with the disease? Didn't you just say the baby's blood would cure the disease? EPIC FAIL.

[Quoi_Tu]

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.

 

I honestly don't get how you cannot work out how to swim.

 

 

 

But if the 15 year old was retarted I'd definately save the 5 year old.

 

15 is used to better illustrate the point, but could easily be be replaced by 7. I guess I should of said a 3 and 7 year old, but I figured people could understand a hypothetical situation. Ah well.

[Laura]

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.

 

 

 

Okay, wow. As soon as I saw "a question our pastor from our church asked", I became very biased. BUT, I'm going to do my best to put that aside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're assuming they will use the baby for the rest of their lives. The parents would care for the baby just as well as they cared for Jeff as he grew up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three embryos destroyed: If the parents never decided to have a child again after Jeff in the first place, what's the big deal? If they did, can't they start a new? The baby isn't going to make any choices, and your view is going to let someone who has already developed and started growing die? WHAT THE [bleep]?

 

 

 

Jeff should die instead of living with the disease? Didn't you just say the baby's blood would cure the disease? EPIC FAIL.

 

Essentially, it doesn't matter if it is bias or not. The choice at hand is one based on morals and environmental factors.

[megakiller32]

Wait a minute....we've missed something-

 

Why don't we ask Jeff what he wants to do!?

 

Off-topic- I swear, more and more of the emotes have santa hats on every time I make a post...it's like they're plotting some kind of Christmas-themed homicide....

[Nadril]

Is it just me or does this just seem like propaganda against stem cell research since you get stem cells from aborted fetuses. I mean, it's worded oddly but there has to be that kind of connection to make it seem worse (especially if it's coming from the church, it is probably their intentions)

[Lenin64]

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.

 

I honestly don't get how you cannot work out how to swim.

 

 

 

But if the 15 year old was retarted I'd definately save the 5 year old.

 

Quite so.

 

 

 

But I have another problem with this; ok, assuming for whatever reason 3 embryos must be destroyed (which don't have a chance no matter what, since they would never exist if they weren't needed to be destroyed, but whatever, I'll accept that.), and one new baby will be brought to life to give blood.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it need to be brought to term? That would take 9 months. In which time Jeff would probably die anyway. Unless this is a game and we can just spawn people.

[deathdrow]

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.

 

I honestly don't get how you cannot work out how to swim.

 

 

 

But if the 15 year old was retarted I'd definately save the 5 year old.

 

Quite so.

 

 

 

But I have another problem with this; ok, assuming for whatever reason 3 embryos must be destroyed (which don't have a chance no matter what, since they would never exist if they weren't needed to be destroyed, but whatever, I'll accept that.), and one new baby will be brought to life to give blood.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it need to be brought to term? That would take 9 months. In which time Jeff would probably die anyway. Unless this is a game and we can just spawn people.

 

And if you can just spawn people, you could spawn a bunch of vicious people eating babies, and make a giant army, and take over the world!!! :-#

[Lenin64]

people eating babies? As in, people that are eating babies, or babies that eat people? I think I'd just go with people eating bears. Interpret that one however you wish.

[warri0r45]

I don't think people get what a hypothetical scenario is. The question isn't "is this a feasable scenario", it's about what you would do, hypothetically, on moral principles. Most of them are just trying to get you to think about what your set of moral values is.

[mchainmail]

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.

 

My Sister's Keeper.

 

 

 

A girl I went to High School with used this for her Speech and Debate piece (OI)

[Maulmachine]

Before 8 or so weeks an embryo isn't sentient, when a women is before the date before the fetus develops conscious thought the baby is simply a tumor. Save Jeff.

[DUELMASTER30]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have an EVEN MORE difficult question. (This is to all you super-christians who believe Jesus can do anything)

 

 

 

Can Jesus himself microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

 

 

If you know where that came from good for you, but try to answer it now :P

[nickeley102]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have an EVEN MORE difficult question. (This is to all you super-christians who believe Jesus can do anything)

 

 

 

Can Jesus himself microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

 

 

If you know where that came from good for you, but try to answer it now :P

 

Homer

 

 

 

The burrito switches realities and creates an alternate universe the moment it becomes too hot. Read up on a schroedinger.

 

 

 

Harry Seldon never had a burnt mouth, extra points for the reference and the contextual association

[doomy]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have an EVEN MORE difficult question. (This is to all you super-christians who believe Jesus can do anything)

 

 

 

Can Jesus himself microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

 

 

If you know where that came from good for you, but try to answer it now :P

 

He could let it cool down :)

[Howlin0001]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have an EVEN MORE difficult question. (This is to all you super-christians who believe Jesus can do anything)

 

 

 

Can Jesus himself microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

 

 

If you know where that came from good for you, but try to answer it now :P

 

 

 

No because when Jesus was around there was no microwaves :wall: :wall: :wall:

[nickeley102]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have an EVEN MORE difficult question. (This is to all you super-christians who believe Jesus can do anything)

 

 

 

Can Jesus himself microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

 

 

If you know where that came from good for you, but try to answer it now :P

 

 

 

No because when Jesus was around there was no microwaves :wall: :wall: :wall:

 

Don't get hypothetical and real mixed up again, the question was could he, if the situation existed

[purfishx]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I have an EVEN MORE difficult question. (This is to all you super-christians who believe Jesus can do anything)

 

 

 

Can Jesus himself microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

 

 

If you know where that came from good for you, but try to answer it now :P

 

He could let it cool down :)

 

 

 

Congratulations, you win!

[Ginger_Warrior]

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

 

Three embryos which would not otherwise exist anyway. You cannot prevent something which does not exist in the first place. The use of the word 'life' is pretty loose there too.

 

 

 

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

 

Only if the parents are rubbish. Any decent parent values each of their children equally, regardless of how or why they arrived in the world.

 

 

 

I would. I find it immoral that you have a legal way of saving Jeff from his condition, yet choose not to because of your own moral principles. It's not exactly wishing death or suffering on him, but nor is it saving him from it either.

[IGoddessI]

Three embryos which would not otherwise exist anyway. You cannot prevent something which does not exist in the first place. The use of the word 'life' is pretty loose there too.

 

 

 

I agree. What if Jeff's mother doesn't want anymore children? They're never going to be born anyway, are they? And if you do use those three embryos, then what about the other million? Is it unfair and immoral that they're not being born too and don't have the chance to exist? Sometimes you just have to do what you think is right at the time, deal with it, accept it and draw a line somewhere.

[Lateralus]

Harry Seldon never had a burnt mouth, extra points for the reference and the contextual association

 

 

 

It's Hari, actually - Assuming you're talking about Foundation. So I get points for the reference and the correction.

[meol]

I'd save Jeff any day. I couldn't live with myself regretting I had the chance to save a life but didn't. Try explaining your son you could try and save his life, but you actually won't because of your morals.

 

Meanwhile, I would not have those three lives if I didn't create them in the first place, so I wouldn't exactly be preventing those lives from happening.

 

 

 

Harry Seldon never had a burnt mouth, extra points for the reference and the contextual association

 

 

 

It's Hari, actually - Assuming you're talking about Foundation. So I get points for the reference and the correction.

 

That's why I thought, but what's the reference to the burnt mouth?