{{A Very Difficult Question}}

[ElkNight]

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?

 

Yes, yes I do.

[Laura]

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.

 

People are comforted with statistics to make their decision. I personally wouldn't attempt to save him, because I know the possibilities of birthing a child capable of giving him blood, and having Jeff survive the years it would take to allow the child time for donation are slim

[Lenticular_J]

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?

 

Well, that's about the potentially largest amount of children one woman could have. That's assuming she has octuplets every birthing period, and she gets pregnant hours after birth.

[Nom]

People it's the amount of eggs the average woman produces in a lifetime. Each one has the potential to be fertilized by a sperm and is therefore a potential child. Quit splitting hairs.

[Lenticular_J]

But it's the only trade I could learn. See, I have only one leg.

 

 

 

Dunno where I'm going with that one. But seriously, the only things we do is split hairs.

[Lenin64]

By my understanding, she would have to give birth to a new child to save "Jeff", right? And the new baby will die?...Why not just give birth to the new one and let the first die? You still have 1 baby either way. And you can call the 2nd "Jeff 2.0".

[venomai]

Euthanize Jeff and let the three embryos develop into three healthy babies.

[warri0r45]

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 you could look at it from the view that the 5 year old has more life to live, so they have more to loose. I suppose you could argue then that the embryos should be saved, but I wouldn't exactly equate a 5 year old to embryos personally.

 

 

 

As for the topic, I'd probably sacrifice the embryos for the sake of Jeff (taking this on moral principles alone). However, I'm not sure how the baby that donates the blood will feel when he/she grows up. They'd probably resent the parents for making them purely as a means for blood donation and not out of love.

[Lateralus]

I don't think I would resent my parents if I was a child in that situation. Saving your brother's life seems like a pretty great reason for being born to me. As long as the parents raise the child lovingly - and there's no reason why they shouldn't - I don't see the problem. There's plenty of people who exist because their mother had a little too much wine and daddy thought bareback would be worth the risk.

[Lenin64]

Wait, hold up. If there's a new baby being born out of this donating blood, where do the other 3 embryos that muust be destroyed enter the picture?

[EdgedThesis]

Wait, hold up. If there's a new baby being born out of this donating blood, where do the other 3 embryos that muust be destroyed enter the picture?

 

 

 

They're there to spice things up.

 

To force a difficult decision.

 

 

 

Its all hypothetical, so let's just go with it.

[warri0r45]

Wait, hold up. If there's a new baby being born out of this donating blood, where do the other 3 embryos that muust be destroyed enter the picture?

 

 

 

They're there to spice things up.

 

To force a difficult decision.

 

 

 

Its all hypothetical, so let's just go with it.

 

 

 

Actually, multiple embryos are produced in regular IVF procedures and those not used are just disposed of (or hopefully put to use in stem cell research). So essentially, it's not all that different from IVF in itself.

 

 

 

I don't think I would resent my parents if I was a child in that situation. Saving your brother's life seems like a pretty great reason for being born to me. As long as the parents raise the child lovingly - and there's no reason why they shouldn't - I don't see the problem. There's plenty of people who exist because their mother had a little too much wine and daddy thought bareback would be worth the risk.

 

 

 

Come to think of it, you've got a good point. I'm not so sure I'd resent my parents either. If you make the new baby part of the family and show them that they are valued, I suppose not much resentment would come of it, if any.

[EdgedThesis]

Wait, hold up. If there's a new baby being born out of this donating blood, where do the other 3 embryos that muust be destroyed enter the picture?

 

 

 

They're there to spice things up.

 

To force a difficult decision.

 

 

 

Its all hypothetical, so let's just go with it.

 

 

 

Actually, multiple embryos are produced in regular IVF procedures and those not used are just disposed of (or hopefully put to use in stem cell research). So essentially, it's not all that different from IVF in itself.

 

 

 

Oh, right!

 

To grant a decent chance for proper fertilization.

 

 

 

Nice.

[Nenga]

Three babies will not be born, who probably won't be born anyway, and then the child may feel used? That's your big question? I have more difficult decisions choosing what i'm having for dinner. Have the doctors preform the surgery and get on with their lives.

[The Dark Lord]

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?

 

 

 

Here's a factor to the scenario that hasn't been added yet. The 15 year old is also mentally [developmentally delayed]ed. The 5 year old is not. The 15 year old is so severely [developmentally delayed]ed that he (or better yet, she) cannot comprehend the concept of swimming.

 

 

 

Some people would be so torn between choosing to save a young child or mentally handicapped teenager that they would probably be indecisive. With society's mainstream way of thinking, a female would have more sympathy for her than a male would. The females seem to be thought of as more important than males, for some odd reason.

[doomy]

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.

[RichieMcD]

Although it will prevent 3 lives from occuring do Jeff's parents want another 3 kids? If they only wanted Jeff then those embryos aren't used at all. It's the parent's call and only theirs, if they want Jeff to live and not have other children then Yes, if they want more children then it'll make for a very tough choice for them.

 

 

 

Who are we to say who can live and who can't when they're not even our children.

[IGoddessI]

Wouldn't it be quicker to request a blood transfusion from another person with the same blood group??

[BlackDawn]

I would not do it, three lives are better then one.. Even if the mother never gives birth to them at least they had the chance :thumbup:

[dragoonson]

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

 

 

 

No.Life is not AoE.You cannot create babies just like that.

[warri0r45]

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

 

 

 

No.Life is not AoE.You cannot create babies just like that.

 

 

 

AoE? Age of Empires?

 

 

 

Well, we can create life just like that. We do it all the time with IVF treatments. I suppose your issue isn't really with creating the lives, it's with destroying them.

[IGoddessI]

No.Life is not AoE.You cannot create babies just like that.

 

 

 

Photon man! Big daddy! Big momma! woodstock! coinage! quarry! peppersoni pizza damnit! :lol:

[dragoonson]

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

 

 

 

No.Life is not AoE.You cannot create babies just like that.

 

 

 

AoE? Age of Empires?

 

 

 

Well, we can create life just like that. We do it all the time with IVF treatments. I suppose your issue isn't really with creating the lives, it's with destroying them.

 

 

 

So touching a person and saying V-V will get me a castle?BRB gais

 

 

 

I would rather kill this kid,since he's probably dying,and 3 other embryos have the chance to come out pretty normal.So yeah.

 

 

 

how do you turn this on? in AoE II spawns a car,btw.

[megakiller32]

Nah, get other people's embryos.

 

This is why stem cell research is GOOD.

[assassin_696]

I'm failing to see the ethical dilemna in destroying three potential lives in order to save an actual life. And as Lateralus said, if I was the brother who donated blood I think I'd be quite proud that I was actually brought into this world with a good purpose in life, and then could live my own.