The Embryo Dilemma
Context and common sense take the wind of its sails.
November, 2017
Recently, social media has featured a question which—supposedly—stumps the pro-life cause. According to its proponents, this single question proves that nobody really believes that life begins at conception. The question is in the form of a dilemma: you're in a burning fertility clinic in a room with a five-year-old child and a cooler filled with 1,000 embryos. If you can only save one, which would you save?
The response "expected" for most people is that their instinct would be to save the five-year-old. This, so the purveyors of this argument claim, "proves" that deep down we don't actually think embryos are human beings.
Rather than a slam-dunk argument, this is yet another example of how context and common sense take the sting out of emotionally-laden traps. How, then can you respond to a challenge like this?
The most important question to ask, when someone poses this kind of dilemma, is to find out what the point is. Sometimes, there is no good reason to give an answer, if the question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In this case, the choice between saving a five-year-old and saving 1,000 embryos has absolutely zero bearing on the question of abortion. You can respond by pointing out the reasons, as follows.
First, this is not the situation we are presented with in an abortion. That's not the choice being made, so whatever we think our choice in this dilemma "means" isn't something we can apply to the abortion debate in any meaningful way.
Second, just because we are tempted to make a certain choice does not mean that choice is the right one. Just because we "might" act a certain way in a certain situation does not mean that choice is the correct one.
Third, there are actually scenarios where either choice could be considered the "right" one. What if those are the only human embryos left on earth? What if the child has a fatal and highly contagious disease? What if it's your child, or your embryos?
Fourth, and most critically, these other ideas combine into the central problem with the argument. In fact, once this point is grasped, the dilemma not only becomes irrelevant, but attempting to use it to "prove" something about how we view life looks downright silly. The key is this: just because a person chooses one or the other does not mean the one they left behind is worthless, or even worth "less." They aren't automatically assigning a value of "zero" to one side. So, even on its own terms, the argument proves literally nothing.
Modern dialogue being what it is, of course, you can expect those using this argument to insist that any of those suggestions are to be brushed aside. They'll accuse you of dodging, but that's exactly what they are doing. By acting as if there is a crystal-clear lesson to be gained from that dilemma they are dodging the fact that it's a dilemma in the first place!
The truth is, the dilemma is not only irrelevant, it's misleading. That's not what's happening during an abortion. Emotional response is not the same as moral choice. There might be reasons to argue either way, depending on the situation, but those arguments don't mean that we have to call one of those sides inhuman or worthless. Acting as if there is only one answer, and that answer somehow proves your view on abortion only proves a person doesn't actually understand the ethics involved. There's no reason to fall for a trap just so the other person can dodge the fact that this is a complex issue.
This embryo dilemma is really just a re-hash of something called the "Trolley Problem," which has the same drawbacks. "Hard cases make bad law" is a common statement made in ethics. That's why they're considered moral dilemmas: they force us to pick between two seemingly bad options. Those who use this to attempt a pro-choice argument, by expecting you to admit that you'd save the five-year-old, completely misunderstand the concept of a "dilemma," by assuming that you can make absolute statements about other situations based on your choice in that one.
This is why Scripture calls on us not to be fooled by wrong-headed philosophies (Colossians 2:8) or silly arguments (1 Timothy 4:7). Many times, the easiest way to defuse an attack on the truth is simply to show how ridiculous the lie really is (John 3:20; Ephesians 5:13; 2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
-- Editor
