There’s an inherent problem in offering moral dilemma hypotheticals to rebut the pro-life argument. Moral dilemmas, by design, make us choose. But the choice doesn’t rebut the argument for the intrinsic value of embryonic human beings. The dilemma simply forces us to make a choice in a no-win situation. It doesn’t draw out buried intuitions that show our real values; it draws out our emotions in a forced choice.

A tweet thread from pro-choicer Patrick S. Tomlinson this week said (paraphrasing): I’ve posed this dilemma to pro-lifers. The answer always proves they don’t really believe an embryo is as valuable as a human child. So here’s the challenge. You’re in a fertility clinic. There’s a fire. You’re running down the hallway to the exit. You run by a room. There’s a screaming two-year-old and there’s a canister of 1,000 frozen embryos. You can only grab one. Which do you grab? Most likely, you would grab the two-year-old. Therefore, he says, the fact that you wouldn’t save the embryos proves you don’t really think embryos are equivalent to children.

Our Emotions Aren’t Necessarily Rational

Let me offer a parallel example to make a vital point regarding answering this challenge. I was listening to a radio broadcaster who was promoting the idea of capital punishment. Somebody called in and said, “If your son committed a vicious capital crime, I bet you would try to get him off. This shows you don’t really believe in capital punishment.” The talk show host responded, “This doesn’t show I’m inconsistent. All it shows is that I’m a father.”

The point is that we may have very good reasons demonstrating the humanity of frozen embryos; yet at the same time, an emotion-inciting moral dilemma could cause us to make a decision that’s inconsistent with the ethical argument we’ve made. All this shows is that we’re human beings who make emotional decisions, sometimes based on appearances, in a no-win hypothetical.

If someone were to grab the canister rather than the toddler, I don’t think any pro-lifer would fault him because we believe those are human beings and a choice had to be made. It would be a terribly wrenching result, but that’s the point of moral dilemmas—there’s a terrible, wrenching result either way. And saving the embryos is a morally valid choice.

Our Emotional Response Is a Red Herring

There’s an inherent problem in offering moral dilemma hypotheticals to rebut the pro-life argument. Moral dilemmas, by design, make us choose. But the choice doesn’t rebut the argument for the intrinsic value of embryonic human beings. The dilemma simply forces us to make a choice in a no-win situation. It doesn’t draw out buried intuitions that show our real values; it draws out our emotions in a forced choice.

If somebody wants to argue against the pro-life case, he can’t look at the emotional reactions of people in a tense situation. He’s got to look at the argument itself. The dilemma is a red herring. In other words, it brings out an emotional set of circumstances that draws one away from the argument and focuses on people’s emotional responses. Then it postures as if it has really dealt with the argument when it hasn’t.

Read More