Burning Building Scenario

[homeschoolmom]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1280670' date='May 24 2007, 04:17 PM']Alright then, I'd make sure the water flowed over the cell...[/quote]
you can't see the cell with the naked eye

how would you make sure?

[homeschoolmom]

And wouldn't pouring water over frozen cells actually KILL them and wash them away?

[Sojourner]

good point ...

[Socrates]

Didn't Dairygirl post an almost identical scenario/poll about a year or two ago?

Intrinsically, there is no difference in the value of the life of the embryos or the little girl, though most realistically would choose the girl for extrinsic reasons (can see, hear her; watch her suffer; may have family who would be concerned, etc.)

However, this in no way means it is acceptable to deliberately destroy innocent human life, if that is the point of this poll.

One might as well poll whether one would save one's own mother/wife/husband/child or a complete stranger from a burning building. Just because most people would choose their own family when faced with this dillemna, doesn't imply the lives of the strangers are of less intrinsic value.

Sorry, Dairy, no matter how many silly scenarios and polls you may come up with, abortion is still wrong.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1280931' date='May 24 2007, 08:51 PM']And wouldn't pouring water over frozen cells actually KILL them and wash them away?[/quote]

OK, while pronouncing the words I would only pour three drops on each cell to make sure they didn't die.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1280939' date='May 24 2007, 09:59 PM']OK, while pronouncing the words I would only pour three drops on each cell to make sure they didn't die.[/quote]
Sorry. I don't mean to make a huge issue of this. These microscopic cells are kept in dry ice... three drops of water would kill them. There is no way to baptize them without killing them.

[Sojourner]

yeah I would go with the baptism of desire on this one, rather than killing them by baptizing them

[Jesus_lol]

this is much like a scenario in which you can either choose to kill an infant or let 10 people be killed. logically you should choose the ten people. but i dont think i would. serving the greater good is not always the most ethical solution.
there is no question that i would save the infant girl in your situation. some decisions have to be made with your heart, not your head

[dUSt]

This is a dumb poll.

I'd probably save the girl, but statistically speaking, I suppose I should take the crate.

But, like an earlier point, this is no "proof" that saving the girl would be morally correct--because in a similarly stupid hypothesis, if the girl was my daughter, and there were five 1-year old babies in a crib, I'd probably save my daughter first. Does this make me morally correct? Who knows.

Dumb poll.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1280974' date='May 24 2007, 09:44 PM']yeah I would go with the baptism of desire on this one, rather than killing them by baptizing them[/quote]

Yeah... according to the catechisms and theology books I've read... you can only get a baptism of desire for yourself...

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]This is a dumb poll.

I'd probably save the girl, but statistically speaking, I suppose I should take the crate.

But, like an earlier point, this is no "proof" that saving the girl would be morally correct--because in a similarly stupid hypothesis, if the girl was my daughter, and there were five 1-year old babies in a crib, I'd probably save my daughter first. Does this make me morally correct? Who knows.

Dumb poll.[/quote]

That fact that you don't know shows that your statements are what are dumb. If you don't know, the only way you can know is to think about it and discuss it.

The guy just before you said that he's thinking with his heart instead of his head, which means that he should be aware of these things before they start. If you think you'd take the girl, but should have taken the crate, you now can know better should this arise. If anything else, it makes you think more with your head than with your heart for the great majority of us who never will see the hypothetical.

It's not like the answers to these questions are inherently unknowable. People just like to think with their gut, just like you. That's what's dumb.

Edited May 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[KnightofChrist]

Ah but in the Church parents who desire their child to be baptized can have their child baptized, and that is a true holy baptism. But what of children who's parents desire their child to be baptized but their child dies before that can happen, does the child have baptism of desire? Why not? If the parents can desire their child to be baptized, and have it done, that same kind of desire does not count if the child dies before baptism?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1281107' date='May 25 2007, 12:51 AM']That fact that you don't know shows that you're statements are what are dumb. If you don't know, the only way you can know is to think about it and discuss it.

The guy just before you said that he's thinking with his heart instead of his head, which means that he should be aware of these things before they start. If you think you'd take the girl, but should have taken the crate, you now can know better should this arise. If anything else, it makes you think more with your head than with your heart for the great majority of us who never will see the hypothetical.

It's not like the answers to these questions are inherently unknowable. People just like to think with their gut, just like you. That's what's dumb.[/quote]


Using "that" instead of "the" is dumb, and putting down the man of the Phatmass is dumb...

[Aloysius]

I'd save the girl first, then get Superman to speed around the world 7 times to get back in time and save the test tube babies too.

impossible? so is this scenario. haha.

as was said: would you save your own child or ten stranger's children if given the choice? the human answer is save your own child, and no one would be culpable for any sin if they chose to do so.

for that reason, most of us would save the girl. most humans would save the girl. this anectdote, however, proves nothing. for you see, we would be doing an intrinsically good act (saving a human girl) and the double effect would be that we do not have the time to save the test tube babies. None of it justifies doing an intrinsically evil act (killing embryos).

If the only way to save one human life would indirectly cause the death of another, it can be morally permissable to do so, so long as the death is indirectly caused and not intended.

I'm pretty sure double effect has been explained to you before, though... I'd think you'd be able to distinguish by now the difference between allowing someone to die because of forces outside of your control and actually intentionally killing them.

On the flip side, no one would be culpable for any sin if they chose to save the test-tube babies. They would have done an intrinsically good act (saving human lives) and the unintended evil effect is that the little girl might get killed.