# Most pro-choicers have it all wrong. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118 "2006-07-19T02:50:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/261 "2006-07-21T14:51:42Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Do you think there are not people who would be willing to raise your baby? I’m addressing \*\*kanicbird \*\* specifically. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/262 "2006-07-21T15:22:56Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Look, you either care whether\*\* or\*\* it lives, or you care whether I take “responsibility” for it. Um why is it **or** and not **and**. You created a dependant life by activities you knew could create that life, why should you not be responsible for that life to the point that that life no longer needs your support? And why should the state not protect the rights of this new human against undue harm and murder - they same protection the state gives you. > [@](#): > > If you agree to raise my baby, I will carry it to term. If you don’t, I will abort. Pick one. So either you will pass the buck or you will commit murder. Now I have no problem with making a deal, hey if I get pregnant I will carry the baby to term then hand off the baby to you - this is being responsible for your actions. > [@](#): > > The responsibility is being met by aborting the pregnancy. Murder is NOT taking responsibility. Remember this is the pro-life POV, that fetus IS a human. > [@](#): > > Wait a minute…the parents are the responsible parties here. They chose to have sex and that act created the problem. They had sex that created a co-joined twin agreed. > [@](#): > > They’re the ones making the decision to kill one child in order to save the other. This is a parasite situation They did make this decision. It is not parasitic however, both are dependent on eachother as long as they are co-joined. I accept that you could set up a cojoined situation where one is parisitic. > [@](#): > > The children are in the same position the embryo is in. Sorry I don’t accept this statement. They are not in the same situation. The mother is providing a enviroment where the fetus can develop further to a point where the baby can survive in our ‘earth’ enviroment. The co-joined twins will never develope to this point where they can each survive on their own. > [@](#): > > Do you think there are not people who would be willing to raise your baby? I disallowed adoption to see if you would take responsibility for your actions that created that (fully born) baby. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/263 "2006-07-21T15:39:46Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I disallowed adoption to see if you would take responsibility for your actions that created that (fully born) baby. OK, I don’t get this argument then. If you want to make a case that abortion is irresponsible, then you have to allow for bearing the child and giving it up for adoption as being at least as responsible (in some cases, perhaps more so) as raising it yourself. And, in fact, you also said in the same post… > [@](#): > > So either you will pass the buck or you will commit murder. > > Now I have no problem with making a deal, hey if I get pregnant I will carry the baby to term then hand off the baby to you - this is being responsible for your actions. Which is it? This seems to be contradicting itself in the same post. Not to give you a hard time, but dang this is confusing. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/264 "2006-07-21T15:43:10Z")
It’s not confusing. \*\*kanicbird \*\* doesn’t care about the fetus. He throws around words like “murder”, but he doesn’t \*really \* believe that. If he did, then he’d be willing to make some compromises in order to prevent it. \*\*kanicbird’s \*\* sole interest is in punishing women for having consensual sex. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/265 "2006-07-21T15:48:08Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > It’s not confusing. \*\*kanicbird \*\* doesn’t care about the fetus. He throws around words like “murder”, but he doesn’t \*really \* believe that. If he did, then he’d be willing to make some compromises in order to prevent it. > > \*\*kanicbird’s \*\* sole interest is in punishing women for having consensual sex. Seems that way. I’m all for personal responsibility too, but give me a break. This argument is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/266 "2006-07-21T15:52:21Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Murder is NOT taking responsibility. Remember this is the pro-life POV, that fetus IS a human. You keep saying it’s murder and this is the pro-life POV…but in fact, only your point of view is pro-life. Mine is pro-choice and my opinion is that it is not murder. You can argue YOUR point of view, but please don’t refer to it as THE point of view because it’s not the only one. Same situation, different points of view. > [@](#): > > They had sex that created a co-joined twin agreed. > They did make this decision. It is not parasitic however, **both are dependent on eachother as long as they are co-joined**. I accept that you could set up a cojoined situation where one is parisitic. (bolding mine) Not true. In the scenario I laid out, one baby is parasitic on the other. It happens all the time. > [@](#): > > Sorry I don’t accept this statement. They are not in the same situation. The mother is providing a enviroment where the fetus can develop further to a point where the baby can survive in our ‘earth’ enviroment. The co-joined twins will never develope to this point where they can each survive on their own. Actually, they \*are \* surviving and can continue to survive for an indeterminate length of time. Just not optimally. Both will be sickly, both will be crippled in some way. And for purposes of this argument, both cannot live a normal life span. Either both will die or one can live. One baby is enabling the other to live. Do you kill one to save the other? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/267 "2006-07-21T15:57:30Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > **jsc1953** , others, you still haven’t answered my question. I assume you mean this question: > [@MrDibble](#): > > Who here is a pro-lifer and doesn’t believe the foetus has a soul or some such thing. I dunno…I’m pro-choice. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The question of when a fetus becomes a “person” is so subjective and phiolosophical that it can’t ever be objectively resolved. Bingo. In the absence of empirical medical evidence, we might as well leave it up to the mother to choose (before the 3rd trimester). ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Seller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Salt\_Seller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salt_Seller)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/268 "2006-07-21T16:01:19Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > First I never made the choice - just said what the obvious choice was and gave reasons. Second you know that I am under NO obligation to save either, my primary duty is my own saftey. So what ever I save is a benifit. > > Also now you are changing it, before we have a baby and a dish full of cells, which I am somehow supose to know are blastocyte(s). Know what they look like. Now you state the posibility that those 50,000 were already waiting implantation into 50,000 women. You know what the baby is no longer the obvious choice anymore. Don’t be disingenuous, Kanicbird. From my original post: > [@Salt Seller](#): > > You’re in a burning building and can either save a baby, or a beaker full of ten thousand blastocytes. Which do you choose? So, obviously we all knew we were discussing cells past the point of conception. You answered as such until it became inconvenient. If _your_ primary duty is to your own safety, why isn’t a woman’s? And, no, I still don’t think that the petri dish is the obvious choice. ---
**Author:** ![Aangelica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Aangelica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aangelica)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/269 "2006-07-21T16:41:52Z")
Repeatedly referring to something as “murder” isn’t actually an argument, **kanicbird**. To begin with, murder is a legal definition. In the United States, having an abortion (within certain specified guidelines) does not meet the definition. Therefore it is impossible for an abortion performed under those guidelines to _be_ murder. It can be other things, but not murder. Secondly, you yourself have pointed out that you are arguing from “pro-life perspective”. One perspective on a situation does not a definitive answer make. There are other perspectives with at least agruably equal validity. In my own view, the reason the abortion debate remains such a hotly contested one is because people on the opposing sides are unwilling to admit the opposing view has any validity. One need not agree with a certain viewpoint to admit that it has validity. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/270 "2006-07-21T16:45:05Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > I dunno…I’m pro-choice. So why’d you reply the first time, then? Repeat of the question: Is there _anyone_ here in this thread who’s pro-life but _not_ for religious reasons? We’ve already established **kanicbird** doesn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/271 "2006-07-21T16:47:09Z")
> [@Salt Seller](#): > > And, no, I still don’t think that the petri dish is the obvious choice. No, it is not the obvious choice, and I hope you don’t associate me too much with \*\*kanicbird’s \*\* argument, here, but I will try to give this scenario a whirl. I don’t think that this example of the 10,000 blastocysts and 1 baby is comparing 2 things that are equivilant. Chances are, those blastocysts are not part of a plan to implant them into 10,000 uteruses and gestate 10,000 babies from them. So, you have to consider the outcome of your actions in this case. If you save the baby, you will give that baby a chance to grow up, become and adult, grow old, and die. If you save the blastocysts, you give them a chance to later be destroyed in some kind of scientific experiment, and never become what they should have been destined to be. To me, this is kind of like a scenario where you can save a baby or a 95-year-old person (not an exact analogy, but it’s generally the same idea). You save the baby because of its potential to live a life. If the blastocysts have no such potential, then IMO, it would be sad not to be able to save them, but not a tragedy. Obviously, there is much less of an emotional attachment to the blastocysts than a baby. In a certain sense, this makes it more imperative for us to consider carefully how we approach the creation and the destruction of them. It is easy and obvious for us to say that babies should never be harmed for any purpose. Much less easy and obvious for us to say the same about blastocysts. This is where we are truly tested to do the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/272 "2006-07-21T16:50:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So why’d you reply the first time, then? > > Repeat of the question: > > Is there _anyone_ here in this thread who’s pro-life but _not_ for religious reasons? > > We’ve already established **kanicbird** doesn’t count. I can answer. I am somewhat religious, and strongly pro-life. My pro-life stance does not stem from my religion, but stems from my inability to create in my own mind a logical reason for why a pre-born baby would not be considered a human life. Therefore, I oppose it for the same reasons I oppose any murder. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/273 "2006-07-21T17:01:02Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I can answer. I am somewhat religious, and strongly pro-life. My pro-life stance does not stem from my religion, but stems from my inability to create in my own mind a logical reason for why a pre-born baby would not be considered a human life. You really can’t think of a logical reason why a zygote is not the same as a human life? You must not have tried very hard. How would you answer **Salt Seller’s** question about the beaker of zygotes. Would you rather save a jar full of embryos or one born baby? ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Seller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Salt\_Seller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salt_Seller)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/274 "2006-07-21T17:02:14Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, it is not the obvious choice, and I hope you don’t associate me too much with \*\*kanicbird’s \*\* argument, here, but I will try to give this scenario a whirl. > > I don’t think that this example of the 10,000 blastocysts and 1 baby is comparing 2 things that are equivilant. Chances are, those blastocysts are not part of a plan to implant them into 10,000 uteruses and gestate 10,000 babies from them. So, you have to consider the outcome of your actions in this case. If you save the baby, you will give that baby a chance to grow up, become and adult, grow old, and die. If you save the blastocysts, you give them a chance to later be destroyed in some kind of scientific experiment, and never become what they should have been destined to be. To me, this is kind of like a scenario where you can save a baby or a 95-year-old person (not an exact analogy, but it’s generally the same idea). You save the baby because of its potential to live a life. If the blastocysts have no such potential, then IMO, it would be sad not to be able to save them, but not a tragedy. OK, I’ll rewrite the question. You can save either one baby, or the blastocyte of a couple who have been trying to get pregnant for a long time. It was going to be implanted this afternoon, in fact. I’m still choosing the baby. Hell, let’s say it was _my_ SO into whom the bloastocyte was going to be implanted. I’m still choosing the baby. No, there’s no guarantee the blastocyte would take, but there’s no guarantee the baby wouldn’t catch some disease and die, either. In fact, let’s get really ridiculous. I can save either a blastocyte about to be implanted, or a very sick or terminally ill baby. I’m _still_ picking the baby. A pile of cells is a pile of cells. I can’t think of any circumstance where it would merit equal consideration with an actual person. Shit, I’ll save a _cat_ before I reach for the petri dish. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Obviously, there is much less of an emotional attachment to the blastocysts than a baby. In a certain sense, this makes it more imperative for us to consider carefully how we approach the creation and the destruction of them. It is easy and obvious for us to say that babies should never be harmed for any purpose. Much less easy and obvious for us to say the same about blastocysts. This is where we are truly tested to do the right thing. See, I don’t think it’s possible to “harm” a blastocyte. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/275 "2006-07-21T17:15:18Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, it is not the obvious choice, and I hope you don’t associate me too much with \*\*kanicbird’s \*\* argument, here, but I will try to give this scenario a whirl. > > I don’t think that this example of the 10,000 blastocysts and 1 baby is comparing 2 things that are equivilant. Chances are, those blastocysts are not part of a plan to implant them into 10,000 uteruses and gestate 10,000 babies from them. For purposes of this discussion, they ARE slated to be implanted. And for purposes of this discussion, make the numbers easier to handle. Say there are 20 blastocysts that have been slated for implantation. Say there are two for each of ten women, which will raise the odds of both of them taking and going full term, with no waste product. > [@](#): > > So, you have to consider the outcome of your actions in this case. If you save the baby, you will give that baby a chance to grow up, become and adult, grow old, and die. If you save the blastocysts, you give them a chance to later be destroyed in some kind of scientific experiment, and never become what they should have been destined to be. To me, this is kind of like a scenario where you can save a baby or a 95-year-old person (not an exact analogy, but it’s generally the same idea). You save the baby because of its potential to live a life. By making that choice, you’ve basically made the elderly person’s life worthless. Not exactly a pro-life stance, in the pure sense of the term. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/276 "2006-07-21T17:22:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You really can’t think of a logical reason why a zygote is not the same as a human life? You must not have tried very hard. I have posted my POV on this several times in several different threads and I think already in this one! So, I won’t go into a long description here. Basically, it boils down to this. I could never find an point in the embryonic developmental process that I believed I could point to and say “ok, there wasn’t a baby before, but now there is one.” OTHER than conception. The moment of birth doesn’t work for me, the third trimester doesn’t work for me, viability doesn’t work for me, etc. etc. None of these seemed like any kind of a logical demarcation. So, to me, conception is it. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me, but I tried to use logic, and the purpose of the logic was not to convince myself to be pro-life, but to decide whether or not I SHOULD be pro-life. You may not agree with my conclusion, but I tried to be intellectually honest with myself. > [@](#): > > How would you answer **Salt Seller’s** question about the beaker of zygotes. Would you rather save a jar full of embryos or one born baby? You should try reading more than one post at a time before you respond. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/277 "2006-07-21T17:24:02Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So why’d you reply the first time, then? > > . To construct a hypothetical response, in case a real world respondent didn’t happen to walk by. But I see Sarahfeena has made the same case as I did. ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Seller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Salt\_Seller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salt_Seller)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/278 "2006-07-21T17:38:35Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I could never find an point in the embryonic developmental process that I believed I could point to and say “ok, there wasn’t a baby before, but now there is one.” OTHER than conception. I’ve read your posts in a lot of different threads, and you always maintain a calm, civil demeanor, even though (bing in the minority) it’s easy to get into a pile-on. I appreciate being able to discuss these things with you (even though I think you’re completely wrong 😃 ) My question, then, is, is this even a matter of “life”? Can a pile of cells with no personality, no self-awareness, no consciousness, no sensation really be equated with a baby? (I’ll ignore the question of later trimesters for now). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/279 "2006-07-21T17:39:11Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > First I never made the choice - just said what the obvious choice was and gave reasons. Second you know that I am under NO obligation to save either, my primary duty is my own saftey. So you reserve your own safety above all? Why are you unwilling to recognize that others feel the same? From that statement, also, I figure you wouldn’t take a bullet for a baby, nor would you adopt an unwanted baby and raise it as your own. What sacrifices are you willing to make? Would you join a special police force that arrests pregnant women? Would you personally strap a pregnant woman down for nine months to keep her from terminating her pregnancy? Just how much of a personal effort is this issue worth to you? For that matter, are specifically voting for pro-life candidates and signing pro-life petitions and donating to pro-life causes? Those are perfectly reasonable actions for someone living in a democracy (which I assume you do). Just how serious are you? > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you want to throw in a 3rd party. You threw _yourself_ in (or, rather, you want to throw law enforcement in on your behalf). I’m just curious if you’re willing to take the responsibility for your choice. > [@](#): > > OK this shows such a difference in morality between us that there is no point on discussing abortion. If you really believe that if the law allows killing a person (adult) for your convienence, I’m not about to convince you that one should not kill a fetus for the same reason. Oh, please. **YOU** are the one who tried to strawman my position and threw out the examples of killing other drivers and pottery shopkeepers. And then you accuse _me_ of advocating murder? I can make up all kinds of wildly exaggerated (to the point of gross inaccuracy) versions of your position as well. Is it then reasonable to accuse you of supporting these versions? > [@](#): > > Yes keep that locked up please, not under the bar stool, you said to go for killing the other driver - I suggest handing over the keys to the barkeep also. I’m willing to bet that you know what sarcasm is (i.e. someone says “I bet you love the idea of being gang-probed by aliens” and you recognize the irony in the reply: “yeah, yeah, I **love** the idea of being gang-probed by aliens”) but you’re willing to ignore it, as you do facts, when convenient. **You** make a ridiculous suggestion, I facetiously support it, and then you accuse me of believing it? Get real. As above, I suggest that banning abortion would lead to special police forces to detain pregnant women and strap them down for the duration of their pregnancies. Do you think this is an exaggeration of the pro-life position? I can only assume you won’t sarcastically reply for or against (because apparently sarcasm is not part of this discussion) so I’ll take any reply (assuming there is one) literally and proceed from there. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/280 "2006-07-21T17:40:21Z")
> [@Salt Seller](#): > > OK, I’ll rewrite the question. > > You can save either one baby, or the blastocyte of a couple who have been trying to get pregnant for a long time. It was going to be implanted this afternoon, in fact. > > I’m still choosing the baby. Hell, let’s say it was _my_ SO into whom the bloastocyte was going to be implanted. I’m still choosing the baby. No, there’s no guarantee the blastocyte would take, but there’s no guarantee the baby wouldn’t catch some disease and die, either. > > In fact, let’s get really ridiculous. I can save either a blastocyte about to be implanted, or a very sick or terminally ill baby. I’m _still_ picking the baby. A pile of cells is a pile of cells. I can’t think of any circumstance where it would merit equal consideration with an actual person. Shit, I’ll save a _cat_ before I reach for the petri dish. I can understand this attitude fully. Not sure, given such a drastic situation, I wouldn’t react in the same way, because it would come down to instinct, and certainly we are biologically wired to rescue a baby before anyone else. Even if it wasn’t a drastic situation, I wouldn’t blame anyone for taking the same action. We have deep emotional reactions to babies…an evolutionary imperative, I would say. (Not sure about the cat part…not that I don’t love cats! 🙂 ) > [@](#): > > See, I don’t think it’s possible to “harm” a blastocyte. I think you’re slicing & dicing the meaning of the world “harm” a little bit too much. Anything that is alive can be made dead, even if it just one cell. I think that fits in the definition of “harm.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=15)