Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

To Give a Defense

Home
Catholic
An Answer to Patrick Tomlinson, Who Asks a Question That Supposedly Confounds Pro-Lifers

An Answer to Patrick Tomlinson, Who Asks a Question That Supposedly Confounds Pro-Lifers

Last updated on: February 27, 2018 at 11:23 pm by Scott Eric Alt

An Answer to Patrick Tomlinson, Who Asks a Question That Supposedly Confounds Pro-Lifers 2018-02-27T23:23:05-04:00 Scott Eric Alt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image via Pixabay.

Ascience fiction author named Patrick S. Tomlinson asks a question that, I am told, “baffles abortion foes.” Raw Story has the story. What is this stumper of a question? you ask. Here it is: Would you save one thousand embryos or one child in a fire? Really? That’s it? This is the question that’s supposed to confound us? This is the question that gets Raw Story in a heat of excitement and Mr. Tomlinson many new followers on Twitter? Really?

Please. This question is a cliché. You probably heard something very much like it in high school. Perhaps your English 101 teacher gave it to you as a writing assignment. If two people are drowning, your mother and the president of the United States, and you have one life preserver, who do you throw it to?

You could make the question more interesting. Let’s say the two people are your mother and your father. You have one life preserver. What do you do?

Now, there are many ways one could answer this, but they’re not exactly complicated.

• Perhaps I know that one of the two individuals is a better swimmer than the other. I am going to throw the life preserver to the weaker swimmer.

• Or, I am going to throw the life preserver to the person who’s furthest from the boat, and row to the closest one in time to save him.

• Or, I am going to throw the life preserver to one of them at random, hop in the water, and attempt to save the other person.

In short, the answer is, you try to outsmart the limitations of your circumstances and save both. If you absolutely can’t save both, if you know you can’t save both, you make the best choice you can on the spur of the moment. And wise people—those who don’t concoct cliché parlor game questions in an effort to play gotcha—know they can not judge what anyone does in such an impossible situation. Nor can they draw any real conclusions from it.

Perhaps I throw the life preserver to my mother rather than the president of the United States because I know my mother, and I love my mother, and the president is a stranger to me. It’s an emotional response. (On the other hand, where the hell are the Secret Service?)

Mr. Tomlinson’s fictional trap has the same answer: You try to save both.

(Incidentally, there’s something altogether sketchy about the fact that these are embryos, rather than babies in a womb, and therefore were created in a morally illicit fashion in the first place. But let that go. You try to save both.)

But what if you can’t?

Mr. Tomlinson thinks he can draw some conclusions here, which in short are that pro-lifers don’t really believe that the unborn have equal value as the living.

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is “A.” A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically,” he wrote. “This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.”

I suspect Mr. Tomlinson thinks that, if pro-lifers really believe what they say they do, they would view the thousand embryos as having greater value because there are a thousand of them, whereas there is only one child.

The first thing to point out is that this is not so. A single life—whether born or unborn—has equal value to a thousand or a million other lives. This is a theological point. Human life, made in the image of God, has worth individually, not en masse.

Here’s my second point, and it’s the most important in this context. If I were in this ridiculous situation, and if there was some special reason I could save either the embryos or the child in the fire, I’ll save the child in the fire. I say it frankly. I am not afraid of the answer.

And I will tell you why. (Well, one reason is that, if you remove the embryos from whatever situation they are being stored in, they are going to die anyway, so short of stopping the fire, you don’t have the choice to save them in the first place. This is the stupidness of Mr. Tomlinson’s question. But let’s put that to the side.) I will do so because the child in the fire looks human to me; the embryos don’t. It looks to be in suffering; the embryos don’t. My choice would be based entirely on my emotional reaction to the situation I was in.

And therein lies Mr. Tomlinson’s error. He thinks he can derive a conclusion about objective reality based on people’s subjective, emotional response in a hypothetical situation of peril in which they are forced to make Sophie’s choice. Sophie didn’t love the one child more than the other. Her one child that she rescued did not have any more value than the other child that she gave up to the Nazis.

Nor do the embryos have any less value than the child in the fire. One life or the other does not have less value somehow because I am up against human limits and have to make some choice. Playing Sophie’s choice about it doesn’t really reveal anything other than that you like to devise cliché trap questions. This is the kind of subject—do the born have more value or equal value than the unborn—that requires some sophisticated theological and philosophical argument, not too-clever-by-half parlor games that impress only Raw Story and the kind of people who frequent Twitter.

Abortion

Patrick Tomlinson

Previous Post

October 15, 2017

"Ultramontanism" and a Supposed Conflict Between Pope Francis & Pius XII on Capital Punishment

Next Post

November 26, 2017 The Filial Correction Corrected. Part 7 of a Response to The Correctors.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion About Me Answers for Calvinists Answers to Media Fictions Answers to Objections Anti-Catholicism Apologetics Apostolic Succession Atonement Authority of the Church Baptism Benedictines Biblical Exegesis Blogging Book Reviews Books & Writing &c. Calvin's Institutes Capital Punishment Catholic Church Chastity Christology Church Fathers Church Social Doctrine Confession Contraception Conversion Stories Crusades Debates Depression & Suicide Deuterocanon Development of Doctrine Ecumenism English Language Eucharistic Adoration Exorcism Extra Ecclesiam Fisks & Rebuttals Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Fundamentalism Gender Politics Gender Theory Good Works Homosexuality Humor Idolatry Immaculate Conception In the News Inquisition ISIS Islam Just for Fun Just War Justification LCWR Limbo Liturgical Abuse Liturgical Year Magisterium Marriage and Family Mary Mortal Sin New Evangelization NFP Papacy Papal Documents Papal Infallibility Personal Narrative Politics Pope Francis Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome Population Control Praying to the "Dead" Priesthood Primacy of Peter Protestant Denominations Purgatory Radical Islam Radical Traditionalists Real Presence Right to Conscience RIght to Life Saints Same-Sex "Marriage" Seven Quick Takes Social Justice Social Media Sola Scriptura Spirit of Vatican II SSPX The Eucharist The Mass The Resurrection Traditionalism Vatican II Year of Mercy

Select a Month August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 May 2013 April 2013 February 2013 January 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"

Select your answer to see how you score.

John the Baptist Pilate Peter Nathanael