Well let's change the terms of the discussion a little bit

Posted on: December 5, 2017 at 13:57:54 CT

Let's say the 5 year old is my daughter. Am I morally wrong for saving my 5 year old daughter in that situation? Does the fact that I saved my daughter mean that those babies have no innate value? Of course not.

You're ignoring the point that was made that:

A) Living creatures have innate value
B) Just because a 5 year old girl has value over the unborn doesn't mean that they don't have value

The author of the tweets used the 10,000 number to attempt to muddle the issue by turning it into a math problem. "Well, exactly how MUCH is an unborn life worth". It doesn't work that way. All living human beings have worth and value.

Also consider this: In this thought experiment I have no agency in the situation: I didn't cause the fire and I didn't put anyone at risk through my actions or inactions. If you replace the unborn in the example with other family members, and I ran in to a burning building and was able to save the 5 year old, her mom and her little brother but I couldn't save her dad, I would rightly be thought of as a hero. The father died through no fault of my own.

Now let's look at abortion. The woman/couple is ACTIVELY participating in putting their unborn baby at risk. THEY are starting the fire! This isn't a situation that was just thrust upon them; they have a moral obligation through the sheer fact that it is THEIR DECISION TO ENDANGER THE BABY IN THE FIRST PLACE. This is another area in which the "experiment" just breaks down.

Go Mizzou!
LN