Cons-A one year old and 5000 embryos are trapped in a fire, you can only save baby or embryos which do choose?

I start with the baby.

When you go into a fire you pick up the one who has the best chances to survive.

Got a question how many people would you kill in order to find a cure for acme.

I thought I give you a silly question too.

Well I would save baby of course in that situation. 1 I know what to do to help save a baby, and chances are the 5000 embryos are going to be used in some experiment by some scientist who knows.

I would save the 1 year old if I can't save the embroys too. What's with the embryos? Is this a stem cell research center?

This has nothing to do with cons vs. liberals - it's a question of individual choice and morality.

Baby

A friend once ask me, if my house were on fire and I could only save one of my four children, which one would it be? My answer was then and is now, I would give my life trying to save all of them. Why? Because I love my children, and I value life. The friend had no children, if she did she would have known better than to ask the question.

They are only concerned about the lives of those that haven't been born yet, so they would save the embryos.

The fully developed, fully functioning baby!

I would save the baby. The cons would save the embryos because their rights are what the cons are concerned about. Cons have no use for, and do not care about a child. They prove it by not supporting child welfare and health care for underprivileged children.

I'd save whichever one I was nearest related to. If I were related to none of them, I'd save whichever White offspring had the highest eugenic rating. (P.S. I'm somewhat to the right of the conservatives.)

I choose not to have embryos created outside the womb.