If you found yourself in a burning building, and had only enough time to save either a box containing 10 frozen embryos, or a 2 year old child with a broken leg, which would you save?

by sgf Posted 2010/03/08 01:14:35

143 votes
Read all 238 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

	The 10 embryos, because it's better to save 10 human beings than 1 if forced to make the choice.
	The10 embryos, for another reason.
	The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.
	The 2 year old child, for another reason.
	Neither, I wouldn't want to risk my own life.
	Other (even though you couldn't save both in this situation)

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	The 10 embryos, because it's better to save 10 human beings than 1 if forced to make the choice.	10 votes	7%
	The10 embryos, for another reason.	3 votes	2%
	The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.	61 votes	43%
	The 2 year old child, for another reason.	46 votes	32%
	Neither, I wouldn't want to risk my own life.	1 vote	1%
	Other (even though you couldn't save both in this situation)	22 votes	15%

For people who claim that an embryo is a human life and you choose save the 2 year old instead, please explain why.

+25

Add a comment above

Disko Pickle 2010/03/08 01:29:46

The10 embryos, for another reason.

+31
I would let the 2 year old burn to death because 2 year olds are irritating as hell.
>> See Replies

Evenshorterboots 2012/08/19 03:32:23

The 10 embryos, because it's better to save 10 human beings than 1 if forced ...

I meant to vote for saving the two year old but clicked w/out thinking. Embryos are not human beings.

reply
*Dommina* Tormented Soul 2010/03/29 20:01:00

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

The child because it is already on this f.u.b.a.r. of a planet of which it did not even ask to be concieved and embryos? Come on now, I seriously think the world really needs to ask itself why are we bringing in more life into this world when we can barely take care of what we have now.

reply
moomoof 2010/03/21 05:40:27

Other (even though you couldn't save both in this situation)

you know i am not touching this with a ten inch pole lol

i already am tired of argueing with the pro- nonlisteners about this....lol

i bet the embryos are worth more ...isn't that sad that baby making is a money making industry?

reply
Mrs. T 2010/03/16 00:06:23

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

Most certainly the 2 yr old child b/c the child is a living being!

reply
sexy jouri 2010/03/15 18:57:58

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

he can feel
& he is human bean

reply
♥SuNsHiNe♥ 2010/03/15 17:17:23

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

I do believe an embryo is a human life.. but my first instict would be "grab the baby"!

reply
blackmoon 2010/03/15 13:17:45

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

save that 2 year old most definately!

reply
SeptemberRose&SunFlower'sMo... 2010/03/15 06:22:52

Other (even though you couldn't save both in this situation)

+1
I'd risk it..... I don't care if there wasn't a chance for the both of them, I'd still risk the chance..... A life for a life.... And everyone deserves a chance.

reply
Poet003 2010/03/15 01:55:04

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

The 2 year old child because the embryos are already dead and aborted.

reply
Poet003 to Poet003 2010/03/15 01:57:07

or the 2 year old child because the fetuses are not yet fully developed.

reply
Just Missy 2010/03/15 01:08:06

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

+1
That is a living and breathing child with a name, D.O.B., and family.

reply
Fizzbitch {ZeDameofFrenchBr... 2010/03/14 23:48:14

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

They've developed enough neurons to feel pain, I can't stand seeing anythg in pain. Plus we're over-populated anyways, might do the economy some good to have ten less potential children.

reply
Klutzy 2010/03/14 22:59:38

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

What if some couple tried and tried to have a baby for years and finally had one and two yeas later found out that theycant have anymore kids. If that two year old is their baby they would give anything to keep him with them. Put yourself in their shoes. You would want him to bbe saved too. I'm an only child and my parents would be sad and miss me. Anybodys parents would. If the two year old died. It would be your fault because you had the chance to save it.

reply
Tabby 2010/03/14 22:49:56

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

How does one come up with such a Question??

reply
claptonluvr 2010/03/14 22:42:48

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

+2
The two year old because the embryos are POSSIBLE human lives, the two year old is already alive and breathing. We don't know whether any of the embryos would even result in a human life.

reply
Zolfie™ 2010/03/14 22:36:10

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

I would think about living things before frozen things...

reply
♥ Lady Darkness ♥ 2010/03/14 20:47:01

The 10 embryos, because it's better to save 10 human beings than 1 if forced ...

they have just as much right to live as anyone else

reply
Callista 2010/03/14 13:41:41

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

+2
The living over the frozen. We know the 2 yr. old is alive and well. We don't know if the frozen embryos are even viable. It's a no brainer.

reply
DancingMachine 2010/03/12 21:41:39

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

The 2 year old is already living...there is no garentee that those embryos would live anyway, since there already out of the human body...its possible that once there put in a female body that they'll die. Save the already living....plus and embryo isn't a living human, once it starts growing into an actual human, then i consider it a human

reply
captkirk999 2010/03/11 00:43:44 (edited)

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

I wouldn't want the life of a two year-old baby on my conscious.
Also you do realize that in fertilized eggs are thrown out when you conceived a baby by artificial means.

reply
Dahanna S.O.C.K. P.U.P 2010/03/10 19:10:27

The 10 embryos, because it's better to save 10 human beings than 1 if forced ...

I'd try to save both but i guess the child....cuz she is aleady a human.... not soon to be
She will feel pain...& i couldn't let her burn

reply
Death Faerie 2010/03/10 00:36:55

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+2
The embryo's are humans, but they can't suffer or feel pain yet. No one would miss them, well, not as much as the family of the two year old.

A two year old can suffer and suffer in abundance.

An embryo is human, but not quite a person yet.

reply
Bella to Death F... 2010/03/10 01:15:11

human cells

reply
Damaris 2010/03/09 22:24:05

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

you explained for me ^_^

reply
popping3 2010/03/09 02:00:40

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+1
I WOULD SAVE THE 2 YEAR OLD CHILD!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

reply
618346 aka...lonenoncom 2010/03/08 23:15:00

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+3
Dumb, how are you going to keep the embryos frozen?

reply
Angi 2010/03/08 21:27:03

Other (even though you couldn't save both in this situation)

+2
My first reaction would be to save both, if I couldn't I would save the 2 year old child. The reason for my decision is that the 2 year old is alive and will most likely be screaming, and I if I was in that situation I would have to think quickly, and instinctively would save the 2 year child. If you were going to look at it more logically, you could assume that some of the embryos would most probably be dead already because of the heat.

reply
Huki68 2010/03/08 20:41:24

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

+2
Yep, embryo it need to be transfered to become human.

reply
dreamwriter12 ✲the libraria... 2010/03/08 19:31:27

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+2
The 2-year-old by far has a much greater chance of survival after being rescued from a fire than the embryos would, and the embryos are frozen, not developing in a woman's uterus. Not only that, but the embryos might never make it to begin with, even without the fire scenario.

reply
layla ^^ 2010/03/08 19:07:07

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

of course the child

reply
Der Haifisch 2010/03/08 19:06:16

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+1
The embryos would be more easily damaged by the fire, so they might not make it long anyway. Also, I'm not sure if they are able to feel pain yet. The two-year-old is most definitely in pain.

reply
Leeaqua 2010/03/08 17:10:43

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

The two year old - who knows if the embryos are viable ?

reply
Jehnyhal~ Hope Not Hate~the... 2010/03/08 16:25:17

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

+3
It's instinct. I can't even think of letting a two-year old burn for the sake of some wretched embryos.

reply
Sasssy 2010/03/08 16:24:28

The 2 year old child, because embryos are not yet human beings.

+1

reply
Missilly 2010/03/08 16:17:45

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+3
The two year old would suffer death and his family would be in great pain as well.

reply
Amy 2010/03/08 15:50:12

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+1
I would save the 2 year old child because although some people might see the embryos as life, they still cant feel any emotion or pain. The 2 year old child would be right there in front of me terrified and soon to be crying in pain; i just couldnt bear it.

reply
Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum 2010/03/08 15:35:07

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+5
A 2 year old is a sentient being. A frozen embryo is a collection of cells. Excellent question, BTW!

reply
herbie hind 2010/03/08 15:29:42

Other (even though you couldn't save both in this situation)

+2
even though embryos contain dna ; thus humans ; i'd save the two year old . she's in front of me crying and what not and for an average human i cant hear the embryos crying or envision they're lives or what they'd look like in 2 years . so i'd kill the 10 to save the one purely on knee jerk sensation .

reply
VERYwiseguy 2010/03/08 15:28:56

The 2 year old child, for another reason.

+2
This is a person living feeling pain,love etc...already.There's no way to know the outcome of those embryos.And they would be easy to replace with 10 more.

reply
Sue 2010/03/08 15:14:06

Other (even though you couldn't save both in this situation)

If you found yourself in a buring building and only had time to save one of your three children, who would you save? MY point is given. Your question is the most stupid one I've heard in a long time.

reply