Occasionally, pro-choice advocates pose a question or objection that give pause. That's what happened to me with regard to the "Burning Building" objection. Patrick S. Tomlinson, a pro-choice advocate, posed a curious hypothetical scenario that, according to him, eviscerates the pro-life position. Taking time to reflect and evaluate a serious question, concern, or objection is the intellectually responsible thing to do and, sometimes, it can lead you to change your mind on a particular matter. That's precisely how I became both a Christian and a pro-life advocate. There's also a temptation to concede nothing to the opposition, even when they make a valid point. Instead, we tend to dig in our heels and resort to unreasonable conclusions. However, after some thoughtful consideration, you'll see that, once again, a cleverly conceived pro-choice objection fails to undermine the pro-life position.
Below is Patrick's twitter thread laying out his argument:
"Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I’ve been asking for ten years now of the ‘Life begins at Conception’ crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. It’s a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question.
Here it is. You’re in a fertility clinic. Why isn’t important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. They’re in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled ‘1000 Viable Human Embryos.’
The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no ‘C.’ ‘C means you all die.
In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 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. This question absolutely evicerates [sic] their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.
No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency.
No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam [sic] to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. Don’t let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don’t, slap that big ol’ Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end."
I'll admit, this is a clever hypothetical scenario. I'll also answer Patrick's question that he's "been asking for ten years now", I would grab the five-year-old child, not the "1000 Viable Human Embryos." Plain and simple. But it's not because I believe the "1000 Viable Human Embryos" aren't human life. In fact, I can argue that I would grab the five-year-old child and still affirm that life begins at conception and those 1000 viable human embryos are still intrinsically valuable. The reason I would grab the five-year-old child and not the embryos is because I have over-riding biases that would inform my decision. Namely, that the child would endure excruciating pain. However, it does not follow that I don't regard the embryos as human life, I just value them differently depending on the situation.
The point can be made more clearly by modifying Patrick's own scenario. For instance: I'm in a building that is on fire. I enter a room full of five-year-old children. However, in the far corner is my own five-year-old child. I can either A) usher out the other children, saving most of them, but sacrifice my own child or B) I rush to the back of the room to ensure the safety of just my own child. My over-riding bias (i.e. my parental instinct) would dictate B, as would most every other parent's instinct. That doesn't mean I don't think those other children aren't valuable human beings. It just means my over-riding bias informed my decision and I placed greater value in saving my own child rather than the others.
Other examples make this point too. Ben Shapiro asks, "You can save the box of embryos or you can save the life of a woman who will die of cancer tomorrow. Which one do you save? If you choose the embryos, is the cancer-ridden woman therefore of no moral value?” In this scenario, you can see the value of saving the embryos over the woman who will die tomorrow, but that doesn't mean she has no value. It's just that the value of things can change depending on the situation.
At another point, Patrick asserts that "No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist". Here, I wholeheartedly agree with Patrick. But if he thinks this is the pro-life argument, he's either confused or intentionally distorting the argument. The pro-life claim isn't that an embryo is equivalent to a child, it's that an embryo is a human being, a life that is intrinsically valuable, utterly vulnerable, and worth protecting. Scientifically, at the moment of conception, the zygote's genetics make it a distinct member of the human species at its earliest stage of development. This is a point that's agreed upon by a consensus of biologists and of The American College of Pediatricians. The moment of conception, then, is a non-arbitrary, scientific point within human development at which we can definitively call the zygote a human being.
Morally, then, we have to ask ourselves, is it okay to kill an innocent human being? It seems obvious to me that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being, yet in every situation abortion does precisely that. I challenge Patrick to address that concern. Show me how abortion does not kill an innocent human being and I will reconsider my position. Until then, the pro-life position remains on solid moral and scientific ground and, Lord willing, will continue to change the hearts and minds of men, women, and children who will champion the sanctity of life of the unborn.