Pro-choice advocates believe the mother should have the right to abort their unborn baby. The debate over when life begins continues to stir passionate arguments from both sides. When scientists are asked to weigh in, they often default to ‘I don’t know.” This is a ruse as science itself defines both its theory of the beginning of life and what is life (to be discussed in another article).
One person proclaiming to have brought perfect clarity to the topic is science fiction author and journalist Patrick S. Tomlinson. He offers a scenario that he says proves that no one considers an embryo a life. Source: Independent, Sarah Young, Man’s Viral Pro-Choice Question ‘Shuts Down’ the Anti-Abortion Argument’, 10-24-17.
He states it as follows, “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 the question. And I never will.”
He claims that “No one, anywhere actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you.” He added “No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who claim to are trying to manipulate you, so they can control women.”
It seems Mr. Tomlinson has found the answer in the non-answers to his two options (save the child or 1,000 embryo’s) without realizing it. If no one believed embryos were living, unborn babies, they would simply have answered A, but they didn’t. The scenario is a staged trap to provide false evidence to the issue of abortion. How many people will find themselves in a fertility clinic, all alone, and a fire that not only starts but is spontaneously a life or death situation? Where are the sprinklers, fire extinguishers, other employees, and fire department? Why are the embryos left in a vulnerable position rather than under lock and key, protected from fire? Forcing only an option of picking life over life, leaves no answer for those that believe both are living. How could it, because they would opt for both, even at the risk of losing their own life. The scenario isn’t at all about defining life, but whose life you would choose to save first. If one was to choose the five-year-old first, it could mean they also planned to grab the embryos as well, or feel they have a little more time as they are in a frozen container (both frozen and in what you would hope was a fire-proof container). This scenario proves nothing and is a desperate attempt at justifying abortion.
Science has weighed in on the topic even though some scientists will not. Proponents of evolution support the theory that life originated out of a special pool of chemicals that was transformed into life via lightning or its equivalent. The resulting single-celled organism is claimed to be the foundation of all life. So, in one case, scientists cannot state when life begins and in another, suggests it sprung from a “special soup.” The fact is that it can’t be replicated and lacks any scientific evidence. The catalyst that transformed this soup into life was supposedly instantaneous, not unlike the moment of conception. More importantly, the moment when the sperm and egg combine to form a zygote, a single-celled embryo resulting from the fertilization, has been replicated billions of times.