How do you think pro-choicers would react to this counterexample to the Burning IVF argument?
I thought this randomly at work today-
One of the classic pro-choice arguments is the "burning IVF clinic" one- an IVF clinic is on fire, you can save a sac of embryos or a toddler, you can't save both. If you save the sac, you kill a toddler, if you choose the toddler- then you admit that embryos have no real value.
This is often replied to with- in a setting where there is no burning building, they both have equal value. In a moment of danger, the born child would matter more, but they both have intrinsic value.
*****
I have an alternate way to counter this, and I wonder what pro-choicers would say:
You're in a burning abortion clinic. There is an abortionist and a pregnant woman who was just about to be performed on before the place was set on fire.
You can save only the doctor or the pregnant woman. Which do you save?
If you save the pregnant woman, then you admit that there is a second life. If you save the doctor, then you're treating a "woman in need" as a lesser than.
Now that I type this out, this reminds me of Secular Pro-Life's "Fixed That Meme For You":
So, my abortion clinic example shows the same thing- in certain extreme circumstances, we understand when a certain life matters more.
When those circumstances are non-existent, they both have equal value.
Although, sincere question: Who do you save in the burning abortion clinic?
(I'd save the pregnant woman to save both mother and child.)