That's a tough one. I think in that in a state of panic, one would naturally save the newborn infant.

Um, what's the confusion? You save the embryos. There's two of them and only one of that ugly troll. Duh!

But you do make the assumption that the ethics is a simple utilitarian calculation. Sum up the number of lives, weigh the value of equal weight on life and that embryos are life, and the answer is simple. Even if we had some twisted pro-life conception of life here, I would find the level of ethical evaluation there grotesque, but then I have never been a fan of utilitarianism. (am actually going to do a blog about it, citing something Sam Harris said on Beyond Belief 2008, when I find the time).

Neither, as natural selection would show that they are all unfit.

@soccerdadforlife - However, based on those same ideas of natural selection, the newborn is still relatively much more fit than the embryos (combined) considering the baby 1) already survived nine months of hardship and 2) is actual life.  There two characteristics thus make the infant in a much better position to pass on whatever genetic information it may have.  In contrast, the embryos are merely potential life, both of which still face a steep up hill battle to birth which involves numerous factors such as the survival of the mother and even possible natural abortions that may occur. 

With the newborn being the much more fit individual, the choice is clearer (though not easier).

Next question.  Who would risk their life to save option A if it were JUST option A?  Everyone is evacuated out of the building.  Oh darn, we forgot to check the fridge for frozen human cells.  Do you send a fireman in or not? 

Third question.  If there's no danger whatsoever, and someone walks by and uses their thumb to squash the fertilized human embryos in your Petri dish, do you cry? 

Ben

@vickevlar - See my post on abortion. Abortion should be legal up to the 50th year, when a potential human becomes fully human.

The death of a newborn child reflects more on the biological fitness of the parents than the newborn children. This is a common point of confusion on the part of many anti-abortionists concerning the biological view on the issue. Human infants possess very little deterministic biological fitness in and of themselves, apart of their immunological fitness. However, children possess the genetic material of their parents. The biological fitness of parents is largely determined by their ability to not only pass on, but proliferate and preserve their genes in future generations of offspring. Therefore, the failure to protect the lives of newborns is actually, theoretically, to the genetic and biological disadvantage of the human parents given the fact that the human species has evolved in such a way that during early developmental phases infants rely on the care of their parents to survive. It's not until children are older that the fitness factors encoded within their genes begin to be expressed or even become fully expressed, or in other words, it's not until children are older that their individual biological fitness begins to be expressed. Unlike many animals who rely less on social bonding to survive than humans, this newborn-parent relationship intensifies social bonds that are also biological beneficial for the parents.  So, I guess the parents of the infant of your hypothetical are unfit for not adequately protecting their child from being in that situation.

Also, arguing with the kinds of abortionists that equate embryos with fully developed children is a complete waste of time. Anyone crazy enough to fool themselves into believing that a clump of not wholly differentiated cells is equivalent to something with a consciousness, whether it's human or animal, should be avoided at all costs. That kind of extreme stupidity is intellectually dangerous at best.

@vickevlar - You make an excellent point that I often address when discussing abortion. This is one of those scenarios where we try to figure out exactly which moment the fetus becomes a human. But this is a mistake of the discontinuous mindset (which is often a problem when discussing evolution as well, but I won't get into that at the moment). You don't put cake batter in the oven and think that at 29:59 it is batter and at 30:00 it is cake. There is no one instant when the cake goes from "undone" to "done."

@drung888 - Based on your arguments, it seems that if the situation were between a three year old and a newborn, you'd go for the three year old every time. Is this the case? While I'd make the same decision as you, I don't know if it would be for the same reason.

@UTRow1 - An excellent point. An obvious case calling into question the fitness of the parents is the recent octomom scandal.

@GodAintGood - I figured the same thing. Still, I wanted the question out in the open.

@vickevlar - Oh, I completely agree that arbitrary lines need to be drawn for legal issues. It's an extremely frustrating issue, and also the reason I got an underage drinking ticket three days before my 21st birthday (the judge dismissed the case, but still...).

I deal with this necessity of discrete boundaries all the time working in evolution. Hmmm... I think I see a post in this.

@LadyLibellule - While interesting, you were right to add the caveat that I might not take it seriously. I don't. Still, I think I'll look into that a little bit, I admit my curiosity has been piqued. 

If this is supposed to show that the embryos aren't human, then it's just a red herring. It's no different than asking if - You are in a burning building and there are 3 babies. You can only save 2 of them. Which ones would you pick?

I can tell i like your blog already!

The answer is B

@musterion99 - On the contrary, hypotheticals are extremely helpful. It's how we build security systems. But we can ignore the burning building situation. If I asked you which would be more important to save, five men or one man, you would probably pick the five. So which would be more important to save, the two embryos or the one infant?