Interesting.

Frozen embryos don't cry though.

I literally have never heard a pro life person say this

What do they believe?

You mean a baby from conception right? Is this thought experiment supposed to somehow be a gotcha moment? They're all humans you can't save everyone and you wouldn't be culpable for those 1,000 lives it's not the same as actively killing the embryos is it?

Which person has the greater chance of surviving if I do save it?

Why would you donate only to the mother of 3? Don't you think the 90 year old is a worthy of being saved?

What am I adding to the argument? You don't want me to save the 5 year old?

I answered your question several times. I'd save the 5 year old because left on his own he can survive, 1,000 embryos though still human lives and valuable would not survive ouside of their prepared environment. I don't see the issue here. Let me ask you, would you rather donate a kidney to a young mother of 3 kids or a 90 year old woman in a coma who is about to be taken off life support?

1,000 thawed out embryos has an equal chance of surviving on its own than a 5 year old? Really?

False equivalency: frozen embryos are not growing nor in a womb, a better analogy would be a room full of pregnant women and a 5 year old. I would grab the 5 year old and the women walk out. Problem solved.

Would saving one life automatically mean the other lives were not worth saving? I would obviously save the 5 year old and mourn the deaths of the 1,000 embryos as I'm sure would every woman and man who had worked to bring those embryos into existence

First off they are frozen, they're not actively growing,a 5 year old is. Only a monster would ignore a child crying in a burning building. Cremating or buring the embryos would actually be the proper way to respectfully dispose of the human remains since there's no way 1,000 embryos would survive outside their frozen state. They're humans as is the 5 year old just in different stages of development.

not really, an embryo has all the genetic makeup of a human being and in the right environment (a woman's womb) can grow on its own into a full term baby. I've yet to see a pile of bricks arrange themselves into a house when left on its own. Maybe I didn't wait long enough? 😉

So it's not a human? What species is it?

Glad we agree it's a human, so killing it is killing a human right?

You didn't answer my question, but I'll attempt to answer yours. Define "fully human"

A 2 month old baby is not as fully developed as a 12 year old person, who's also not as developed as a 22 year old. Which one is more human?

So viable. Are there degrees of humanity?

You can decide to save the young mother but not the 90 Year old because in your own words" You gave a scenario where I could only save one. I made a choice based on a number of factors"

So I too can choose to save the 5 year old based on a number of factors. It doesn't negate the fact that the embryos are also life worthy of saving, and certainly would be a stretch to equate that to supporting the intentional killing of the embryos.

People would run for the crying 5yo (some might just run out solo instead) because it's crying. It's natural instinct. Eliciting such a response is why babies cry in the first place.

I saw a video clip on Pinterest just last night of various animals helping others of other species. A dog jumps into water off a dock so it can rescue a cat (which scratched at the dog in the process, before clamboring onto its back). Another put a goldfish back into a pond. A grizzly bear got a crow out of water it was drowning in, then went back to his business. A cape buffalo flips over a turtle who was upside down in their zoo enclosure...

If a bear can get a crow in its mouth just to place it on dry ground, a human can rescue a crying child.
1000 embryos? We feel sad when we see on the news a family that lost their house in a fire, but not about 1000s of say, Syrians whose entire neighborhood was leveled in civil war. Now, if we were there, and heard crying, we might respond differently. Maybe.

The response is an instinctive one, emotional. It has nothing to do with logic, nor reveals a truth about the biological status of unborn babies. The question is a good one, but reflects people's reactions to what they instantly can perceive. Remember, we already know most 'Pro-lifers' couldn't give half a crap about a child growing up in a slum, or 1000s getting killed because 20 years ago Bush wanted to boost VP's Cheney's Halliburtun's bottom line. It's about being reactive, not applying an equal standard to various differing scenarios.