We got a questions asking about the "save one baby or save five embryos from a burning laboratory" dilemma. Assuming a pro-lifer saves the baby, it's supposed to "prove" that we don't really think that the embryos are fully human beings. But it doesn't do that at all. Here's why.
The only reason it's a dilemma is because it pits the value of both against each other. A dilemma is a difficult choice pitting competing values against one another. It wouldn't be a dilemma if there weren't two valuable things at stake. Something valuable is going to be lost with either choice. So the fact that it's a dilemma assumes the value of the embryos, otherwise it would be easy. And forcing me to choose one side of the dilemma doesn't mitigate the value of the other side. That's the point of a dilemma.
I'd probably grab the baby, assuming it was as easy to grab as the embryos, only because of it's viability to survive since the embryos need to remain frozen. After all, the point of saving someone is survival. The embryos are unlikely to survive the rescue in any case because they require strict conditions that probably can't be found in such an emergency. The baby will survive with easily-provided help.
New variables could be introduced to the dilemma that change that survival calculation - a lab nearby could keep the embryos in their optimum condition, the baby has a terminal disease, etc. There are circumstances where I'd choose the embryos. But it's that issue of survival that determines the choice, not that deep down I think one is really more valuable than the other one. So the dilemma just doesn't prove anything.
I'd also probably save a 30-year-old gall bladder patient over someone hooked up to a respirator for the same reason if there were a hospital fire, but that doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other.