Patrick Tomlinson's
Burning Building
Analogy

Patrick S. Tomlinson's Burning Building analogy is a thought experiment frequently used in abortion debates to challenge the moral weight placed on embryos or fetuses in comparison to born children. It typically appears in arguments surrounding embryonic personhood and is often used to critique the pro-life opposition that all humans hold the same moral value.​

​

The Scenario: You’re in a fertility clinic that’s caught on fire. Inside, you see a five-year-old child crying for help in one room and a tray with 100 frozen embryos in another. You only have time to save one. Which do you choose?

​​​​

Most people, even staunch pro-lifers, would choose the born child. The pro-choice advocate then concludes that since you’d save the born child, you don't really believe embryos are morally equal to born children. Therefore, claims about the moral status of embryos/fetuses being the same as born people are inconsistent or insincere.

​​​

This analogy is designed to challenge emotional and moral intuitions and expose perceived inconsistencies in pro-life ethics.

​​​​​​​​​​

​​​Analysis of Thomlinson’s Argument

 

The burning building analogy is a form of moral intuition pump, intended to probe the sincerity and internal consistency of pro-life claims. Specifically, it tests the assertion that a human embryo is morally equivalent to a born child. ​Pro-lifers claim that life begins at conception and that embryos and fetuses are full persons with equal moral worth to born humans.

​​

Premise 1: If pro-lifers genuinely believed this, they would save 100 embryos over one born child.

​

Premise 2: Most would save the child, indicating that they intuitively recognize that embryos are not morally equal to persons.

​

Conclusion: Therefore, pro-life moral reasoning is inconsistent or driven by ideology, not genuine moral equivalence.

​​

This forces the question: If embryos truly are persons, why does your behavior in life-or-death scenarios contradict your stated beliefs?

​​

​​Assumed Strengths of the Analogy

​

Exposes Moral Intuition Gaps. The analogy illustrates that instinctive moral judgments often contradict abstract ideological positions.​ This dissonance attempts to reveal that pro-life rhetoric may not align with pro-life behavior.

​​

• Intuition: Save the born child.

• Doctrine: Save the embryos (since 100 lives > 1 life).

​

​​Highlights Personhood is Not Binary. Even if embryos have some moral status, this analogy pushes the idea that personhood may exist on a gradient, not a binary (person/non-person). Thus, the analogy encourages people to distinguish between biological humanity and moral personhood.

​​

• A 5-year-old evokes empathy, identity, and relational context.

• Embryos are biologically human but lack consciousness, relationships, or sentience.

​

​​Applies to IVF, Stem Cells, and Early Abortions. It shows that even those who oppose abortion often tolerate mass embryo destruction in IVF or stem cell research.

​​

• The inconsistency between opposing abortion but ignoring embryo disposal undercuts the absolutist moral status claim

• The analogy brings practical behavior into moral analysis, not just abstract belief.

​​

Deflates the “Every Life is Sacred” Argument. If quantity of life were all that mattered, saving 100 embryos should always outweigh saving one born child. That few people reason this way demonstrates that not all lives are valued equally, at least not in practice.

​​​​

​​​​​​​​​​​Implications

​​

• Pro-life claims that “abortion is murder” or “fetuses are full persons” are challenged when those same individuals don’t apply those beliefs consistently in emergency ethics or resource allocation.

• If people do not advocate for fire departments to save embryos in burning clinics or prosecute IVF labs for embryo destruction, it suggests that their practical moral framework is more nuanced than their public rhetoric.

​​

​​​​Pro-Life Refutation

​​

Choosing Who to Save Does Not Determine Moral Worth

​​

Argument — Moral choices in emergencies involve complex triage decisions, but these do not define the inherent moral value of the individuals involved.

​

• If you choose to save your own child over three strangers in a fire, it doesn’t mean the strangers are less human or less valuable.

• The burning building is a scenario of pragmatic rescue, not a philosophical referendum on personhood.

 

“Choosing whom to save in a crisis reflects subjective prioritization, not objective worth.” (Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion)

 

​​This analogy confuses moral epistemology (how we know who has value) with moral ontology (who has value). The fact that someone would save the five-year-old doesn’t disprove the embryo’s moral status—it only shows how people behave under stress.

​​

​Triage Decisions Are Often Made Based on Non-Moral Criteria

​​​

Argument — In disasters, we often save those:

​

• who are most likely to survive,

• who can be reached most easily,

• who can help others afterward.

 

​Frozen embryos are in canisters that may require equipment, while the child is physically present and visibly suffering. This is a matter of accessibility and immediacy, not moral worth.

​​​

“We do not infer that burn victims are less human because they are harder to save than others.” (Francis Beckwith, Defending Life)

​​​

​​​Emotional Responses Are Not a Reliable Moral Guide

​​​​

Argument — The analogy manipulates emotional intuitions. But emotional instinct is not a solid foundation for moral reasoning.

​

• People may feel more empathy for someone crying or visibly suffering.

• That does not change the underlying status of the embryo as a human being.

 

​“We must not confuse moral clarity with emotional salience.” (Robert P. George, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life)

​​​​

False Equivalence Between Rescue and Intentional Killing

​​

Argument — There is a moral difference between:

​

• failing to save an embryo in a tragic fire, and

• intentionally dismembering or chemically destroying a fetus.

• The analogy fails to map onto abortion directly because abortion is an intentional act, not a triage decision.

• It’s like comparing a house fire to homicide.

 

“Failing to save a life is not morally identical to killing a life.” (Alexander Pruss, philosopher and ethicist)

​​​​​

Analogy Undermines Other Progressive Causes

​

Argument — If emotional intuitions in rescue scenarios determine personhood, then:

​

• elderly Alzheimer’s patients,

• unconscious trauma victims,

• or disabled infants

 

…could also be considered “less human” if someone chose to save a healthy adult instead. This is a slippery slope that undermines dignity-based ethics.

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​​​​​Citations

1. Kaczor, C. (2011). The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. Routledge.

2. Beckwith, F. J. (2007). Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Cambridge University Press.

3. George, R. P., & Tollefsen, C. (2008). Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. Doubleday.

4. Pruss, A. R. (2003). "The Principle of Double Effect and Abortion." The American Journal of Bioethics, 3(1), 11–12.​