... So, if you had the option of saving 100 embryos or one baby - you would the embryos ? Btw, the word "being" refers to sentient life forms, do you consider an embryo to be sentient ?
I'l leave aside the issue of sentience for now. Let's answer the question: if I had the option of saving 100 embryos or one baby, who would I save?
Good question. Like many moral hypotheticals (would you kill the one guy on the right train track or just let the train run over the five guys on the left train track...?) the question is valuable not for the actual answer but for the issue it raises and the clarity of thought it requires in the effort to answer it.
Would I save the embryos or the baby? I don't know. The embryos are 100 precious human beings, and I would do all that I could do to save them. But the baby is precious too, and emotionally it would be much more difficult for me to harm a baby I can see and hear and touch than it would be for me to harm 100 embryos in petri dishes. That does not mean that I would be morally right to save the baby and kill the embryos. It's just that I love babies, and I respect all life, and the decision would be agonizing. It's a decision that I would have difficulty making, either way. I do know this: I couldn't harm a baby.
I'd probably try to harm the guy who was giving me the ultimatum.
But there's a close parallel to this question that's very interesting and that's a bit more grounded in reality.
During WWII thousands of airmen flew bombing raids over Japan and Germany. My father (bless his soul) was one of them. The men on these planes were good men, many were heroes, and all were willing to sacrifice their lives (and many did) to protect their country and to defeat deeply evil regimes.
Most of these brave airmen would never think of hurting a child. Many were fathers themselves. But when they flew their missions, they commonly killed thousands of innocent children, in the most horrible ways imaginable. They incinerated tens of thousands of kids in the firebombing of Toyko, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the saturation bombing of Dresden (one of the worst atrocities in a war of atrocities).
These airmen killed innocents wholesale.
Yet nearly all of these men would never think of hurting a child. If a child were placed in front of them, they'd give the kid candy. They wouldn't even spank the child, let alone dismember or incinerate him. Not for a million dollars. These were decent ethical men.
So why were basically good men able to kill so many innocent people-- by the millions-- without batting an eye?
The reason is obvious: they didn't see them. They didn't make an emotional connection to the people they were killing. They only knew them as cities in the bombsites. Yet if they were to see one of these kids personally, in front of them, as a real flesh-and-blood human being, they wouldn't dream of hurting the kid. Many soldiers sacrificed their own lives to protect civilians, when they saw the civilians as people.
The parallel to the abortion issue is obvious. Every human life begins at conception. Every embryo is a human being, just like we were early in our lives. And killing an innocent human being is always wrong, at any age.
What allows otherwise decent people to support abortion and to have abortions is that they don't see the baby in the womb as a human being, just as the airmen on the Lancaster bombers didn't see the tens of thousands of women and children refugees on the raids over Dresden. But the airmen did kill children, by the tens of thousands. And those who support abortion support the killing of human beings, by the millions.
The morality of saturation bombing of civilians in war can be debated, just as abortion can be debated. But the abortion debate, just like the debate about the bombing of Dresden, must begin with the recognition that real human beings are being killed.