You’re adding additional conditions to create uncertainty. If given the simple choice 100% of people would save the baby.
The point that I most wanted to make was that a human being when faced with saving children vs embryos will do what is obviously the proper thing to do in that moment, and that in any real world situation that would be to save children. That is because a normal human being tries to do, when it comes to saving lives, what seems like the obvious good. In part that is because embryos are not obvious to a person saving people in a fire, they are frozen inside of machines, and it would also be pointless to try to save them because there would be little hope they would survive outside of cryogenic temperatures which normally nobody reacting to such an event would have on hand. But to say that if someone were capable of rescuing frozen fetuses and others were saving children, in such a case the decision as to where such a person could do the most good might be different.
This was not an attempt to deny your argument or add conditions to create uncertainty, but to point out that the motivation for saving children over embryos is that it would seem naturally to do the most and the proper good.
My point to you was to point out that you in arguments with you in the past I have taken the stance that there is within us a inalienable sense of what is right and one that is not based on logic but on feeling. I have suggested that the desire of old people to stay where they are housing wise or to want to own arms for self defense are also of the same source, what a normal human would feel. It is propaganda and negative experiences that cause people to feel differently. It also makes their thinking abnormal, no natural, not what we refer to by using the term common sense.
So I am saying I agree with your argument here, but that you couched it on intuition and instinct and conflated that with logic