If you're pro-life, how far do you take that?

[RoadRunner79]

I think that there is a lot of scenarios one could come up with, where  one may save a single person over many.   I don't  think that it is useful, if one is trying to use it as a reason to dehumanize the ones that are not saved; or to justify being allowed to kill them.  

A similar question might be, if the choice was between another person and a pregnant lady who would you save and why?

You seem to be operating under the impression that I am trying to trick you.  I assure you I am not.

As others on this forums may know, I do not even think it is morally acceptable to ubiquitously kill animals for food.  So, my goal here is not to say, "see, you don't think they are human, therefore it's ok to kill them!" That is not something even in my personal moral compass.
You are clearly assuming that is my goal, but you absolutely assume incorrectly. 
For one thing, even if you do not think they are people the same way a born person is, you clearly still believe they deserve more rights than they currently have.  I beleive your conviction.  Good so far?

I will be 100% upfront about my end poin now.

Many pro-life folks use the argument that fetus's are people, and so deserving of the same rights.  
But if pro-choice folks can see, or demonstrate that those pro-life folks do not actually believe the premise they are setting forward, what chance do they have of making a convincing argument? How far does any argument get if you think the person on the other side doesn't themselves even believe what they are arguing?

Do not base your argument upon a false premise, is my point.  Stop equating babies to fetus's.  Stop trying to simplify the issue into fetus = people.
You clearly do not think they are even remotely equal, and so any argument you make pushing a point you actually don't believe will fail.
That's it!  I'm not saying, and therefore they don't deserve rights, so please stop trying to take my argument there.  As I said, I think even animals should have more right to life than humans currently give them. I'm simply saying, if fetus's do deserve more rights, it isn't because they are people the same way a newborn or a 90 year old is a person.  If they do deserve more rights, start from a level playing field, and stop lying to us (and yourself), because we can tell.

I'd like to say that you and CL are some of the only Christians on this forum I do not have on ignore, because I do feel both of you are generally honest and reasonable, so I am happy to have discussions (because they feel like discussions, not traps).  So just know that I respect you enough that I will not set up such a trap, myself.  My point was straightforward, and hopefully, makes sense to you.

Do you even know my position on abortion?  I don't think I've ever made it clear on this forum.  I'll elaborate later, maybe tomorrow, if anyone even cares. 

I apologize Aroura I wasn't trying to impose anything that you where not saying (and if I do make unwarranted assumptions, then feel free to correct me). 

If you are saying that a 6 week old embryo is not the same as a small child or adult, then I agree; there are many differences.   There are also differences between male and females, between a 5 year old, a 25 year old, and an 85 year old.  It all depends on what you are describing in terms of being equal.  However these differences do not effect the inalienable rights as a human.  So when you say that "You clearly do not think they are even remotely equal"  I would ask in what way?  I think that the fetus / baby is alive (abortion is killing a separate and distinct living thing); I wouldn't think that this is controversial.  And it seems to be a human organism (although one early in development) which I've never heard a non-arbitrary argument for why it is not.  And I don't think that this scenario changes that at all.  Which was my point.   Because I would save one over another (or several others) doesn't equate to them being of lesser human value and that I would condone actively killing the one I didn't save in the other instance.  And I'm not lying to you or myself.  If you want to argue that the unborn are not human, then I don't think this scenario shows that.  

---

Would you restrain a mother that said she was going to kill her 1 year old baby?   Why is that scary?

Equating fetus's to people again!  See, no one will take this seriously.  Because you already demonstrated that you do not think a fetus is anything like a 1 year old.  This entire question then becomes a trick, condensending, and deceitful.  You say you don't want to play human math games....then you try and play more human math games. 

Instead tell us why a fetus, even though it isn't a person, should have more rights.  Or draw a non-facetious correlation. One you yourself actually believe would be a good start.

I thought you said, that this wasn't this type of trap?    I would probably save a pregnant woman, over a single baby as well.   Or I might save my child over 5 others.  Neither would make the others less human or justify actively killing them (rather than only being able to save one or the other) IMHO.  Your premise here seems to start with the idea that I am lying, and don't believe that these are humans, which is untrue.