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

[The Grand Nudger]

Who cares?  Not what you were asked, not what you answered to.

[Aroura]

I'm with RR. I would save the child based purely on emotion. Just as I would save the child over 1000 old people or even 1000 adults, and just as I would save a loved one over 1000 strangers.

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. 

---

Okay, so two for restraint now. I have to say I'm surprised, I didn't think anyone would admit to going that far. I find it more than a little scary, but I respect the honesty.

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.

[brewer]

Yes to restraint. She might hurt herself and/or the baby. In any scenario where someone might hurt themselves or another, we should stop them.  

So yes, restrain, but the protocol for dealing with such situation should also require care. Mental health care and counseling, as well as any help she needs during the pregnancy.

As to the last part, I believe I addressed that in detail on my first post here.

Are you stating that any woman that wants an abortion is mentally ill?

[Minimalist]

There is a difference between an actual "baby" and a gob of goo.

Only a real asshole would equate the two.

[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.

[The Valkyrie]

The more I read about humanity, the more I support aborting adults and potential adults...

[robvalue]

Yes to restraint. She might hurt herself and/or the baby. In any scenario where someone might hurt themselves or another, we should stop them.  

So yes, restrain, but the protocol for dealing with such situation should also require care. Mental health care and counseling, as well as any help she needs during the pregnancy.

As to the last part, I believe I addressed that in detail on my first post here.

Are you stating that any woman that wants an abortion is mentally ill?

It's more like mental health care will be required as a result of this restraining.

Of course, if such a thing was to become law, women who wanted abortions would be scared into complete silence about it. They'd have to try and secretly do the abortion themselves before anyone found out, or seek someone who would do it, that wasn't likely to turn them in.

I'm not sure how you'd handle a woman who declared she won't have an abortion after all. Is she released again? Does a doctor have to declare her, "In a fit mental state to be trusted not to go and have an abortion now"?

As an aside, the thought experiment about saving a child versus saving 1,000 potentials clearly shows how morality is not objective. There's no way to compare these apples and oranges in a way that doesn't involve some sort of personal (or group) valuation of their respective values. Even pro-life supporters who think objective morality comes from God and potentials "are people" would abandon all this in a real situation, apparently.

---

Okay, so two for restraint now. I have to say I'm surprised, I didn't think anyone would admit to going that far. I find it more than a little scary, but I respect the honesty.

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

Yes I would, as this would indicate that the person is dangerous and mentally unhinged. I don't consider a woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be pregnant anymore to be either of those things, and equating them is what I find scary, along with the kind of society that would ensue.

[robvalue]

I'd like to bring this point up again though: laws are about what is best for society, they are not about judging what is and isn't moral.

Is it best for society to allow women to have abortions? That is the question. Of course, I'm not suggesting there is a right or wrong answer, nor a simple one. It's a matter of opinion, and a matter for continued debate. Personally, this alternative of restraining women seems far worse to me for society; as does causing women to self-abort or seek back street abortions.

You can't afford rights to an unborn without severely overriding the rights of the mother. That's the biggest issue here for me. Is that trade-off worth it? (Where exactly you draw the line for late term abortions is a separate question.)

[Aroura]

I'd like to bring this point up again though: laws are about what is best for society, they are not about judging what is and isn't moral.

Is it best for society to allow women to have abortions? That is the question. Of course, I'm not suggesting there is a right or wrong answer, nor a simple one. It's a matter of opinion, and a matter for continued debate. Personally, this alternative of restraining women seems far worse to me for society; as does causing women to self-abort or seek back street abortions.

You can't afford rights to an unborn without severely overriding the rights of the mother. That's the biggest issue here for me. Is that trade-off worth it? (Where exactly you draw the line for late term abortions is a separate question.)

This is exactly right.

I personally think it's clear that abortion is terrible. However, outlawing it does not even reduce the numbers of women doing it. We have to deal with reality.

And if a person really, really cared about reducing abortions, they would look into measures that have that end result. Measures like:
Access to women's health Care
Access to birth control for all adults
Sex education for young people. Sex education. Not moral education.
Access to safe abortions. Seems counterintuitive but people that feel like they have no choice are more likely to make very drastic ones.

And stop supporting Measures that make abortion more likely:
Moralizing sex
Pushing abstinence
Restricting birth control access
Resstricting woman's access to health Care.

If you support any of the latter, you must care about those things more than the lives of all of those innocent babies

You need to pick a side. Moralize sex or save the babies. History shows you simply cannot do both.

Did you know your stance on abortion is no predictive indicator of you will have one or not? A pro life person is equally likely to get one when they have an unwanted pregnancy.
It's rife with hypocrisy and frankly I'm tired of it.

PS Road runner, you still have not answered my question. Maybe third time is the charm. Is there any circumstances you can think of where any number of fetuses are worth saving over any single individual person?

[vulcanlogician]

I'd like to bring this point up again though: laws are about what is best for society, they are not about judging what is and isn't moral.

Devil's advocate here. 

Sure, laws against murder help to keep and maintain order. If you could simply kill someone for pissing you off, you could cause a fair amount of disorder. Permitting everyone to kill others for whatever reason they wanted would be utter chaos.

But that's not the whole story. Laws are enacted to enforce a moral code, too.

If a society were to enact a law that allowed parents to decide if they wanted to kill their children at age nine, one could argue that the society could still run smoothly with such a law in place. Hell, it might even be of benefit, weeding out some of the more ornery little shits before they could cause real damage

What about killing a disabled homeless guy with no friends or family? It could be argued that society is impacted little by such a deed. Still, it seems wrong to permit such an action.

The point is, we don't permit murder for moral reasons. Murder is illegal for reasons other than its possible adverse affect on an orderly society.