Conflicting Pro-Life Values

The slavery issue may be compelling by your argument, but it can be argued that on the side of the fetus

“nor shall any State deprive any personof life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” 

If someone is trespassing in my house, I have the right to evict them from my property, even if it's winter so they'll die without my hospitality.

Many pro-lifers wish it to be legally mandated that she lose her freedoms upon pregnancy (granted I would too for late term pregnancies, as I do believe in protecting beings whom feel pain).

1.banning abortion wont stop abortions

What about gun control

2.liberals always on a gun control crusade after a school shooting

but defend killing kids in abortion?

What are your thoughts on such being partly extended to pregnant women and newborns?

I mean maybe pass a law that they must be painted a bright color to be less scary. 🤣

but it's nice to chat with someone not looking for a fight.

I appreciate the compliment, but I don't know if anyone here is looking for a fight, although I might be wrong.  I haven't read too much of what other people have been saying here.

I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn"), line up with investing in a border wall and a general anti-immigrant stance? After-all people who die trying to cross the border could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens.

Stances against universal health care, which would raise the quality of life for any children forced to be born against the wishes of the mother, and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital.

Gun access at the expense of life. Just universal background checks is estimated to be able to prevent over 1000 murders per year.

As it currently stands, I would probably only be on board with 3rd-trimester bans outside of life-or-death situations.

Tyrannical government etc.

1. In terms of the inherent obligations one has for another, one's son or daughter cannot be compared to a random stranger, or even to somebody you consider yourself friends with. Its most fundamental basis is neither affection nor emotion and exists in the absence of either.

For example, who would you sooner die for (if you had to choose)? Your three month old, or your best friend of 15 years?

For the adults your argument holds up, but for the "defenseless, innocent" children it does not. 

How so? I think it is stronger for 

defenseless, innocent" children.

They "could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens." 

 But there is no connection between those citizens and the illegal. But in the case of the woman, she voluntarily engaged in sex that could result in pregnancy.

The embryo is at least 50% genetically the same as the mother. There is no such connection between the citizen and the illegal. Further, unlike the illegal and the citizens home, the baby has never been outside the mother. Your analogy is false on several levels.

I am only talking about unwanted pregnancies.

This is the weakest part of your argument. For what does "unwanted" mean? ...  At what point along the chain of voluntary decisions that lead to a baby can a woman say she doesn't want a baby?

In any case, you currently have zero obligations to any of the groups.

Untrue. I always have moral obligations to other people, but because I am limited, my obligations to people more closely related to me get met first.

I even pointed out what I thought any pro-lifer would take to be a major benefit: "and likely make less women want abortions"

But at what cost? Aborting female children will also have the "major benefit" of likely making fewer women want abortions. Is that acceptable to you? The ends do not always justify the means.

If someone is trespassing in my house, I have the right to evict them from my property, even if it's winter so they'll die without my hospitality.

are you sure that's true?  For example, you can't legally set up lethal traps to protect your property.  Just like police you are not legally obligated to risk your life to protect another.  There's other examples, so I'm not sure that your example is legal.

Many pro-lifers wish it to be legally mandated that she lose her freedoms upon pregnancy (granted I would too for late term pregnancies, as I do believe in protecting beings whom feel pain).

that is not how I see pro lifers approach their argument.  Your are looking at the issue from the point of view that this is about the woman.  Someone pro life would look at this issue from the point of view of the baby.

...and in some cases a brutally painful death.

What are your thoughts on such being partly extended to pregnant women and newborns?

...religious organizations to pay for, they could do it off of donations, which are also consensually given, as opposed to tax dollars, which are obtained by coercion.

I mean maybe pass a law that they must be painted a bright color to be less scary. 🤣

I want them to look scary so bad characters don't mess with you, or are less likely too.

Given that religion seems to the primary reason people care so much, I cannot offer any disagreement.

To each their own. Hopefully I'm not a bad character, but I would find the following way more scary than a normal black weapon: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/645070346612989081/

Best friend of course. What's your point?

What you're talking about sounds like emotional bonds. Why should your emotional bond to some random woman's fetus, outweigh her lack of said bond when she's the one measurably affected?

Call it you feeling obligated if you want, and the woman in question still doesn't have it.

You made a case that adults are criminals. Now you're saying children are bigger criminals?

A woman seeking an abortion clearly doesn't feel the strength of this connection the way that you do.

And the analogy has to do with forcing other people to save lives at great personal expense to themselves.

I would argue any point before the unborn feels pain. If curious:   https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

You have the choice to help people or to not. It's fantastic of you if you do, but I personally would not want the government to force it upon you in any significant way.

(granted I would too for late term pregnancies, as I do believe in protecting beings whom feel pain)

..nor do I have a clue how you're comparing women making the personal choice to not get pregnant to that.

Since you're spiraling into even more toxicity, that's all I have to say to you

Best friend of course. What's your point?

Obviously, you have the freedom of speech to say this. But there's virtually no way a normal person, if actually presented with that exact situation, would choose as you're claiming...

What you're talking about sounds like emotional bonds. Why should your emotional bond to some random woman's fetus, outweigh her lack of said bond when she's the one measurably affected?

Does not compute. You're claiming I said literally the opposite of what I did. A person has obligations towards close family, near-infinitely more so one's own child, whether they particularly like said family member or not. One's unborn child falls under this category and therefore is unlike a stranger.

Call it you feeling obligated if you want, and the woman in question still doesn't have it.

????

In the unlikely event of illegal immigrants obtaining assault rifles, then there would be a short term period of chaos, after which deportations would more than likely increase. 

There is a huge difference between illegal economic migrants and heavily armed terrorist insurgents.

...a member of a community of people with a proven track record of prioritizing people other than blood relations.

And yes, I do call anyone I have not met a stranger, even if they share DNA.

Putting the rights of one person on hold for the benefit of another, is still just that; even if you think it's worth it.

In 98.7% of abortions the fetus has not reached the phase in development where pain is possible

your link "sheriff and police departments have policies to not process eviction orders if the weather is below a certain temperature"

I don't see where you can evict someone so they'll die because of the weather.

Putting the rights of one person on hold for the benefit of another, is still just that; even if you think it's worth it.

...So certain rights are more important than others when they conflict.

In 98.7% of abortions the fetus has not reached the phase in development where pain is possible

so you accept that we know all there is to know about human development?  Does everyone and everything develop at the same rate?

You seem to object to abortions when they can feel pain, is that correct?  If so how strong is your objection?  Strong enough to er on the side of caution?

 I would of course not endorse an abortion at 9 months without medical complication.

scientific community's understanding of fetal development

Glad you finally agree women have rights to begin with

So awhile back I committed some Red Herrings in abortion debate. I'm curious if anyone on the other side would like to defend what I take to be hypocrisy. I do not assume any one pro-life person to believe in each of the following; it's rather a starting point for potential discussion.

1. I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn"), line up with investing in a border wall and a general anti-immigrant stance? After-all people who die trying to cross the border could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens.
   
2. Stances against universal health care, which would raise the quality of life for any children forced to be born against the wishes of the mother, and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital.
   
3. Gun access at the expense of life. Just universal background checks is estimated to be able to prevent over 1000 murders per year.