Quote Originally Posted by EaraGrace View Post
First, let’s just point out the obvious distinction between the sustaining the potential for life and sustaining all potential life. One of these is about possibility, and valuing the existence of life on a general level. The other is enforcing a categorical duty in all circumstances regardless of the particulars of the situation.
I don't really see how you can hold the value in the general and not the specific. The general view is nothing but an infinite set of specific cases, but when it comes to the specific case, suddenly the imperative shifts?

I recognize this may sound odd, but for what reason is the idea of the potential of life somehow more important than the actual potential of an actual life? The existence of a single life is as unique and special to the universe as the existence of life itself. Is it just a utilitarian numbers game? If so, surely the math in both cases adds up the same - There is more potential life in the universe than the potential life of the Ancients, and there is more potential life in a child than the remaining life of a mother. Does the scale, the gulf of the difference, just feel more appropriate for you to make that choice?

Second, the idea that, even if it’s unavoidable, forcing others to bear a cost for the future is always equivalent to forcing a pregnancy, kind of falls apart when applied to just about any major moral dilemma facing humanity.
Following this, you outline scenarios where suffering is forcibly incurred in order to bear the burden of propagating life. So yes, a person certainly doesn't need to be pro-life in order to believe that drastic action inducing suffering and burden for the purposes of protecting life - But in the same way, I fail to see how this is actually a logically or morally consistent position. You may say it's a pragmatic position in certain regards, but that doesn't make it morally sound.

We can go even further. What about conscription? Forcing someone to put their life on the line for the safety and protection of others sounds like a good comparison to make no? What if you faced a genocidal enemy that desires the brutal and complete destruction of all life? Do I have to be pro life on abortion to think it necessary to institute that policy? I’m curious if you think those who hold those beliefs are inconsistent.
Frankly, yes. Again, the general is just a set of the specific. To force someone to effectively be a human shield to allow life to continue but not do the same in the case of a birth is completely inconsistent. Why should the obligation, forced, to give up one's life for another be incurred differentially? I assume that in asking the question you already have your own response for the comparison, so what do you think?