This is the part of your argument I don't understand at all.
I will give you a personal explanation below, but what part of the following confused you:
There are more people dying than can be saved, therefore one must choose whom to save, either a fetus or a born baby. If they choose to save a fetus, the born baby dies and if they choose to save the baby, the fetus dies.
That seems very straight forward to me. You should be able to take any of the ideas above and ask a question or make a sensible remark. So tell me what confused you.
Could you give a real life example?
If your intent is to find a flaw, you will be sadly disappointed. This has been in online peer review for two years and there is nothing a scientist here will find that a different scientist somewhere else did not find.
Say there is a woman called Sally who is twelve weeks pregnant.
It took Copernicus 50 years to defeat the church and other scientists that were under the rule of the church. It could take me 50 years to end the oppressive actions of religiously based pro lifers as well (even though I am Christian myself). So I will say Sally lives in 2080 and has had the benefit of living as a woman under the "Scientific Abortion Laws." She knows that life is continuous and that gametes have all the same characteristics as a zygote. She knows that everyone in the world that is born, instantly starts to die. She knows that she has bodily autonomy and that her autonomy must be used wisely. She knows that if she aborts one baby or fetus, in order to give birth to another, she has chosen to make a choice based upon her love of babies and her love of her fellow humans. She knows it is cruel to force a baby to be born to a woman that does not want a baby because that woman may simply not be able to afford a child at that moment and have a plan for another baby in the future. If the first baby is forced, the second baby is denied life. She knows the pro life movement of the past made a false analogy and simply assumed that a baby wanted to be born, even if it caused the death or suffering of its siblings or mother. Because she knows all these things she accepts her duty to herself and plans any pregnancy she intends and uses birth control (the pill and abortion) to support her natural right to autonomy.
http://www.scientificabortionlaws.com
What choice will save a fetus, and what choice will save a baby?
In 2080, in Sally's life, there are 10 billion people on the earth. Every born person is dying, because that is how nature works. Everyone dies and therefore everyone needs to be saved. By saved I mean that many people (think of compassionate governments and people such as Bill Gates and Ted Turner) have more than enough resources and want to share those resources to help others. And in 2080 a system of world wide triage has been set up under the "Scientific Abortion Laws" and the free nations of the world have chosen to adopt triage such that the most lives can be saved. In such a system it is recognized that the first action in any compassionate care system is choosing whom to save. The issue has been resolved and the choice is based upon triage.
To focus on your question in 2014 one must use those same principles from 2080 that will in fact be adopted because they are scientific law. There is no other possible outcome because the current system is flawed and causes born babies to be killed.
In 2014 there are 7 billion people on earth, they are all dying. And one must choose either to save a born person or an unborn person z/e/f. Why, because there are only born people and unborn people on earth. So one or the other can be saved. Because all 7 billion born people are dying, a choice not to save one of the 7 billion is a choice to let that person die and they will become one of the 57 million people that will die this year. And a choice not to save an unwanted zygote/embryo/fetus , unborn human life, is a choice to let the fetus die. Either the fetus dies or the baby dies.
We must use some type of logic to choose which person to save. We know for a fact that triage can be used to save the most life possible when there are more people dying than can be saved. So we choose to use triage. Using triage we determine that of the billions of people (both born people and unborn z/e/f) dying, many are dying because of a lack of resources, some are dying because of poor law making regarding allocation of resources or other government action. We know that we could pass laws that say that no born baby shall be allowed to die and we could also pass laws that say that no fetus shall be allowed to die. We could just as well pass laws that say that no child shall be allowed to die or that no adult shall be allowed to die. We know that such laws without triage simply favor fetuses over babies or babies over fetuses so we know that such a law would be foolish. Therefore in 2014 we find that there are scientific laws that make one part of our choice simple. Those laws are the "Scientific Abortion Laws" and they make it clear that one should not pass laws that give advantage to unborn z/e/f life or deny abortion because the chance of dying from natural abortion is 70 percent for zygotes, 15 percent after the zygote stage and 1 percent before birth and those deaths cannot be avoided. A choice to save the z/e/f is therefore thwarted by the fact that even if saved they may abort naturally.
We should only save born life. Why, because the "Scientific Abortion Laws" make it clear in six different ways that born life is a better candidate to be saved. (Though in some rare instances a z/e/f should be saved.) For example one may choose to save a born person or a zygote but they cannot save both. Why, because there are 7 billion people dying and if we choose to attempt to force the birth of a zygote after conception, then we are simply choosing not to save a born person. The instant we save one born life, there is another that will die in the next half second. And we don't even know where it will die. So we must either find and save that person, or we can choose to let it die. If we choose to let the second person die and instead of saving the person, we pass a law making abortion illegal and spend a year establishing the law (that historically will be overturned) then in that time of suspension born people will be dying at the rate of 1.8 per second. (It would have been a better choice to pass a law that says no life shall be allowed to die. Why should the fetus have a benefit the rest of society does not have.) In addition we would have then passed a law requiring fetuses be born but not requiring that babies be saved. In such a situation some mothers would be required to let their dying or suffering children continue to suffer or die while she spends her resources saving the fetus. Which is where we are in Texas.
Now, say society actually does pass a law that says that all --born -- babies must be saved, that would not change the situation, it would make the life of a baby more valuable than the life of a fetus, child or adult. Why, because such a law would be unfair to unborn life, children and adults and they would act to hinder the law and avoid the law. Why because some may want to live also. One could also pass a law that says that all fetuses must be saved. But such a law would also be hindered once people find that fetuses can be forced to be born making the life of the born baby worth less than the unborn baby. Then the fact will be that born babies will die to save unborn babies. Also a law that places the life of a fetus above the life of all other people will lead to the death of born people to save fetuses. So pro baby, pro child, pro adult laws along with anti abortion laws are simply laws that place the value of one life above the other. Such laws are incompatible with a free society. No life should be valued above another life, not a fetus, not a born baby and certainly not an adult.
That leaves us with the fact that some method must be used to determine who shall live and who shall die. That type of choice, when it is personal is up to the individual. If one chooses to save only fetuses, then that should be their right. If some choose to only save babies, that is their right.
Even though forcing the birth of either babies or fetuses will cause an increase in death of other people, because triage is not used, a person still has the right to let those people die. But if the issue is public law, public policy, church policy or charity policy the only fair way to determine who shall live and who shall die is through the use of triage. In using triage, the most life possible is saved. And triage shows that in normal circumstances it is almost always better to save a born baby than a fetus.
So we have determined that triage should be used to save the most life possible. And we have determined that the "Scientific Abortion Laws" should be used to support triage.
Please don't say you've already given the answer.
Now I have given the answer in a more complicated manner. If you need a simpler version read the "burning baby analogy" or the story of "Joepro Lifer". They simplify the issue considerably.
If you did, I didn't understand it.
The way to understand the "Law of Charity" is to understand what it is not and what it is. It is a scientific law, it says there are more people dying than can be saved. If you want to dispute or disprove the law, then that is the issue you must disprove. If you want to disprove the "Theory of Choice" then you must either prove that the "Law of Charity" is invalid or that when one claims to save life, there are more choices than saving a born or an unborn life. Arguments on other matters will be a waste of time.
I don't want to dissuade you from attempting to dispute the laws by posting this, I am only trying to help you understand where the weaknesses are and where I think there is strength.
