Legitimate Rape and Abortion- Republicans back-pedal

[Woodruff]

Here's the situation as I see it:

Conservatives (I'll even go so far as to say the Religious Right) thinks that abortion is a problem, even to the point for many of them that the morning-after pill is a problem. They're highly concerned about fetuses being able to be carried to term. Yet, they don't have much concern for those babies once they are born, as witnessed by the lack of interest in welfare and such (programs that do help the sort of individuals who most often seriously consider abortions).

Liberals tend to think that abortion is also a problem (despite what many conservatives try to claim), but they recognize that it is going to happen anyway. Now, that doesn't mean we should necessarily just let it happen, and most liberals are very much in favor of education in that area, but it doesn't make sense to allow our young women that are poor to endanger their own lives simply because the Religious Right believes that all fetuses should be carried to term. But again, this would appear to the liberals that it's a case of the conservatives being rather callous about the lives of those poor young women...sort of a "they deserve to risk death as a punishment for what they did" thing.

There absolutely is common-sense middle ground here, folks. First of all, it doesn't make any sense to me that the morning-after pill is an issue. I do not at all understand how ANYONE can have a problem with it. Frankly, I consider anyone who does to be completely irrational.

As to what most people would consider abortions (not the morning-after pill), I think there is still a great deal of room for discussion, but of course it does get very murky and laden with opinion over reasonability (on both sides) after that.

[BigBallinStalin]

Citing my own transparent form of liberalism to satisfy the J9Bs of this world: the classification of what the removal of a fetus from a womans womb is has no real worth to me; you can call it murder if you like, but thats not how I view it. You can argue about classification all day long, it'll get you nowhere. Its a Phattist debate (no offense PS; afaik you have been reasonably level headed in this thread).

I view pre-13 week abortions are perfectly acceptable as I do not treat what is inside the woman as anything more than an organ with which she can choose to do what she likes. The womans welfare is paramount in this situation.

Past that, I dont think I can adequately make an argument; its a grey area and am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the conservatives on this one with exceptions for extreme cases and cases where the health of the mother is at risk.

The potential human argument for me doesnt stack up. Im an apathetic/pragmatic agnostic, lump of cells with potential < society.

Let's move on to the future:


In the future, let's assume for the sake of argument that the cost of an abortion will be the same (or more than) the cost of "evicting" a fetus and "rehabilitating" it. An abortion would drastically reduce the chances of "it" becoming a human being; whereas, the Eviction Procedure costs relatively the same and allows "it" to become a human being.

Would abortion be justified in this circumstance?

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Some do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime

Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.

-rd

All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because it's not murder (a criminal action), and doing so would make them criminals. Most religious folks I know tend not to want to be criminal, regardless of their moral/ethical position on a subject.

If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.

So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?

[Woodruff]

Citing my own transparent form of liberalism to satisfy the J9Bs of this world: the classification of what the removal of a fetus from a womans womb is has no real worth to me; you can call it murder if you like, but thats not how I view it. You can argue about classification all day long, it'll get you nowhere. Its a Phattist debate (no offense PS; afaik you have been reasonably level headed in this thread).

I view pre-13 week abortions are perfectly acceptable as I do not treat what is inside the woman as anything more than an organ with which she can choose to do what she likes. The womans welfare is paramount in this situation.

Past that, I dont think I can adequately make an argument; its a grey area and am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the conservatives on this one with exceptions for extreme cases and cases where the health of the mother is at risk.

The potential human argument for me doesnt stack up. Im an apathetic/pragmatic agnostic, lump of cells with potential < society.

Let's move on to the future:

In the future, let's assume for the sake of argument that the cost of an abortion will be the same (or more than) the cost of "evicting" a fetus and "rehabilitating" it. An abortion would drastically reduce the chances of "it" becoming a human being; whereas, the Eviction Procedure costs relatively the same and allows "it" to become a human being.

Would abortion be justified in this circumstance?

An interesting question, but I don't think you can only look at terms of "cost of the procedure"...you must also look at the costs of supporting that being, particularly if welfare is going to be involved (and in many cases, that is certainly true).

[Woodruff]

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Some do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime

Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.

-rd

All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because it's not murder (a criminal action), and doing so would make them criminals. Most religious folks I know tend not to want to be criminal, regardless of their moral/ethical position on a subject.

If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.

No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".

So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?

Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.

[BigBallinStalin]

Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.

Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, Sym got schooled.


On John's point: I'd take it further. If abortion is murder, and millions of humans/fetuses are dying per year, then why don't they take direct action? Why don't they start bombing abortion clinics, coerce doctors into not performing abortions, etc.? Savings millions of lives should offset the costs...

Some do...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abort ... erty_crime

Unless you were being sarcastic. I can't tell.

-rd

All I'm asking is "why don't they put their money where their mouth is?"

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because it's not murder (a criminal action), and doing so would make them criminals. Most religious folks I know tend not to want to be criminal, regardless of their moral/ethical position on a subject.

If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.

No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".

So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?

Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.

Okay. What does "Murder" exactly mean to you?

What's the difference between "lawful" and "just"?

[Woodruff]

Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.

Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.

You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.

[Woodruff]

If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.

No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".

So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?

Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.

Okay. What does "Murder" exactly mean to you?

What's the difference between "lawful" and "just"?

It seems odd that I would need to state what should be patently obvious. "Lawful" means "following the law". "Just" has more to do with "Justice" or "Fairness", which does not always necessarily follow the law (sometimes laws are unjust in certain circumstances, for instance). Was that really something you were confused about, or are you just trying to drag this out for some weird reason instead of just admitting you used the term wrong?

[BigBallinStalin]

Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.

Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.

You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.

Costs to society? What are those then? If society supposedly bears these costs, then how does every single person pay some fraction of this cost? Shall we project all future costs of every child? And what of the benefits?

Besides, your contentions cut into either side of abortion. "What are the long-term benefits of allowing all those millions of kids to live? Since we don't know, let's ignore the main issue..." Your quibbles seem irrelevant, and if they are irrelevant, they detract from the main issue.


Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.


Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

[BigBallinStalin]

If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.

No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".

So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?

Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.

Okay. What does "Murder" exactly mean to you?

What's the difference between "lawful" and "just"?

It seems odd that I would need to state what should be patently obvious. "Lawful" means "following the law". "Just" has more to do with "Justice" or "Fairness", which does not always necessarily follow the law (sometimes laws are unjust in certain circumstances, for instance). Was that really something you were confused about, or are you just trying to drag this out for some weird reason instead of just admitting you used the term wrong?

There's formal law, and then there's informal law. An unjust killing can be considered to fall under the jurisdiction of informal law, which to most pro-lifers states that unborn children, or human fetuses, should not be killed. According to this view, an abortion would be equivalent to murder since it's an unlawful killing--within their framework of informal law.

So, now that's out of the way.

If an abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.

Then the question becomes:

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

[john9blue]

because that will turn public opinion against them?

or maybe for the same reason that rape victims shouldn't have abortions: because two wrongs don't make a right.

[tzor]

Actually, there CAN BE a significant difference. It really depends on "when". When you consider, for instance, the morning-after pill, you're going to have a really difficult time convincing me that a child is being killed, or certainly that the particular pill is causing any real damage. Later in the gestation period, certainly that becomes more of an honest equation.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me as well and i'm pretty much pro-life. The evidence that the morning after pill prevents implantation is flimsy at best. It generally delays the onset of the release of the egg and can interfere with the fertilization of the egg. WdbMD States ...

Depending upon where you are in your cycle, Plan B or Plan B One-Step may work in one of these ways:

• It may prevent or delay ovulation.
• It may interfere with fertilization of an egg.
• It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.

Plan B or Plan B One-Step is not the same as RU-486, which is an abortion pill. It does not cause a miscarriage or abortion. In other words, it does not stop development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. So it will not work if you are already pregnant when you take it.

So let's say you take the pill. Well there is a chance that your ovulation may be delayed early enough so that nothing would happen. There may be a chance that fertilization would be prevented. Then there is a chance that fertilization may occur. Now there is a chance that the fertilized egg might have never implant at all or if it had a natural abortion (miscarrage) might have occured within the first week, and the pill might change the odds of the initial implntation from happening (even though had it implanted a natural abortion might have later occured).

That's a whole lot of "chances" there, don't you think? It's even a grayer area in considering a non implantation an "abortion," as it is more of a non action than an action.

[tzor]

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because the ends cannot justify the means, evil acts cannot be used to prevent evil acts.

[BigBallinStalin]

because that will turn public opinion against them?

or maybe for the same reason that rape victims shouldn't have abortions: because two wrongs don't make a right.

If two wrongs don't make a right, then why opt for capital punishment or even invading Afghanistan?

But people do opt for these, so my question to rds was basically "what's the deal, man? Why are people acting in a contradictory fashion?"



Haha, basically, what I'm getting at is this: perhaps 85% of people are stupid are not self-aware.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

Because the ends cannot justify the means, evil acts cannot be used to prevent evil acts.

Sure, they do!--but these reactionary acts are not considered evil. E.g.:

Were you in favor of invading Afghanistan?

Are you in favor of punishing criminals?


An act of punishment is justified if the offending party has violated the rights of another. For the pro-lifers, to be logically consistent, the rights of unborn children are being violated; therefore, the violators should be punished.

So why aren't pro-lifers being logically consistent here?

Public opinion keeps them back, as do the formal laws of the US. But if millions are being murdered (i.e. having their rights violated), then why not "go big or go home"?

Apparently, many pro-lifers aren't willing to commit to the demands of their position, so maybe they really aren't true believers in the positions which they espouse. It's seems to be "all bark, no bite."

[Lootifer]

Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.


Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

Yeah but that doesnt quite work out since the system of abortion closes once the fetus is terminated; that is no [significant] further costs and/or benefits to be [potentially] realised.

Where as in the system of evict and rehabilitate you have an ongoing or open system where there are many future costs and/or benefits of moving a lump of cells into a fully developed newborn.

It'd be like comparing a deterministic solution to a math problem with a stochastic one. You can assert all you like, but at the end of the day the unknowns (and their existence) are the only meaningful feature of the issue.

Unless you provide some scenarios around what kind of life the evicted newborn will lead then I cant answer your question.

edit: I saw your trap, but ignored it. In answer to your implied question: Yes the social impacts of raising unwanted children is one of the major reasons I support first trimester abortion.

[BigBallinStalin]

Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.


Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

Yeah but that doesnt quite work out since the system of abortion closes once the fetus is terminated; that is no [significant] further costs and/or benefits to be [potentially] realised.

Where as in the system of evict and rehabilitate you have an ongoing or open system where there are many future costs and/or benefits of moving a lump of cells into a fully developed newborn.

? My position is that the cost price* of an abortion would be the same as evicting and rehabilitation (which includes being a fully developed newborn).

So since the prices are the same, then how is it justified to abort the fetus--if it can clearly be allowed to live for the same price?


*(I'm switching to "price" because it makes the scenario more clear.)

It'd be like comparing a deterministic solution to a math problem with a stochastic one. You can assert all you like, but at the end of the day the unknowns (and their existence) are the only meaningful feature of the issue.

Unless you provide some scenarios around what kind of life the evicted newborn will lead then I cant answer your question.

Then you shouldn't be in favor of abortion or against it because the potential benefits/costs are unknown for aborting or allowing the fetus to live. Nevertheless, you do hold a position on this issue, so in light of my above scenario, I'm very interested in seeing you apply your previous position.

edit: I saw your trap, but ignored it. In answer to your implied question: Yes the social impacts of raising unwanted children is one of the major reasons I support first trimester abortion.

Yes, I partly agree with the eugenics Proper Cultivation of Individuals Deemed Best for Society argument here, but that is an issue involving the distribution of newborns, and not an issue of abortion itself. For now, let's discuss abortion. The distribution of newborns is largely run by the government and heavily regulated, so that's another matter for another day.

[Lootifer]

? My position is that the cost price* of an abortion would be the same as evicting and rehabilitation (which includes being a fully developed newborn).

So since the prices are the same, then how is it justified to abort the fetus--if it can clearly be allowed to live for the same price?

*(I'm switching to "price" because it makes the scenario more clear.)

I get ya, but my request for scenario (and following edit) is where my justification lies; the binary question you ask is, from my perspective, pointless because you have limited the scope to such a point that my answer would be: No opinion based on insufficient information to form one (which isnt a dodge, its an answer in itself - I do this kind of thing regularly in the field of statistics).

Then you shouldn't be in favor of abortion or against it because the potential benefits/costs are unknown for aborting or allowing the fetus to live. Nevertheless, you do hold a position on this issue, so in light of my above scenario, I'm very interested in seeing you apply your previous position.

True; but my position is a result of an analysis of the product itself (abortion). Why do you abort a pregnancy? Two reasons: for health reasons or because you dont want to bring a child into the world. The former we can ignore as the ethics/morals are slightly more clear cut: an established life is more valuable than a potential one. The latter is the important one.

Logical Premise: A potential parent who wants to bring a child into the world is going to be better parent than one who doesnt want to bring a child into the world.

Therefore [in a world without abortion] children who are raised by parents who would in a different world have aborted the fetus are going to be neccessarily disadvantaged (compared to their neighbours whose parents wanted them).

By allowing abortion you bypass this inequality.

Incidently the weakness of the premise (because you can easily build a scenario where its flawed) is why I can answer your first question.

Yes, I partly agree with the eugenics Proper Cultivation of Individuals Deemed Best for Society argument here, but that is an issue involving the distribution of newborns, and not an issue of abortion itself. For now, let's discuss abortion. The distribution of newborns is largely run by the government and heavily regulated, so that's another matter for another day.

But the single biggest driver behind demand for abortion IS the distribution of newborns. I cant seperate the two.

[BigBallinStalin]

? My position is that the cost price* of an abortion would be the same as evicting and rehabilitation (which includes being a fully developed newborn).

So since the prices are the same, then how is it justified to abort the fetus--if it can clearly be allowed to live for the same price?

*(I'm switching to "price" because it makes the scenario more clear.)

I get ya, but my request for scenario (and following edit) is where my justification lies; the binary question you ask is, from my perspective, pointless because you have limited the scope to such a point that my answer would be: No opinion based on insufficient information to form one (which isnt a dodge, its an answer in itself - I do this kind of thing regularly in the field of statistics).

Wait! Are you an engineer?!

Then you shouldn't be in favor of abortion or against it because the potential benefits/costs are unknown for aborting or allowing the fetus to live. Nevertheless, you do hold a position on this issue, so in light of my above scenario, I'm very interested in seeing you apply your previous position.

True; but my position is a result of an analysis of the product itself (abortion). Why do you abort a pregnancy? Two reasons: for health reasons or because you dont want to bring a child into the world. The former we can ignore as the ethics/morals are slightly more clear cut: an established life is more valuable than a potential one. The latter is the important one.

Logical Premise: A potential parent who wants to bring a child into the world is going to be better parent than one who doesnt want to bring a child into the world.

Therefore [in a world without abortion] children who are raised by parents who would in a different world have aborted the fetus are going to be neccessarily disadvantaged (compared to their neighbours whose parents wanted them).

By allowing abortion you bypass this inequality.

Incidently the weakness of the premise (because you can easily build a scenario where its flawed) is why I can answer your first question.

For my circumstance, you mention that the uncertainty is too high (i.e. too many unknowns) OR that some relevant outcomes are assumed away, so a cost-benefit analysis is rendered useless; therefore, you can't make a decision. Is that more or less correct?

How do the statistics pan out in your disadvantaged v. advantaged scenario? I don't think this is even tractable, so I think you're covering up your moral intuitions with an imagined cost-benefit analysis.


For example, the soundness of your premise and conclusion are questionable. For the premise, good intentions alone don't lead to good outcomes (i.e. good kids). Arguably, well-intended parents on average produce better kids that unwilling parents. I'm sure both of us agree to this, but this is an average. Some kids who are disadvantaged may perform better than some kids from well-intended parents. So, since this chance does exist, and even though the advantaged-disadvantage statistics may be tractable, this chance still negatively affects the soundness of your conclusion as well.

Because you're implying that the future kids of unwilling parents should be terminated at the parents' discretion--at the time of pregnancy, because you expect that kid to be disadvantaged, thus entering some unequal playing field, which is deemed unacceptable. This disregards the fact that some disadvantages may lead to advantages. How can you know from the a priori?


Since you can't know a priori how the relative advantages/disadvantages for all kids will play out, then you can't conclude from the beginning that abortion is justified because the parent is unwilling to raise the future kid.

Recall that your earlier contention to my argument still cuts both ways. There is uncertainty involved in your analysis and the future results are not tractable nor are they known a priori; however, you'll conclude that abortion is justified if the parents are unwilling to raise the kid. But your logically consistent position should be that the data is insufficient, so you have no opinion. Since you do have an opinion, I may be correct in stating that you're really being guided by an emotional argument (which isn't necessarily bad or good; I'm just sayin.').

Yes, I partly agree with the eugenics Proper Cultivation of Individuals Deemed Best for Society argument here, but that is an issue involving the distribution of newborns, and not an issue of abortion itself. For now, let's discuss abortion. The distribution of newborns is largely run by the government and heavily regulated, so that's another matter for another day.

But the single biggest driver behind demand for abortion IS the distribution of newborns. I cant seperate the two.

And that's completely understandable. I have no objection here.

[Lootifer]

I am without a doubt driven by an emotional argument; but (as you say) I have framed it logically.

My emotional argument is my assertion (logical premise). I admit the assertion is shakey and very much stochastic (theres a distribution in the results of willing and unwilling parents). But at least it is framed such that if you show me evidence to the contrary I can learn and adjust my position without too much blushing... This is, at least, more than I can say about some arguments on the matter.

Incidently the weakness of the premise (because you can easily build a scenario where its flawed) is why I can't answer your first question

Fixed

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, well, I'll agree that this is an empirical matter. I could say that the burden of evidence rests on your shoulders, but then you'll cast that burden on me. Seeing that neither would be willing to carry out this research because the marginal benefits don't offset the marginal costs, then we're "justified" at writing this off as an impasse.

But hey, as long as you keep that doubt in your mind about your own argument, then I'm satisfied. Maybe you'll run into someone who knows more, but there's one problem:

Even if the data show that ALL unwilling parents produce kids who are ALL disadvantaged and will NEVER realize the same benefits of the advantaged kids due to this initial inequality, then there's still the problem of projecting historic data. It could be the case that one disadvantage kid realizes more benefits than X-amount of advantaged kids. You'd have to justify that eliminating this chance on an argument which isn't sound.

[tzor]

If two wrongs don't make a right, then why opt for capital punishment or even invading Afghanistan?

The moral underpinings for capital punishment are complex and generally forgotten. Basically this is why the Catholic Church has insisted that if you have a society that can effectively imprision someone for life then capital punishment is not justified.

The moral underpinnings for invading Afghanistan is self defense and the just war theory.

[Woodruff]

Rehabilitation costs = costs of supporting that being.

Then the costs are kicked off to the organizations responsible for distributing children.

You're making an inequation then, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You seem to be trying to weigh only the costs of the abortion procedure vs. the costs of delivering the baby. You don't seem to want to weigh in the costs to society for supporting that baby after delivery (based on your second sentence there). Again, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so feel free to clarify.

Costs to society? What are those then? If society supposedly bears these costs, then how does every single person pay some fraction of this cost? Shall we project all future costs of every child? And what of the benefits?

Welfare costs, for instance. If a child is not aborted but instead is born into a welfare situation (yes, I realize not all are, but a significant portion are), then the welfare costs for that child are born by society. Or if they are not, then costs in crime and the like.

Besides, your contentions cut into either side of abortion. "What are the long-term benefits of allowing all those millions of kids to live? Since we don't know, let's ignore the main issue..." Your quibbles seem irrelevant, and if they are irrelevant, they detract from the main issue.

Since we can't calculate all these future costs and benefits, then let's stick with the first assumption and the main issue.

Costs of abortion ~= costs of evicting the child and raising it in a test tube/rehabilitation machine (whatever the technical term is).

The question is this: is abortion still justified if you can pay an relatively equal sum for a procedure which allows the child to live?

Again, I don't believe the situation can be viewed in that manner. In fact, I would find it to be highly faulty, for the reasons I mentioned above regarding societal costs.

[Woodruff]

If a abortion is the "unjust killing of a human being," and if murder is an unjust killing, then abortion is murder--from that perspective, which many pro-lifers seem to share.

No, "murder" is a legal term. The word you want instead of "unjust" is "unlawful".

So, since abortion is murder, should they be reacting to this more drastically?

Some few abortions may be murder, but the vast majority are not.

Okay. What does "Murder" exactly mean to you?

What's the difference between "lawful" and "just"?

It seems odd that I would need to state what should be patently obvious. "Lawful" means "following the law". "Just" has more to do with "Justice" or "Fairness", which does not always necessarily follow the law (sometimes laws are unjust in certain circumstances, for instance). Was that really something you were confused about, or are you just trying to drag this out for some weird reason instead of just admitting you used the term wrong?

There's formal law, and then there's informal law. An unjust killing can be considered to fall under the jurisdiction of informal law, which to most pro-lifers states that unborn children, or human fetuses, should not be killed. According to this view, an abortion would be equivalent to murder since it's an unlawful killing--within their framework of informal law.

So, now that's out of the way.

It's not out of the way. It's not murder. Call it homicide if you want a term for it. It's not murder.

Then the question becomes:
Why don't they commit more aggressive actions to prevent the (alleged) mass murdering?

I believe I already answered that question.