I tend to do this often as part of serving as a 'moderator' of discussions/arguments, even when it's just me and another. It's useful to perceive the other party's (parties') argument as merely a podium upon which their belief rests, and then endeavor to identify, with specificity, their belief or position. Colloquially, the result would be something like:

• Not you: "I think that, it just doesn't seem right, that, even without being given even a chance, the baby just dies. It's not right how they have no say at all, you know?"

• You: "So, your position is..." In verbal communications you can at this point briefly pause as if you're carefully considering your words in order to allow an opportunity for their interjection of a more lucidly expressed position. "...that the fetus (and I'm just using the scientific terminology, here), has value equal to that of a grown person in moral considerations? [If confused:] I mean, that when thinking about an abortion, the fetus' rights are equal to that of the mother's?"

[As shown above, clarify one point at a time. Your tone must be that of one asking for clarification on a fact. More, "The tsunami warning was cancelled before or after the 3/14 earthquake hit?" than, "You've been wrong before; you sure?"]

• Not you: "Yea, such is mine position."

• You: "And, due to the fetus' having equal moral standing to the mother, abortions thus are an unjust practice?"

• Not you: "Aye."

Be careful with these clarification proceedings, though. If by framing their arguments you happen to occlude the actual reasoning of their argument, due to them not knowing it themselves or otherwise, the entire rest of the argument could be a waste of time predicated upon a falsely framed position. Suggestions of possible solutions include:

• Asking whether they are sure the framed argument accurately expresses the reason for their position on the matter; not framing at all, but jumping right into the hypothetical probing and allowing for them to explore the issue enough to provide a confident statement of their position; going straight to the hypothetical probing, using their responses to form a mental estimation of their actual position, steel man-ing that mental estimation, and proceeding to argue upon the presumption your steel-man is accurate, updating as necessary.

From then on, you now have at your disposal vetted statements of their position that are intricate with their arguments. Subsequent arguments can then be phrased as hypotheticals: "What if EEG scans, which monitor brain waves, only showed the fetus as having developed brain activity akin to that of a grown person (the mother, say) at four months? Would that mean that at four months the fetus becomes developed enough to be considered equal to the mother?"

This way you can inquire after their exact position, why they hold that position, and without taking a side gather whether they're open to accepting another position whilst presenting viable alternatives in a reasoned and unobtrusive fashion. If you wish to defuse an argument, simply pointing out that party X holds to alternative II, and asking whether they can understand why party X holds to alternative II, should be enough to at least start smothering the fuse.

Note: The use of 'should' when expressing ideals implies a position of righteous power, and should (please decry me if I am unjustified in taking on this position of righteous power) never be used in an argument, regardless of whether it's self contained within a hypothetical. In my experience its use tends to only reinforce beliefs.