Stay out of the private discussion between a woman and her physician. It does not concern you.

Originally Posted by simone

Stay out of the private discussion between a woman and her physician. It does not concern you.

That's not what he said. He asked for a "logical and/or persuasive argument for/against abortion". He was obviously talking in a general sense of the issue, not private individual medical issues. Nobody is trying to get in on such conversations.

Originally Posted by Joe@actsii

I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in & kind enough to give me the most logical and/or persuasive argument for/against abortion? Thank you all in advance for the information and help.

Joe, you should read through the threads. You'll find many such arguments made.

Jyoshu, I believe that was her agrument. Many people believe that abortion should not even be an issue because it does not concern you. It concerns the woman and her doctor. That is a valid agrument. We don't come to your doctor appointments.

Originally Posted by Joe@actsii

I was wondering if anyone here would be interested in & kind enough to give me the most logical and/or persuasive argument for/against abortion? Thank you all in advance for the information and help.

In a moral sense? In a legal sense? For what purpose would this be put?

I am thinking along the lines of logical, moral & philosophical arguments. I am trying to get a solid grasp and understanding on this issue. I like to look at things from more then one perspective. At this time, I am not really interested in the legal or philosophical arguments.

My morals, my choice. Not some else's morals imposed upon me. We are not yet a theocracy--although George Walker Bush and his devilish minions are hard at work to make America into a theocracy.

Originally Posted by Joe@actsii

I am thinking along the lines of logical, moral & philosophical arguments. I am trying to get a solid grasp and understanding on this issue. I like to look at things from more then one perspective. At this time, I am not really interested in the legal or philosophical arguments.

There are a couple of fairly well known moral arguments “in favor” of abortion (‘in favor’ is in quotes because the arguments are not necessarily that abortion is moral, but that it is not immoral).

The Violinist Argument is one:

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

Another is a very long argument that takes a different approach to the moral question by examining our obligation to the fetus. I posted only a small section below:

Until the 20th week, the cut-off date for an actual "abortion" to occur, there is no complex cerebral cortex and no major central nervous activity. That is a condition universally regarded as a state of death in adults. An adult human being in such a state cannot really be "killed," just unplugged. And such an act would not be disrespectful of their individual existence because that existence has already ceased, and only a body remains. Even if we were able to regenerate a brain-dead patient's cerebral cortex, using the genetic blueprint in her cells, we would still fail to resurrect her. We would instead merely create an identical twin inside a used body, with an infantile mind and no memories, no complex personality traits, and no intellectual skills. Although this fresh brain would be ready to learn and develop anew, it would be a different person. None of the unique features of the deceased would exist any more--the only mental features that would survive are the very same features that would be shared by any natural identical twins.

The fetus before quickening is in the very same state as this hypothetical regenerated person. And the analogy of identical twins is a crucial one. Twins share the exact same blueprint for brain and body, and there is nothing "individual" about a blueprint that can be shared by more than one individual person--their individuality does not derive from their blueprint, but from their unique personal development, which begins almost certainly before birth, but without any doubt upon birth, when there can be no mistake that novel sensory data has begun transforming the brain and educating it in unique ways. None of this individualization can occur before the existence of a complex cortex that can be individualized (pre-fifth-month)--certainly none before there is a central nerve organ of any kind (pre-third-month). Therefore, an individual human (as opposed to a vacant body) cannot exist when a medically-defined abortion occurs. This entails that abortion cannot counter our shared value for individual human existence.

In one argument, we have no moral obligation to the fetus because the morality does not apply when there is no unique human consciousness. In the other, even were we to have the same moral obligation to the fetus as we would to an adult, we would never have a moral obligation to allow anyone to live attached to us against our will.

I am sorry; my last post should say that I am not interested in legal or religious arguments.

Originally Posted by Aivlis

Jyoshu, I believe that was her agrument. Many people believe that abortion should not even be an issue because it does not concern you. It concerns the woman and her doctor. That is a valid agrument. We don't come to your doctor appointments.

That's like saying the only people who should be concerned about gun control issues are people who own guns. Or that only death row inmates should debate the death penalty.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

That's like saying the only people who should be concerned about gun control issues are people who own guns. Or that only death row inmates should debate the death penalty.

Wrong. Men and women can own guns and both sexes are subject to the death penalty. Men don't face pregnancy or abortion. Why they (men) should be involved in abortion at more than an emotional support level of the woman's decision makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by georged

Wrong. Men and women can own guns and both sexes are subject to the death penalty. Men don't face pregnancy or abortion. Why they (men) should be involved in abortion at more than an emotional support level of the woman's decision makes absolutely no sense.

no, it's very simple actually. The abortion issue is one that affects all of society, from health care economic issues, to cultural moral norms. Not to mention that, believe it or not, men helped make these babies. You want men to be more responsible after their girlfriends or wives getting pregnant, but when they do by trying to save the baby, you want the out of the picture. The abortion issue has an effect on all of society, so it would be irresponsible to tell large segments they can't have an opinion.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

no, it's very simple actually. The abortion issue is one that affects all of society, from health care economic issues, to cultural moral norms. Not to mention that, believe it or not, men helped make these babies. You want men to be more responsible after their girlfriends or wives getting pregnant, but when they do by trying to save the baby, you want the out of the picture. The abortion issue has an effect on all of society, so it would be irresponsible to tell large segments they can't have an opinion.

I think you're hung up on cultural morals developed when a woman was an established second class citizen. Why would a man want a woman to bring a conception to term when that's against the desire of the woman? The only economic issue I can determine is unwanted children and their mothers often forced into poverty and/or public welfare subsistence levels from male dominated legislation barring abortion. Where does abortion have an effect on all of society other than allowing abortion at will to weaken male dominance?

Originally Posted by georged

I think you're hung up on cultural morals developed when a woman was an established second class citizen.

No, I'm hung up on any cultural moral standard that doesn't even acknowledge the value of human life. I've said here, numerous times, that I believe the pro-life movement should do a lot more to support and help women. I'm even open to abortions early in the pregnancy. All you've needed to do is read the threads to see that.

Originally Posted by georged

Why would a man want a woman to bring a conception to term when that's against the desire of the woman?

For one, because it may be his child too. In cases where the man would keep complete custody for the rest of that child's life without the woman having to do anything, is it really right to rob the man of those 18 or so years with his son or daughter just to avoid 9 months of pregnancy? Not to mention robbing the soon to be baby of those years as well. I don't think that's very ethical at all.

Originally Posted by georged

The only economic issue I can determine is unwanted children and their mothers often forced into poverty and/or public welfare subsistence levels from male dominated legislation barring abortion. Where does abortion have an effect on all of society other than allowing abortion at will to weaken male dominance?

Ethical issues aside, the abortion industry is at least a half-billion dollar industry every year, and that's just talking about revenues from abortion procedures (doesn't cover other services like counselling, post-procedure checkups, pain medications, etc.). Abortion groups are funded in part yearly by govt. grants--yours and my tax dollars. Planned Parenthood alone took in $265 million in govt. grant money in 2004. That may not matter to you, but it does to me. Then there's the reality that killing hundreds of thousands of unborn fetuses every year robs the workforce considerably over time. It's been estimated that there has been around 40 million abortions performed since 1973. Considering that's well over 10% of the current U.S. population, I'd say the effects on workforce economy over time are pretty staggering. When you adjust for the fact that there would be 16 year period until those children would have been old enough to be employed, and that some of those children would grow up unemployed, it's still a huge amount lost from the workforce economy--and the age issue would cease to matter over time because eventually they all would have reached legal employment age.

By the way, phrases you use like "male dominance" are very telling. Apparently you see this as a male versus female issue--it's not. There are many women who are pro-life, and very passionate about it too. My wife is one such example.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

For one, because it may be his child too. In cases where the man would keep complete custody for the rest of that child's life without the woman having to do anything, is it really right to rob the man of those 18 or so years with his son or daughter just to avoid 9 months of pregnancy? Not to mention robbing the soon to be baby of those years as well. I don't think that's very ethical at all.

That's it - I am gonna park myself down at Planned Parenthood and watch for all these weeping fathers.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

Apparently you see this as a male versus female issue--it's not. There are many women who are pro-life, and very passionate about it too. My wife is one such example.

It's not a men vs women issue, but it is unquestionably a woman's issue more than it is a man's. Biology dictates that.

Georged does raise an interesting point. Would a man who loves you really want to force you through a pregnancy you did not wish to or were unable to support? Sounds like one mean SOB.