Nik said :
In general, I tend to agree with your argument. However, you don’t address the fact that the majority of abortion candidates are uneducated and poor,… one would be endorsing increasing the violent crime rate, the illiteracy rate, and the poverty rate in the US. Is that an acceptable trade-off?

Your question (counter-argument, really) implies 1) that humans are only functionally valuable, not immeasurably valuable; and 2) people can’t change when they face adverse conditions.

That’s a very depressing perspective. Simple question: do you love people for who they are, or for what they do for you? Would you tell someone you “loved” they were only functional to you?

Further, your justification (via Ayn Rand) based on human exceptionalism only works if you are exceptional. Do you realize you live entirely at the mercy of others upholding their responsibility not to kill you? Seriously. Laws on paper are only good to the point where people believe there is a morality behind them. And last time I checked murder continues. Shall we talk about that likelihood?

You contend my argument is based on emotion, while yours isn’t. However, at the very core of your argument is a pure hypocrisy:

you condone violence to avert violence;
deadly force is merciful and morally justifiable against innocent human beings;
killing our own children is an act of responsibility to others;
and, ultimately the violence of abortion is an appeal to force to remove the assertion (truth) of the child.

Sorry, that’s not rational, it’s insane. So your logic is invalid and your charge false. Nik – your comment looks fearful, very typical of pro-choice “population-control” arguments – “get them before they get us.”

Nik said :The way to minimize the number of abortions performed is to minimize the number of unintended pregnancies. Where does your group stand on contraception, birth control and sex education?

Group, what group? My family and I believe in the sanctity of marriage, the blessing of chilldren, that sex is a family matter, not a public one and that sex education should be frank discussions between parents and their children, not for the public to impose upon our family.

The way to minimize the number of abortions performed is to minimize the number of unintended pregnancies. Where does your group stand on contraception, birth control and sex education?

Some time has passed since I’ve focused on the arguments presented by George and Tollefsen in Embryo, although my understanding is that they too reject Cartesian dualism, but present it as an often posited position others use to justify abortion.

When it comes to metaphysical arguments (and the meanderings that might entail), I offer the Gordian Knot-like shred-test. It’s all a wonderful mind exercise until one has to put their actual physical body on the line. Why should the unborn be subjected to such a shredding? If one’s body is truly immaterial to their person, what better proof than explaining how you’re still a person after your body is shredded?

Reality has a way of getting to the real truth.

Specifically, when it comes to abortion, the issue is about the physical bodies of the unborn and what is done to them.

By the way, somewhat unrelated, I’m currently reading “Embryo” by George and Tollefsen and I think I see where our disagreement came in on my blog. The dualism they describe is generally considered Cartesian dualism, which is a dualism I disagree with. You might want to look into Thomistic dualism, which places an emphasis on how the soul is tied to the body (i.e. the body isn’t impersonal; it is an intrinsic part of who we are).

J.P. Moreland’s recent book, “The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism” as, from what I understand, he goes into detail on it (I wouldn’t know as I have yet to receive my copy).