After a friend printed a misguided defence of abortion (from her comments thread)

[fpb]

Rephrase your premise as follows:
I don't agree with abortions... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with rape... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with burglary... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with assault... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with embezzlement... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with fraud... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.
I don't agree with forced marriage... but if they're going to happen (which they will), they need to be safe and legal.

etc., etc., etc.....

Excuse me, if something is wrong, why the Hell should it be safe and legal, only because "it's going to happen"? Crime is always "going to happen". That is the point of having laws. We do not have laws against something which, though wrong, is never going to happen (e.g. there is no law against stealing someone's soul). The point of having a law against it is to state that it is a disapproved and forbidden activity, and that, if you are caught (which, alas, will not always be the case), you will be punished. This trash about "it's going to happen anyway" is simply something that abortionists repeat ad nauseam, on the principle that if we hear a statement often enough we're going to take it for granted.

Comments

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

Haha, I just saw after replying to my thread that you posted in your journal. :) Here's my response copied to your thread:

I know where you're coming from. I suppose what I should clarify that the difference between the other examples you provided is that (safe) abortions are a surgical procedure performed by a person with medical training and the intention is to perform the "surgery". It pertains to the body and the choice of the the individual performing the operation being willingly performed upon the woman asking for the procedure.

It's not an easy thing to covey over the digital medium... but see, a woman and her doctor will continue to look at an abortion as an action that doesn't violate the life the fetus. There's gray area there, versus the examples provided (rape, burglary, assault, embezzlement, fraud, and forced marriage), which are explicit actions against a seriously defined individual in the eyes of a person to whom a fetus is not a living being.

Maybe that clarifies my statement a little better?

[cerebresque.livejournal.com]

Well, that rather is the core of the problem. It's a category error.

To someone who classes abortion as surgery, albeit distasteful surgery, affecting only one individual, the argument makes sense.

To someone who classes abortion as murder, on the other hand, it's not even relevant.

(Which makes it a fairly pointless argument to make, really, since the only people who will agree with it are the people who already agree with the premise that they're not actually doing anything of moral weight, if you see what I mean.)

[cheyinka]

"I want this distasteful surgery to become so unnecessary that it is exceptionally rare, and I want it to be done safely, legally, and well when it is necessary" sounds a lot better than "Yeah, it's a person, but my rights come first," which I have encountered, in so many words. I'm not sure it is better, though; those making the latter argument will almost certainly be unwilling to listen to someone who thinks abortion is at best manslaughter ("we didn't know it was a human life we were ending, but that ignorance was not excusable"), but at least they're arguing on the same grounds (whether or not the unborn human has the same rights as its mother, or any rights), while the "safe/legal/rare" proponents see it as "you mean you don't want it to be safe?" and that argument doesn't intersect with its opposing argument at all.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The doctor who performs that operation is the same person who will let a Terri Schiavo die of hunger and thirst. Or, if the law allows it, kill her altogether. Both operations come under the heading of medicine, as indeed do the experiments performed on helpless victims by various tyrannies including but not restricted to the Nazis. Medicine justifies nothing; it has to be justified itself.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

The whole "It should be safe and legal because it's going to happen anyway" is the way people who have given up can try to appear as if they haven't.

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

Very true...

Drawing the line

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

When you decide that one human life has less value than another, or that one person has the right to decide whether another can live or die, where does it end?

Hitler considered that the German (or "Aryan") race was superior to the Jewish race, and that allowing the Jews to live was a threat to the racial purity of the superior Aryan race. So his solution to the "Jewish problem" was to attempt to exterminate the Jews.

Unfortunately, he wasn't the only one with such ideas. British settlers in Tasmania massacred the indigenous Tasmanian people, because they considered them less than human, and definitely less important than the "civilised" whites. Similar things happened over and over again across the Americas and in parts of Africa. The local inhabitants were deemed "savages" and somehow less worthy of life than the white settlers.

Steven J. Gould (quoted in Bones of Contention, by Marvin L. Lubenow) told a story of Dutch settlers in South Africa in the 1800s, who shot and ate an African Bushman, believing that the Bushman represented such a low race of beings that he was no different from one of the great apes or some other animal.

Someday our descendants may be as horrified by what is happening today as we are (or profess to be) when faced with these cases from the past. Will the world ever learn?

Re: Drawing the line

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

When you decide that one human life has less value than another, or that one person has the right to decide whether another can live or die, where does it end?

EXACTLY my logic.

I am alright with the death penalty-- if people are stupid and get themselves killed, there's not a lot I can do about it.

But killing those who have done no wrong? How evil can you get?

Re: Drawing the line

[thysanotus.livejournal.com]

So you're a pacifist then? How do you feel about the current war in Iraq?

What about your diet? If you have such regard for life, are you a vegan? Better yet, since even innocent plant life must die for you to live, are you a breatharian?

Re: Drawing the line

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Troll alert. Warning: do not feed the troll.

Re: Drawing the line

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

I did specify HUMAN life. I think that covers all the questions in your second paragraph.

As for the questions in your first paragraph about war and the current war in Iraq -- I can't see their relevance to this discussion. If you want an answer, for the record, so to speak, check in on my blog now and then. I may write on it someday there.

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

'if something is wrong'

nice to see you adding an 'if'! when speaking of abortion, what may be wrong in your eyes may not necessarily be wrong for another. it's not your life, your body, and the consequences of an unwanted child are not yours, are they? is it not possible that a different view may be valid?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As an "unwanted" baby who would probably have been aborted in your kind of enlightened society, I think can speak about it.

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

for yourself as such a child, but can you speak for another, a woman/mother/parent, which is what you appear to be doing? i think not.

'your kind of enlightened society'
i'm not sure what you mean?

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I don't think the fact whether somebody might or might not have been an unwanted baby has anything to do with whether they have valid views. I mean, my parents didn't want me either, but I'm pro-choice. I think you have the right to speak about your views. As do everybody else with differing opinions. You have the right to go and try to change the law. But while the law allows abortion, you certainly don't have the right to stop anybody from getting one.

And just randomly, if you want an example of somebody who just scraped through, take my cousin. My aunt had an appointment with a doctor to get him aborted, except the doctor was sick on the day. The same thing happened the next time around so she figured that obviously the abortion wasn't going to happen and decided to have him.

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

I've also heard the argument "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." You could also say "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave." In both cases, the person would say "they're not the same thing" but that was the problem, they should have added more to their argument saying why abortion is different from slavery, rape, etc.

[prylliepwns.livejournal.com]

I applaud your right to your opinion, you know that. I even say that we can agree to disagree at times, and still respect your opinion.

But the topic of abortion is one that I cannot hold my tongue on. You are a male. And while males may have contributed half the bioligical components neccessary to conceive a child, they have not ever, nor will they ever be the body responsible for carrying said child. I have a strong opinion that if you do not have a uterus, you are not allowed to make decisions about what can and cannot be done with one.

I do not advocate late term abortions, nor do I believe that they should be performed after 16 weeks, unless in the case of the mother's life being in jeopardy if she continues to be pregnant, and the baby cannot survive outside of the womb. I personally have no idea what I would decide to do in that instance, but I know for a fact that I have no right deciding for anyone else what they should do. And neither do you.

You will never know what it's like to be pregnant, to have your life flash before your eyes and wonder if you're headed down a road of ruining an innocent child's life by bringing it into the world with you as a parent. You will never know what it's like to be raped and become pregnant from the encounter, nor will you ever know what it's like to be taken advantage of by a family member and have your child be the product of incest. I don't know what the latter two of these scenarios is like either, but I have had experience with the first one.

At the age of 18, I entered reluctantly and quite naively into a sexual relationship with someone I barely knew, and became pregnant. After several weeks of agonizing excruciatingly over what I should do, I chose to terminate my pregnancy. If this knowledge causes you to lose respect for me, or loathe my existence, or defriend me, so be it. But while I wish I had never had to make that decision in the first place, I don't regret having made it. It was the right choice for me in that time of my life. I would never in a million years deprive any other woman from the right to make the same decision I made.

And I must respectfully say that while I agree with your statement that "the point of having a law against it is to state that it is a disapproved and forbidden activity, and that, if you are caught (which, alas, will not always be the case), you will be punished", I do not believe that any laws that are passed making the performing or recieving of abortions illegal are for the betterment of society and/or the individual. The decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy is a lengthy and difficult one that should be made with privacy to the woman, and not surrounded by controversy and degradation.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

I have a strong opinion that if you do not have a uterus, you are not allowed to make decisions about what can and cannot be done with one.

As the daughter of a father, I denounce you as a sexist.

As the sister of a woman who lost a child, and whose husband was horribly hurt by that loss, I denounce you as sexist.

I say we DO have the right to say what people should do, when there is another's life on the line-- just as I am not allowed to kill those who inconvenience me outside of the womb, it should not be allowed to kill humans before birth.

There is a horrible, ugly irony to outlawing suicide, but allowing the killing of small humans at will.

Rape is a very rare factor in pregnancy. For that matter, if the idea of failing as a parent makes you want to kill the child, give the child away-- there are enough folks looking for a baby that the BFN newspaper in my folks' home town has an entire section for it.

As for the statement of incest-- how is death preferable to being inbred?

How is ANY source of birth worse than not being alive?

Many women have listened to folks who they SHOULD have been able to trust, and taken the "easy" way out. Easy in the short term-- in the long term, it tears folks apart. There are a ton of studies on suicides among those who had abortions, and other mental problems, so I won't butcher the information here.

I found it rather telling that the Roe of Roe v Wade is now a pro-life activist.

All of the pro-life groups I know have areas dedicated to helping folks who were scared and made a bad choice. Do a search for "post abortion counseling" and see if there's someone who you can talk to--if you have a desire.
Most of them are Christian. That means that they will tell you that you did do wrong, but you can be forgiven. There is NOTHING in existence that cannot be forgiven, if you truly repent.

For what it is worth? My first relationship, alone and lonely and far from home, was with a guy who used me for my body. Luckily, I bored him before I became pregnant or had other complications. Two other men followed, who also used me for their desires, because I was lonely and vulnerable---although I managed to avoid letting them use me as fully.
I *did* have frights.
I *did* consider what I would do, if I was with child.
I ended up where I started--my mom was a teacher with a major in animal husbandry; I understood reproduction (at least as far as a fetus and birth are involved) before I connected it to "where babies come from." I could NOT make myself believe-- in the way a lot of folks who don't have my background are able-- that a fetus isn't human, or isn't "really" alive.
Thus, I had to face the fact that I was considering the MURDER of my own child. The medical slaughter of the blood of my blood. It was amazingly effective.

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

"I have a strong opinion that if you do not have a uterus, you are not allowed to make decisions about what can and cannot be done with one."

I don't have the statistics handy. I wish I did, because I realise that what I have to say will be weaker without them, but I'm afraid if I wait until I have time to search for them I will have lost the opportune moment in this debate.

Although I often hear the argument you (prylliepwns) put forward, I have also read -- not just once, but numerous times -- that statistically by far the majority of "Pro-Life" people are women, while, conversely, the greatest numbers of supporters of the pro-abortion position (I will not dignify it by calling it "pro-choice") are men. Getting rid of the unborn child makes it easier for the father to avoid taking responsibility what has happened. Many women who have abortions do so because of the pressure from the boyfriend or husband who finds the idea of his wife or girlfriend having his child even more inconvenient to his prospects than the pregnancy is to hers.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

Post soon so we know you're OK.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Surely it hasn't been that long?

[wade-scott.livejournal.com]

Hey--I have a fantastic idea! Why don't you "choose" a condom or birth control or hey, here's an idea, ABSTINENCE before you have to "choose" an abortion?

(Not that I'm a fan of "abstinence based sex education." I'm more of a fan of "consequence based sex education." That way people can't claim ignorance of scientific facts like pregnancy and gonorrhea!)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

There I cannot follow you. The problem with taking any rational approach to sex is that sex is not a rational thing. It draws people to itself. It is addictive. To tell people that they can take or leave sex - under whatever condition - will insure that they will take it. And people under the control of desire are not rational. Even if they know every last morbid detail of what syphylis or chlamydia do to you, they simply will not think that it would happen to them, or else they will say, as C.S.Lewis points out, "Just let me have this and I do not care about the consequences". There are people who even consciously spread venereal disease by having unprotected sex while they know they are ill. To a person in the grip of desire, the rational faculty is nothing more than a tool: to be used when the will requires it, and silenced and hidden away when it would risk contradicting the will. The lust, the corrupted will, rules supreme, and only hears what it wants to.

[guarani]

Sounds like the argument PY legislators love the most: "they do it in developed countries." The surprising side, however, is that most people tend to say "amen" to that.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That is pretty much the way it made it through in Italy. Perceived provinciality and perceived cultural inferiority are very potent drives towards fads and immorality.