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

[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?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You seem to be denying my right to live at all, since you tell me that my existence is optional. As you may imagine, this is not a point I welcome. As for "your" notion of the enlightened society, it is the one you are promoting - where individuals are optional. I find it repulsive.

you're the product of a failed abortion then?

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

'You seem to be denying my right to live at all'
umm no.
'since you tell me that my existence is optional.'
no, i didn't and i certainly wouldn't.
'As you may imagine,'
i suppose i might... if it were the point i was making
'this is not a point I welcome.'
i would agree, but honestly, it's not a point i'm making.
'As for "your" notion of the enlightened society, it is the one you are promoting'
no, i'm questioning your stance that abortion is wrong for all, when there could be circumstances under which it might be appropriate for some.
'where individuals are optional.'
at what point does an individual become an individual?
'I find it repulsive.'
i don't suppose anyone would like the idea of abortion, perhaps they are an occasional and unpleasant necessity?

Re: you're the product of a failed abortion then?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

So are rape, GBH, forced marriage, burglary, manslaughter, robbery, fraud, embezzlement, murder... not one of them that has not been justified as an unpleasant necessity.

muddying the water?

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

all of these are acts against the person and so illegal in almost every civilised society, i should think. i'm not sure but i believe forced marriage is a crime against the state: false declaration of a legal oath? i wonder under what circumstances you consider them justifiable? abortion is not a crime against a person - the current cut off date is 24 weeks except in exceptional circumstances.

Re: you're the product of a failed abortion then?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

NO I'm not. But I would certainly have been aborted, had it been legal when I was conceived. I do not wish to say anything more.

Re: you're the product of a failed abortion then?

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

You, Michael Reagan, a lot of other folks....

I've got a friend who WAS the product of rape. Her mother figured that murdering a child of her blood would not hurt the rapist, and this gal is now an AZ2 in the US Navy, with a loving adopted father and five half-siblings. Her mother has recovered very well from the rape, and is a very neat woman.

For that matter, there are a couple of folks touring right now who are failed abortions-- one very pretty lady has nerve damage because of the injection that was supposed to kill her.

Yeah, sigh me up to support murder and torture of small, innocent humans-- like we need more of that.

Re: you're the product of a failed abortion then?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Your friend is the living instance of the answer I worked out a while back to the classic abortionist argument - the abused mentally ill twelve-year-old. My answer is: the past does not cease to exist. If you destroy the child, all you will take back from a rape or an act of abuse or incest is going to be the horror, and that horror will work through your life, bringing both pain and hardening, and very likely messing up your relationships - is it not the case that many people who have been abused as children tend to repeat their abusive patterns in their adult relationships? It is certainly something I have seen. On the other hand, if you keep the child, the first thing it will do when it is born is show you that it is not a "monster" (one expression I have heard is "she felt this monster growing in her womb") but a little helpless creature who loves you. You will have drawn something positive out of a horrible experience, and this may even help straighten out your relationship with other people.

[wudjuwait.livejournal.com]

'I do not wish to say anything more.'
well that is entirely up to you, i suppose, but perhaps it's worth considering that you appear to want to avoid that women/families might face mental (and economic) difficulties or dangerous pregnancies on the basis of angst about your own childhood and further justifications, regardless of the fitness of the unborn child/parents. one also wonders if children born into such parental relations might turn out to be dysfunctional adults, seems fairly likely doesn't it?

[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.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Hello, Ayla.

But while the law allows abortion, you certainly don't have the right to stop anybody from getting one.
That's a red herring. I never said anything about stopping anyone doing anything. (I would certainly argue against their doing so, but not try to stop them by force. Although if I were in a relationship with that person, that would definitely be the end of it.) And in a discussion with ani_bester, I mentioned the guy who murdered abortionists as an instance of a home-grown American terrorist who had to be fought.

And people will have views. Even when I regard those views as wrong or even as stupid, I will not step outside the law to force them. At worst, I will bend your ear, or, in cases as nasty as that of wudjuwait, tell you that you are not worth the trouble. As long as you understand that I will do everything legal and just to stop abortion, we understand each other.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Hi! :)

Although if I were in a relationship with that person, that would definitely be the end of it.

Same for me. Except, obviously the other way around. If I were pregnant and my partner wanted me to keep the child during a time where I obviously wouldn't be suited to caring for the child, then it would be a relationship-breaker. It's funny how many couples don't talk about this until they reach this stage. Most people I know feel very strongly about abortion, one way or the other.

As long as you understand that I will do everything legal and just to stop abortion, we understand each other.

Yes. As long as you understand I would do anything and everything legal to ensure all women have the right to abortion regardless of race, religion, or any other issues.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

regardless of race, religion, or any other issues
Why do you keep bringing in red herrings? Who the Hell ever mentioned race or any other group membership whatsoever? Is it not obvious that my whole argument is based on the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence? Why this passion for wholly irrelevant additions? There is something here that I do not like, as if you are trying to insinuate that I somehow promote ideas that I, in fact, directly oppose. Please lay off the red herrings.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, what would be your view if the woman wanted to keep the baby, but her partner wanted an abortion? Obviously the woman would probably end up keeping the child, but would the guy be obliged to pay child support?

I realise that many cases on child support are based on this very scenario, but there's always something a bit unfair about it. I just think it's a bit unfortunate for the guy if a) the woman cannot afford to look after said kid, and b) the woman chose to have the baby.

Sorry. It's a bit of a vague point. I just feel a general sense of unease when thinking of the fact guys have to pay child support for something that may have arisen out of a one night stand wherein the woman made the conscious decision to KEEP the child. I can't think of a better system, but yeah.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My view would be that the man is a creep and deserves punishment - in particular, by totally forbidding access to the baby. And yes, he would have to pay support. If he did not want a baby, he should have kept his sexual organs to himself. End of story.

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

"If he did not want a baby, he should have kept his sexual organs to himself. End of story."

Sadly, that notion of personal responsibility sounds almost like crazy talk(to men and women alike) in our culture.

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

"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."

I recently saw the movie Amazing Grace, about the life and career of William Wilberforce, and his work to abolish slavery in the U.K.

Arguments in favour of continuing slavery could have been (and sometimes were) almost identical to yours: "You have the right to try to change the law; but while the law allows slavery, you don't have the right to stop anyone from owning one."

Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln (in the U.S.) and others worked within the law, to end slavery by legislation, but their efforts were augmented and given impetus by the parallel efforts of many people who tried, by both legal means and by methods that were technically illegal, to free slaves and to help escaped slaves to find a way to freedom -- in effect, to stop people from owning slaves. Without the "Underground Railroad", which helped escaped slaves reach safety in Canada, but violated the "Fugitive Slave Act", the U.S. might still have had slavery well into the 20th century!

I am against the use of violence to try to stop abortions. Killing doctors who perform abortions seems inconsistent to me. And I would generally prefer to see people stay within the law. But I would certainly support the use of every means available within the law to stop people from taking the lives of other humans that are dependent on them, whether infants already born, or those not yet born.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

"You have the right to try to change the law; but while the law allows slavery, you don't have the right to stop anyone from owning one."

Well as much as I am against slavery, I would agree with that argument.

In any case, I don't believe slavery and abortion are even on the same scale. One subjugates a fully formed human being. The other gets rid of a bunch of cells.

In any case, I'll be very glad if abortion is still around in 200 years time.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

You ARE a bunch of cells. All living creatures are a "bunch of cells." (barring single-cell organisms, such as a virus, which are still in dispute)

The only difference between you and a child which can be aborted, biologically, is location.

A human inside the womb can be killed.

A child outside of the womb, (thanks to the born-alive infant protection act) cannot be killed.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

If the fetus can't live outside the womb; it isn't alive. If it can be kept alive on an artificial respirator, then it's a baby. If it can't, it isn't.

Different standards, different conclusions

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

"I don't believe slavery and abortion are even on the same scale. One subjugates a fully formed human being. The other gets rid of a bunch of cells."

Let's look at that statement from a couple of different points of view.

"I don't believe slavery and abortion are even on the same scale."

There's also another way in which they are not "on the same scale." Abortion kills; slavery only "subjugates". While there are some people who would rather be dead than be enslaved, most people prefer to stay alive. As the maxim says, "Where there's life, there's hope."

"One subjugates a fully formed human being. The other gets rid of a bunch of cells."

First, few abortions are carried out when the child that has been conceived is still only a "blob" of undifferentiated cells. By the time most abortions are carried out, the baby is already recognisable as such -- a tiny but already "formed" human baby. "Viability" used to be the test -- could the infant survive outside of the mother's womb? But, on the one hand, medical science is constantly pushing back the date at which such survival is possible; on the other hand there is the particular abomination of the so-called "partial birth abortions."

Second, similar arguments could be advanced for all kinds of "inferior" groups. Not just the unborn, but newborns, and, indeed, all children, are not yet fully functioning and contributing members of society. Neither are the mentally handicapped. Can I take it that you also support infanticide and the culling of mental deficients? (See also my earlier comments on "Drawing the line.")

It is possibly to logically defend almost any position by appealing to differing standards and differing premises. Just because a certain view happens to be popular or unpopular at a given time doesn't make it right or wrong. It helps to have an objective standard. You have appealed to the law. But, as you pointed out yourself, laws can be changed. Most, if not all, of what the Nazis did to the Jews was legal by the laws they had enacted.

As a Christian, I am happy that an objective standard for right and wrong exists that does not change. It is commonly known as "The Holy Bible."

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Ah, but Ayla (curia_regis) is not a Christian, and nor, to be fair, is the majority of the human race. If we want to win the argument about abortion, we have to argue as if the Bible weren't there. That is what I usually do.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

As fpb says, I'm not a Christian. I plead almost total ignorance to the Bible. However, from what I have heard/read about it, it seems to contradict itself a lot.

In any case, I don't see how a book written 2000 years or so ago could have relevance to today's life. The Bible has no concept of modern technology or modern values.

I have difficulty seeing a day when, say, a six week old fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. I could be proven wrong, but

I'm not saying that abortions should happen because the unborn aren't fully functioning members of society. I'm saying that they should happen when the unborn are not capable of surviving outside the woman's body, even with the aid of modern science.

I have difficulty seeing a day when, say, a six week old fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt the line would ever be pushed back to that stage unless we manage to create fully functioning artificial wombs.

I don't have an objective standard to appeal to. I agree, laws can be changed. I just have my beliefs and my own standards which, yes, do constantly change when I get new information, but I try my best to operate within my own ethical boundaries. I personally believe this is better than just accepting an outside source as an 'objective standard'.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[thysanotus.livejournal.com]

The Bible also suggests that it is perfectly legitimate to sell your daughter. It proscribes the eating of shellfish, the wearing of mixed cloth, and declares women on their menses to be unclean.