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]

Whew! This thread has taken a life of its own. headnoises, I agree with you, of course, but I wish you had started your post in a less aggressive way. "I denounce you..." - does that sound like a way to get someone else to agree? What is wrong with: "if we grant point one, and if we grant point two, surely you must see that the argument you make is sexist"? I am not the right person to pass this on, but you should remember that a person who is not stupid can make a stupid statement, that a person who is not cheap or vulgar can make a cheap statement or perform a vulgar act.

I am being a bit selfish, here, too. prylliepwns is my friend, and I do not want to risk losing her because, if she visits my LJ, she runs the risk of being mauled by people who disagree with her. I am and have long been perfectly well aware that she disagrees with me on this issue, and I still am fond of her. I hope one day she may change her mind, but please bear in mind that this is an issue where people bear very strong and very personal feelings. It may interest you that she is the mother of two or three, I am not sure which, young children. So, even if you want to argue on my side, please argue in such a way as not to insult your opponent. I repeat: I know that I am not the best person to deliver this omily; but then, I can as much bear witness to its truth as a drunkard to the ruinousness of alcohol.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do reply rather strongly-- mostly because it infurates me to see someone trying to block others from even having a view, just because they're the wrong sex. I'd react just as strongly if someone tried to argue that women could NOT have a view on abortion, because self-intrest made them unable to be objective.

I will hold back in the future on your blog, though.