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]

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.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It does not to me, though I rarely had the opportunity to put it to the test. As I said once or twice, I am repulsive to women. So of course it's easier for me to say than for Mick Jagger. But if I ever do get involved with anyone, it is with the principle that if it happens, it happens, and I take my responsibility.