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

[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.