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]

Does that mean that a human in outer space, or in Antarctica, or in any other place where a human being cannot normally live, can be legitimately killed? It strikes me that you never stop to consider the consequences of what you say.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Actually that wasn't my point at all.

If it can be kept alive on an artificial respirator, then it's a baby.

I didn't say that the baby had to be able to breathe on its own and surivive wholly by itself. That would be silly. But I'm saying that for a large part of the pregnancy, the fetus cannot be kept alive outside the woman's body.

Humans in Antarctica or outer space or wherever can be kept alive using modern technology.

If you want to dispute that something is a baby when it can't be kept alive in the outside world by any technology, then go right ahead. But I most certainly did not imply that people can be killed if they can't naturally survive somewhere.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Humans in Antarctica or outer space or wherever can be kept alive using modern technology.

Which is much more elaborate, difficult and expensive than that required to keep a baby alive. So?

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I was just saying that I certainly don't believe in killing people because they can't survive in a physical environment.

My point was also that while you can keep a 24 week old fetus alive, it's impossible (with current technology) to keep a 6 week old fetus alive outside the womb. It has nothing to do with how expensive it is. It's just completely impossible right now.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It will be possible in time. And the way things are going, you, my friend, will live to see it. Then what? Because if we were to follow your premises, that would be the end of the right to abortion. And what would happen then to your deep-seated sense that abortion is your right? You have to understand that the only way to argue about moral issues is as though they were eternal.