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

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

In general, I agree, and that is also what I usually do -- which is why, in all the comments I have posted here so far on this subject (thank you for allowing them), this is the first time I have said anything about being a Christian, and even here I did not advance any specifically Christian arguments regarding the abortion issue.

My point here was something different. I was pointing out the difficulty of reaching full agreement on the subject without some kind of common starting point in the form of an objective standard that we can all agree on, or at least some kind of hierarchy of values that we all subscribe to. Without one, even the genocide practiced by Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many others can be defended logically by those who accept the values and standards they did.

In that context, it seemed appropriate to declare what my own ultimate standard is. Perhaps I stated it somewhat belligerently. If so, I apologise.