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

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

As fpb says, I'm not a Christian. I plead almost total ignorance to the Bible. However, from what I have heard/read about it, it seems to contradict itself a lot.

In any case, I don't see how a book written 2000 years or so ago could have relevance to today's life. The Bible has no concept of modern technology or modern values.

I have difficulty seeing a day when, say, a six week old fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. I could be proven wrong, but

I'm not saying that abortions should happen because the unborn aren't fully functioning members of society. I'm saying that they should happen when the unborn are not capable of surviving outside the woman's body, even with the aid of modern science.

I have difficulty seeing a day when, say, a six week old fetus can survive outside the mother's womb. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt the line would ever be pushed back to that stage unless we manage to create fully functioning artificial wombs.

I don't have an objective standard to appeal to. I agree, laws can be changed. I just have my beliefs and my own standards which, yes, do constantly change when I get new information, but I try my best to operate within my own ethical boundaries. I personally believe this is better than just accepting an outside source as an 'objective standard'.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

"Modern technology" does not imply "modern values". "Values" do not change. You have, for instance, the very same values as an ancient Roman with the power to decide if a child of his lived or died. (Abortion, incidentally, is so modern a technology that the ancient Egyptians and Chinese knew all about it. So, probably, did prehistoric men.) The notion that morality changes to suit the times is the dreariest and most oft-exploded nonsense in the whole panoply of immoralism. Read Plato's Menexenus, and tell me whether there is a single moral issue it deals with that is outdated or irrelevant today. (This does not mean that you have to share his conclusions, which are in my view pretty perverse; but the questions it poses are relevant to anyone with a family, today or ever.) Even better, seeing your background, read Confucius. And reflect on the parable of his thought and influence in modern China. When the Communists needed a justification for their enormous bloodshed and political immorality, they pretended that the course of history had put Confucian morality out of date; when their power was sufficiently consolidated (and the mad emperor - you know who I mean - was safely dead), they suddenly discovered that his teachings had some current value after all. Does this not show that the notion of morality becoming outdated is nothing more than an excuse for contemporaries to do things that are convenient but immoral?