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

[thysanotus.livejournal.com]

The Bible also suggests that it is perfectly legitimate to sell your daughter. It proscribes the eating of shellfish, the wearing of mixed cloth, and declares women on their menses to be unclean.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Your sorry, cheap, uncomprehending, yet clearly well-rehearsed little list of "funny" arguments against what you conceive to be the Bible shows that you are a True Believer with little individual ability to reason on this matter and no interest in anything remotely resembling a debate. You have come here, not to make a point, let alone to listen to anyone who disagrees with you, but to troll. And that being the case, I refuse to answer anything you set out. Keep talking to yourself.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[thysanotus.livejournal.com]

Not only have I read the Bible at length, but I have studied it in depth at several tertiary institutions. I take offence to your assumption that I am unable to reason with my own opinions and logic on this matter.

I was merely pointing out some of the other things that the Bible says, without even bringing up the fact that nowhere does it mention anything about abortion. And let's not have the Commandment argument - Thou shalt not kill was actually Thou shalt not murder, and if a pregnant women was murdered, the only compensation that was due was that for the woman, not for the unborn child.

I am willing to listen to and respond to rational arguments. The fact that I've seen none here has been what's led to my almost complete silence.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Trolls should not be fed, but I cannot resist the arrogance, vanity and ignorance in this response. The notion that this person's previous post invited anything more than scorn shows a lack of self-awareness that is terrible to behold. And the notion that she is, of all the people who posted here, for and against, the only one who has so far proposed a "rational argument" - the rational argument being, if you please, some pathetic anecdote about Jewish law, as if Jesus Christ and Sts.Peter and Paul had never happened - adds to that a distinct tone of comedy. Go away, troll.

Re: Different standards, different conclusions

[culturalnomad.livejournal.com]

I agree with fpb that it's probably a waste of time to give a serious answer to this, but I will attempt a brief one anyway.

". . . legitimate to sell your daughter." I don't remember that one. The others, I agree, are in the Bible. However . . .

First, you shouldn't be too quick to knock them. A lot of the Old Testament laws seem really quaint to those of us living today, but scholars have suggested logical reasons for many of them (e.g. many of the dietary rules and most of the sanitary laws), while some served as "object lessons" of deeper truths.

Second, some of the laws reflected the culture and customs of the time and place where they were written -- but were more "advanced" or "enlightened" than those of surrounding peoples. For example, slavery was so much a part of the prevailing culture that it probably would have been impossible to abolish entirely. But the Law required that slaves could not be mistreated, and that every seventh year was a "Sabbatical" year in which all slaves were to be freed. O.T. laws required that adequate provision be made for widows, orphans, strangers and all the poor -- almost a "welfare state", in fact!

Third, and most important, the Christian Bible has two main sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The New Testament teaches that it supersedes the Old, and that "The Law" (the Torah, the Pentateuch) was annulled by Jesus Christ. Not only are people not required to obey the O.T. laws any more, but those who seek "salvation" (or who claim any kind of superiority) from keeping the O.T. Law are condemned.