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]

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.