Can we put the genie back in the bottle?

Had a fun weekend in Philly with the family. BTW I too am arguing somewhat from personal experience here. Without getting into details I am similar to your husband in some ways.

1) Nothing works perfectly ever. Arguments against having any particular rule/law because some people will break the particular rule are fundamentally flawed because they are really arguments against having ANY rules at all, rather than against the PARTICULAR rule being debated. They only appear when the arguer dislikes the rule, never when (s)he likes it. Thus "people will always get guns/abortions" is a frequent argument, but "people will always commit murder and rape" is equally true but almost never argued.

2) I said "women need to keep their legs closed" not to let men off the hook, but because I believe history and experience show us that women are the keepers of civilization, manners, and sexual morality, while men (whatever they OUGHT to do) ACTUALLY do whatever women let them get away with. [This can also be proven without reference to history by looking at how homosexual men and women behave. Homosexual men behave exactly like heterosexual men with all the female imposed brakes removed. SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX. Life as a porn movie. On the other hand lesbians tend to couple up and be in relationships. And talk about relationships. And write songs about relationships. How many lesbians does it take to change a lightbulb? Four. Two to do it together as life partners and two to write a song about it.] Any way the "sexual revolution" happened because more women started saying yes, not because more men started asking. Thus women are the key to the issue, however unfair that might make life....

3) I too am pro gun, but I think the gun/abortion analogy is poor. The real argument against gun bans is NOT that they don't work. They mostly do. The real argument is actually that they do not work against violent criminals because guns become so much more effective and valuable for criminal activity when crooks are almost certain their prey is unarmed. Thus laws against guns do not minimize evil but in fact end up increasing it because those hurt by the laws are disproportionately honest citizens, while criminal predators benefit. Pro lifers argue that abortion is murder so, like laws against murder, laws against abortion are always good even if imperfectly enforced, because they minimize evil. Likewise, laws against abortion do not disproportionately hurt babies. Instead they hurt the perpetrators (selfish mothers and abortionists) more than the babies. This is true even if every botched abortion results in a dead baby because there will still be fewer dead babies than if abortion were legal, whereas with gun control you end up with more crime victims instead of less.

4) If abortion is murder (and it certainly mostly is. You might argue about the 1st few weeks, but not about the 2nd or 3rd trimester) then you certainly DO have the right to make the decision for others. Likewise, the idea that sex is inevitable and outside of a girl's control is something out of a male fantasy, not reality. Speaking from experience, after a heart breaking kid destroying divorce, it mysteriously becomes a lot easier to keep it zipped than it ever was before. You already made the decision about pregnancy when you decided to screw. Actually, you effectively made the decision when you decided to put yourself in the situation that made screwing a possibility. If you are unready for the consequences, too bad. It doesn't give you the right to kill babies. Do the honorable thing and adopt.

A few questions:

A) Even if you approve of abortion, how can you permit the woman to make the decision without the father getting a veto? If she kept the child he'd be stuck with it. It only seems fair that he should get to keep the child if he wants it.

B) If abortion is OK, why is infanticide bad? Heck, why can't you shoot teenagers? Lord knows enough of them have it coming....