I agree that this thread isn't really the place to carry on with a discussion about abortion. In fact it diverts from the real topic, which is about the matter of a singer pushing a point of view. Perhaps Vin Garbutt singing about the terrorist Contra campaign sponsored by the Reagan administration, at the same concerts where he introduced Little Innocents, might be a better focus.

I'd argue that it is a perfectly legitimate thing for a singer to sing such songs. If they challenge the views of the listeners, there is plenty of time for the arguments to follow. It is always a good principle to hear out the position of someone we disagree with rather than to interrupt them and prevent them from explaining. After we have heard them out is the time to put our own views on the table. In the case of a singer on a stage, that would normally be likely to mean carrying on the discussion with others - or of course there is the possibility of doing it in song in some cases.

As for the suggestion that it's "risk free" for a singer in a concert situation, that just doesn't reflect the reality. In some ways Vin Garbutt torpedoed his career when he extended his views on Civil Rights into the context of abortion.

Directly arguing a point in a polemical way is of course only one way of doing it, and not one which is generally the best. Doing it through a story, as with Vin's Linda, is more likely to work better - though if anything that leaves a singer even more open to the accusation of tugging at heart strings and trying to manipulate the listeners' emotions.

But I believe that, whether in the folk club or the concert stage, or in the Mudcat, it is right that the songs should feed into the discussions, and the discussions should lead into the songs, and that it is right that songs are about real things much of the time.