Can we compromise on abortion?

[Heyo]

Roe wasn't a workable compromise because one side didn't agree to it and continued to fight to change it.

And my mobster example is unlikely to happen because it implies that he has agreed to stick to it. I was just trying to address the idea that a bad feature (like a protection racket) didn't make something unworkable or not a compromise. Following your extension to it, what makes it not a compromise is that the mobster didn't really agree to it.

Yes, I think I know at what you're getting at. There is no possible compromise with someone who wants it all and won't stop until he gets it or is utterly destroyed. The religious right needs to be utterly destroyed, there is no reigning them in.

 

[Callisto]

What do you think an ideal level of dehumanization for pregnant people would be?

"pregnant people"? Females get pregnant, preferable when they're of the adult stage (women).

Calling us "pregnant people" is already on the downward slope of dehumanizing women. It's right there with referring to us as "chestfeeding front holes".

 

[Koldo]

I don't think a compromise is possible in the current political climate in the US. The religious right isn't asking for a compromise, they are asking for an *** whooping.

I don't think a compromise was ever possible.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

"pregnant people"? Females get pregnant, preferable when they're of the adult stage (women).

Calling us "pregnant people" is already on the downward slope of dehumanizing women. It's right there with referring to us as "chestfeeding front holes".

Terms like that were made for trans men and non binary who can be pregnant or breastfeeding but aren't women. You absolutely don't have to call yourself a pregnant person, but creating an inclusive category doesn't dehumanize you, because trans men who are pregnant are still human. They're just not women.

 

[Koldo]

What do you think an ideal level of dehumanization for pregnant people would be?

That's how you frame it, and once you frame it that way no compromise is possible. It is essentially the same when pro life people start calling a couple weeks old fetus an innocent baby. Wording the problem that way also makes a compromise impossible, because obviously they are not going to accept innocent babies being dehumanized, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"pregnant people"? Females get pregnant, preferable when they're of the adult stage (women).

Calling us "pregnant people" is already on the downward slope of dehumanizing women. It's right there with referring to us as "chestfeeding front holes".

Calling someone a person is dehumanizing now?

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I think I know at what you're getting at. There is no possible compromise with someone who wants it all and won't stop until he gets it or is utterly destroyed. The religious right needs to be utterly destroyed, there is no reigning them in.

To be fair, the pro choice side also wants it all...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been thinking more about this. And it seems the kind of "compromise" that people had in mind is "we take away some of your human rights, but we generously leave you with a little bit".

But what if we thought about this a little differently. What would the "pro-life" side actually be willing to give in trade for these people giving up their rights? Not that this would ever actually happen, but something to think about.

How about health care? In exchange for their bodily autonomy they get free quality medical care. Or how about education? What if we gave everyone who has a uterus free education in exchange for not being allowed to decide for themselves? Or what about gun control? I mean if you are going to force women to give birth the least you can do is protect those children. And there are lots of other things that they could put on the table in exchange for this incredible thing they are asking for. Pay equity, free housing, a brand new car!

And perhaps even respect as well.

What do you think?

Great points! I've been thinking about this too. And what I've been wondering is, why should I even have to compromise my bodily autonomy in the first place? I'm not about to compromise my right to determine what I do with my own body because somebody else thinks I don't deserve it or that they know better than me or whatever. No thanks. If I don't have bodily autonomy, I don't have much at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To be fair, the pro choice side also wants it all...

It's the side that wants everyone to make their own choices for themselves, whatever those choices may be. Hence the name.
That sounds like the best "compromise" to me.

 

[Callisto]

Terms like that were made for trans men and non binary who can be pregnant or breastfeeding but aren't women. You absolutely don't have to call yourself a pregnant person, but creating an inclusive category doesn't dehumanize you, because trans men who are pregnant are still human. They're just not women.

Transmen and the nonbinary individuals to whom pregnancy pertains are still biological adult females, i.e. women. This isn't about sociopolitical idealogy and self-identity, it's biology and a medical condition that is specific to one sex. A given individual may not socially identify as a woman, which they're free to do, but that doesn't change the reality of their biology. Men don't need pap smears, women and transmen do. Women don't require prostate exams, men and transwomen do.

Whether I identify with my biological sex or not, my health care will still pertain to my biological sex. Pregnancy is a condition that only occurs in biological females, preferably when they've reached full maturity (i.e., "woman" as opposed to a "girl"). That is the reality of our species which is fixed regardless of how individuals self-identify - which, evidently, is mutable. Using "persons" implies a condition that either a man or a woman can have, like high blood pressure or Parkinson's Disease, i.e. it occurs in either sex. Pregnancy is not a neutral condition, it occurs in one sex.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Transmen and the nonbinary individuals to whom pregnancy pertains are still biological adult females, i.e. women. This isn't about sociopolitical idealogy and self-identity, it's biology and a medical condition that is specific to one sex. A given individual may not socially identify as a woman, which they're free to do, but that doesn't change the reality of their biology. Men don't need pap smears, women and transmen do. Women don't require prostate exams, men and transwomen do.

Whether I identify with my biological sex or not, my health care will still pertain to my biological sex. Pregnancy is a condition that only occurs in biological females, preferably when they've reached full maturity (i.e., "woman" as opposed to a "girl"). That is the reality of our species which is fixed regardless of how individuals self-identify - which, evidently, is mutable. Using "persons" implies a condition that either a man or a woman can have, like high blood pressure or Parkinson's Disease, i.e. it occurs in either sex. Pregnancy is not a neutral condition, it occurs in one sex.

"Woman" is a term denoting gender which medical and any other relevant biological association separates from sex. Woman =/= female. And also not all female bodied people are genetically and gonadally comparable either, as intersex men having pregnancy is also a thing. Gender and sex are divisible and bimodal rather than binary, and making medically inclusive language sets up for clearer documentation than exclusive language.

Also, being trans is relevent to that equation because trans men on HRT can still become pregnant but masculanized bodies have different effects on pregnancy treatment. Seeing a 'male' checked on legal identity documents should not bias doctors against the fact that men can, in fact, be pregnant.

 

[Callisto]

Calling someone a person is dehumanizing now?

"Person" is fine when something can occur in either sex. E.g., Any person can develop psoriasis or get a tan regardless of sex, age, or how they self-identify, etc. "Pregnant persons" denies it's a condition that is exclusive to one sex for the sake of social acceptance regarding a separate matter of self-identity. It's simply not a condition that occurs in both males and females, there's no ambiguity. It's a condition that occurs in biological females.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's how you frame it, and once you frame it that way no compromise is possible.

It's an accurate way of framing it, and you're right.

It is essentially the same when pro life people start calling a couple weeks old fetus an innocent baby. Wording the problem that way also makes a compromise impossible, because obviously they are not going to accept innocent babies being dehumanized, right?

They don't need to.

Again: it comes down to bodily autonomy. A parent of an actual child, post-birth, has the absolute right to refuse the child the use of their organs or tissue, even if the child will certainly die as a result. Anti-choicers argue that a pregnancy person should not be able to do the same. The implication is that either:

1. The pregnant person should have fewer rights than a normal person, or

2. A fetus should have more rights than a normal person.

I never hear anyone arguing for option 2, which leads me to think that they're going for option 1.

... and this is no more "dehumanizing" for the fetus than being able to refuse, say, a bone marrow donation is dehumanizing for the recipient.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Person" is fine when something can occur in either sex.

"Person" is fine for anything that can happen to people. Cis women are people.

E.g., Any person can develop psoriasis or get a tan regardless of sex, age, or how they self-identify, etc. "Pregnant persons" denies it's a condition that is exclusive to one sex for the sake of social acceptance regarding a separate matter of self-identity.

No, it's neutral on the question of sex or gender.

It's simply not a condition that occurs in both males and females, there's no ambiguity. It's a condition that occurs in biological females.

Biological females... who are people.

 

[Callisto]

"Woman" is a term denoting gender which medical and any other relevant biological association separates from sex. Woman =/= female. And also not all female bodied people are genetically and gonadally comparable either, as intersex men having pregnancy is also a thing. Gender and sex are divisible and bimodal rather than binary, and making medically inclusive language sets up for clearer documentation than exclusive language.

Also, being trans is relevent to that equation because trans men on HRT can still become pregnant but masculanized bodies have different effects on pregnancy treatment. Seeing a 'male' checked on legal identity documents should not bias doctors against the fact that men can, in fact, be pregnant.

A woman is an adult female human being. A transwoman is an adult male that has sought social and/or medical expression that correlates with their sense of self that differs from their actual biology.

Intersex persons are a very tiny percentage and a rare occurrence and pertains to a group of conditions that create a discrepancy in internal and external genitalia. Intersex is not the same as being transgender.

As I said before, pregnancy occurs in women and transmen because they are both biological females. A transman may socially self-identify as a man but he is still, biologically speaking, an adult female - i.e., a woman. It's one of those instances when their biology doesn't mesh with their self-identity.

 

[fantome profane]

This is a very interesting reply.

My first reaction was, how about the Catholic church giving up their opposition to birth control?

If we assume honesty on both sides (Hahaha) maybe we could agree on some basic idea. That could be that both sides prefer abortion not to happen. The pro-life side is clear on this, and don't the pro-choice people prefer that nobody needs an abortion because all pregnancies are desired? That could lead to a common effort to make contraception better and more available, involving some research, maybe free contraceptives and lots of education. That way the two sides could unite, in at least one area.

Yes, I know that's unlikely, not least because the religious right are really against sex itself, not contraception.

This is a good post as well.

And this is something I have argued before. If the goal is to reduce the number of abortion this really can be accomplished without compromising anybodies basic rights. I actually hit on some of these things in my previous post, sarcastically, but let me mention them again with sincerity.

But first, you mentioned contraception. Maybe providing free contraception and sex education would help prevent unwanted pregnancy. The evidence clearly shows that sex education in the schools does reduce teen pregnancy.

But there are other things. In all seriousness, a living wage, affordable higher education, affordable housing, affordable healthcare, these thing create an environment in which people are less likely to choose abortion. There is evidence to support that too. When people feel more secure about their future the abortion rate drops.

 

[Callisto]

"Person" is fine for anything that can happen to people. Cis women are people.




No, it's neutral on the question of sex or gender.



Biological females... who are people.

Why is it that it's permissible for the trans community to insist on how others are to refer to them yet reserve the right to impose whatever names they want on those who identity matches their biology? I'm a woman, I'm not a "cis woman". If there was no difference between women (i.e. biological females) and transwomen (i.e., biological males who identify with the opposite gender), then there would be no "trans".

We're all people but there are conditions that pertain to one's biology and that's the case regardless of self-identity. A person can identify however they want, it does not change the immutability of being male or female.

 

[metis]

The religious right has cancelled the agreement. Now the fight is on, again.

Plus, they lied by saying that individual states should have their choice but now the drive is to have a federal ban on abortion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Isn't that when the vast majority of abortions happen already? If you are not losing anything of value, how is it a compromise?

Check the state laws ever since Roe v Wade was overturned -- we're losing plenty.

 

[metis]

My first reaction was, how about the Catholic church giving up their opposition to birth control?

The irony is that over 90% of Catholics basically ignore the Church's teaching on this according to surveys I've run across.