Can we compromise on abortion?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Agreed, but what we have here is a sample of the extremes. However I do note some individual responses that seem to indicate a possibility of compromise. How is that reflected in the general population? No compromise includes everyone. If there are enough moderates ... ?

What does a moderate mean? My issue is I believe it is killing a human life. How can I compromise on that? What does that look like?

 

[Alien826]

What does a moderate mean? My issue is I believe it is killing a human life. How can I compromise on that? What does that look like?

Probably something like not giving it the attribute of "a human life" (except in a purely technical sense) until some point in the pregnancy. You don't have to hold that view, but lots of people do. If that were not the case, all we would have is those that believed that a fertilized egg should be protected and at the other end of the scale that it's OK to do an abortion on the day preceding birth. All the rest, moderates.

 

[Alien826]

The "right to be cared for" that you describe doesn't exist. Parental responsibility doesn't include the obligation for the parent to provide their body for their child. The child's need to be fed doesn't compel a parent to breastfeed, for example. The parent still retains bodily autonomy.

I think I've repeated my argument enough. You don't agree. Fine, I'll just put you down as "doesn't want to compromise" and move on then, shall I?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not the point. People get to label themselves and tell you what that label means. You don't get to use their label and then say you mean by that label all these other things. they do not believe or mean by that label. It is a deceptive tactic pro choice people use to try to win an argument the pro life person is not having.

They can use whatever term for themselves that they see fit; I'll only use it if I think it's accurate.

If they don't like what I call them, they can call me whatever they want. This is how free speech works.

You call them a liar because you have expanded what they mean by pro life. They are not lying when they want to save the life of a potential human.

But they don't want to do that. The anti-choice movement doesn't do anything to "save the life of a potential human" unless they also get to be cruel to someone with an unwanted pregnancy. This tells me that the cruelty is the point.

I did not cause the person to need a kidney.

A father whose child needs a kidney caused the person to need a kidney just as much a pregnant person caused the fetus to need their uterus, blood, etc.

I may wish to provide a kidney but I am not obligated to provide mine.

Likewise, a person with a uterus isn't obligated to provide their uterus.

If I have sex we all know the result could be a pregnancy.

There's that rapist mindset again:

"Consent to getting pregnant is consent to giving birth."

"Consent to sex is consent to getting pregnant."

"Consent to making out is consent to sex."

"Consent to going upstairs is consent to making out."

Consent needs to be continuously given to be valid. Consent can be withdrawn at any point.

The human life did not ask to be created, the mother is obligated not to kill that human life because they took actions that resulted in creating that life. In the small number of cases where they did not make the decision to have sex then we can have exceptions.

All of this applies just as much to a father who is the only match for their child who needs a kidney or bone marrow.

So again: Refusing a kidney donation or a bone marrow transplant kills a human life and you managed to compromise on that, didn't you?

A logically consistent answer this time, please.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I've repeated my argument enough. You don't agree. Fine, I'll just put you down as "doesn't want to compromise" and move on then, shall I?

I'm unwilling to compromise on the idea that a pregnant person is entitled to the full rights of a human being.

The question you ought to ask yourself is why you are willing to compromise on this.

 

[crossfire]

I don't know whether the legislative zealots will back down once they see that their legislative zealotry has made childbirth third-world dangerous within their domains. I hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Probably something like not giving it the attribute of "a human life" (except in a purely technical sense) until some point in the pregnancy. You don't have to hold that view, but lots of people do. If that were not the case, all we would have is those that believed that a fertilized egg should be protected and at the other end of the scale that it's OK to do an abortion on the day preceding birth. All the rest, moderates.

What else is it if not a human life. It is human and it is life. I hold this belief because it is true.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

They can use whatever term for themselves that they see fit; I'll only use it if I think it's accurate.

If they don't like what I call them, they can call me whatever they want. This is how free speech works.

And this is why our society is where it is. We are unable to talk to each other in a civil way.

But they don't want to do that. The anti-choice movement doesn't do anything to "save the life of a potential human" unless they also get to be cruel to someone with an unwanted pregnancy. This tells me that the cruelty is the point.

More evidence you don't care to change anyone's mind.

A father whose child needs a kidney caused the person to need a kidney just as much a pregnant person caused the fetus to need their uterus, blood, etc.

I disagree.

Likewise, a person with a uterus isn't obligated to provide their uterus.

I agree. But if they choose to act in a way where another human life needs it then they are obligated.

There's that rapist mindset again:

"Consent to getting pregnant is consent to giving birth."

"Consent to sex is consent to getting pregnant."

"Consent to making out is consent to sex."

"Consent to going upstairs is consent to making out."

Consent needs to be continuously given to be valid. Consent can be withdrawn at any point.

I don't agree with this. More evidence you don't want to change minds.

All of this applies just as much to a father who is the only match for their child who needs a kidney or bone marrow.

No I disagree

So again: Refusing a kidney donation or a bone marrow transplant kills a human life and you managed to compromise on that, didn't you?

No I did not. I explained the difference, you either disagree or you don't understand the argument.

A logically consistent answer this time, please.

I did, we just disagree that a free choice to have sex resulting in a pregnancy obligates the mother and father to not kill that human life. People that get into accidents don't consent to getting in the accident, but they are responsible for the consequences. Can I consent to stop taking care of my kids? Is that a moral choice?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this is why our society is where it is. We are unable to talk to each other in a civil way.

If you cared about civility, you wouldn't be trying to put pregnant people on a lower tier of rights than what we grant to corpses.

Your position is shameful. It isn't worthy of respect. If this offends you, oh well.

More evidence you don't care to change anyone's mind.

My goal is to prevent people like you from infringing the rights of others. As long as that goal is accomplished, I don't care if you feel hard done by.

I disagree.

You disagree with the idea that fathers cause children?

I agree. But if they choose to act in a way where another human life needs it then they are obligated.

But you don't think that fathers who choose to act in a similar way are ever obligated to provide their organs, tissues or fluids.

I don't agree with this. More evidence you don't want to change minds.

I'm very interested in changing minds. Not your mind, but I'm certainly interested in changing enough minds of reasonable people that you and people who agree with you don't have the political power to pass anti-choice laws.

Calling your views out for the harm that they do is part of changing minds.

No I disagree

Again: you disagree with the idea that fathers cause children?

No I did not. I explained the difference, you either disagree or you don't understand the argument.

You gave an irrational mess, but I'm open to the possibility that you don't recognize that it's irrational.

I did, we just disagree that a free choice to have sex resulting in a pregnancy obligates the mother and father to not kill that human life. People that get into accidents don't consent to getting in the accident, but they are responsible for the consequences. Can I consent to stop taking care of my kids? Is that a moral choice?

Not an issue of bodily autonomy, but I'm guessing you knew that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you cared about civility, you wouldn't be trying to put pregnant people on a lower tier of rights than what we grant to corpses.

But you forgot one thing, I can't get pregnant! Checkmate atheist!!

Okay seriously, I would leave this up to women if I could. I wonder if they would vote for more bodily autonomy or less?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If you cared about civility, you wouldn't be trying to put pregnant people on a lower tier of rights than what we grant to corpses.

Your position is shameful. It isn't worthy of respect. If this offends you, oh well.

I am not doing that. Are you able to disagree with someone without disparaging them? I have yet to see it.

My goal is to prevent people like you from infringing the rights of others. As long as that goal is accomplished, I don't care if you feel hard done by.

Ok, one way to do that is to change my mind. You have no interest in that.

You disagree with the idea that fathers cause children?

No, where did I ever say this?

But you don't think that fathers who choose to act in a similar way are ever obligated to provide their organs, tissues or fluids.

No, they did not cause the failure I assume. Just having a child does not mean you are responsible for every ailment they ever have. That is a ridiculous take and one I think you have only because it supports your argument not because it is logical. But I think most fathers would voluntarily give whatever to their child if they needed it.

I'm very interested in changing minds. Not your mind, but I'm certainly interested in changing enough minds of reasonable people that you and people who agree with you don't have the political power to pass anti-choice laws.

Why not my mind?

Calling your views out for the harm that they do is part of changing minds.

And I am calling your ideas out as being harmful. However I would like to change your mind if I could and I am trying not to be insulting to you. Why can't you do the same? Your arguments seem to be based on emotion rather than logic in my opinion.

Again: you disagree with the idea that fathers cause children?

Again: where did I ever say this?

You gave an irrational mess, but I'm open to the possibility that you don't recognize that it's irrational.

You have never explained why it is irrational.

Not an issue of bodily autonomy, but I'm guessing you knew that.

I believe in bodily autonomy. I explained this already and why abortion is immoral in relation to that belief.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But you forgot one thing, I can't get pregnant! Checkmate atheist!!

Okay seriously, I would leave this up to women if I could. I wonder if they would vote for more bodily autonomy or less?

One problem with this is there are tens of millions of women that are pro life so insinuating I would not be pro life if I was a woman is flawed. Also I am an atheist.

 

[Spiderman]

The pro life solution in the Bible, put Donald Trump (Noah) and those who vote for him , on a boat, drowned everyone else, or the pro life solution to Sodom and Gomorrah, fire from the skies to bake the babies, or the pro life solution in Egypt, God who is love sends the republican Angel of Love, door to door , to kill babies and children that don't have blood smeared on their door posts.

Maybe if we were to share that more with conservative christians who insist God is pro life, they would know he is not, even further from it than most abortion Doctors.

Now, here is the compromise. An unborn baby, should be considered a baby, a homosapien, and a sign on abortion clinics saying all the reasons why God wants a good mother to legally put her child out of it's misery, as the best thing for the angry God, the child who will be tortured in this life, most likely in the next, and the opportunity the child has to go before the Judge without sin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One problem with this is there are tens of millions of women that are pro life so insinuating I would not be pro life if I was a woman is flawed. Also I am an atheist.

There was no insuiination that there were no anti-choice women. By the way, the use of the phrase "Pro-life" is so refuted. If a person is only pro-life in one very very small area and not in others they have no right to that title.

Those that are affected by this are far more likely to vote no. Even the anti-abortion women are often prochoice when it comes to all women.

Frankly bodily autonomy still beats all of your objections. You have not even come close to refuting it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There was no insuiination that there were no anti-choice women. By the way, the use of the phrase "Pro-life" is so refuted. If a person is only pro-life in one very very small area and not in others they have no right to that title.

I disagree, the person that uses the label gets to decide what that label means. I don't tell pro choice people they are pro murder. They do not believe that and I respect what they label themselves. It also helps if you are interested in changing someone's mind on the issue. It is the pro choice people that have expanded the definition to include other things that pro life people are not talking about to score points. . Those other issues can be talked bout but are not part of the abortion issue. You absolutely can be pro life on the abortion issue and not pro life on other issues.

Those that are affected by this are far more likely to vote no. Even the anti-abortion women are often prochoice when it comes to all women.

So men are not affected by abortion? That is untrue.

Frankly bodily autonomy still beats all of your objections. You have not even come close to refuting it.

That is the mantra. Do you hold the same opinion for men that are so called "dead beat dads" that don't take care of their children? Should a man be able to relinquish all rights to their children with no questions asked just like mothers can?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not doing that.

So you've arrived at some sort of "I personally disagree with abortion but I won't impose this view on others"-type position?

Are you able to disagree with someone without disparaging them? I have yet to see it.

Of course. What you're seeing is a special level of snark that reserve for white supremacists, anti-choicers, and... well, I can't think of any other cases off the top of my head.

 

[metis]

By the way, the use of the phrase "Pro-life" is so refuted. If a person is only pro-life in one very very small area and not in others they have no right to that title.

Exactly, and an example of this is DeSantis, who recently reinforced his stand on the death penalty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree, the person that uses the label gets to decide what that label means. I don't tell pro choice people they are pro murder. They do not believe that and I respect what they label themselves. It also helps if you are interested in changing someone's mind on the issue. It is the pro choice people that have expanded the definition to include other things that pro life people are not talking about to score points. . Those other issues can be talked bout but are not part of the abortion issue. You absolutely can be pro life on the abortion issue and not pro life on other issues.

Here's how one group who calls themselves "pro-life" describes what they consider the term to mean:

While the term pro-life was birthed from the abortion wars of the 1970s, the pro-life movement has grown into a thriving community of those who meet political issues with the mindset that all human life is valuable. Whether you are a preborn baby, a newborn, an elderly person, or someone with disabilities and special needs, your life matters. If you are human, you deserve fundamental human rights. At its core, the pro-life movement is about the value and equality of all human beings.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: What Does It Mean?

In this article, we outline the pro-life and pro-choice meanings, equipping you with enough knowledge to make a confident decision.

www.focusonthefamily.com

 

[Alien826]

What else is it if not a human life. It is human and it is life. I hold this belief because it is true.

You asked about moderates. I gave my idea of what a moderate might believe, and I don't think there's any doubt that many people do believe in that way. The fact that you don't agree with them means you are not a moderate.

Forgive me if I don't get into any further discussion about the rights and wrongs of abortion itself. I've already gotten deeper than I intended on that. The OP was intended to talk about how the current situation might be handled.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You asked about moderates. I gave my idea of what a moderate might believe, and I don't think there's any doubt that many people do believe in that way. The fact that you don't agree with them means you are not a moderate.

Forgive me if I don't get into any further discussion about the rights and wrongs of abortion itself. I've already gotten deeper than I intended on that. The OP was intended to talk about how the current situation might be handled.

The best option for the current situation:

- every person who opposes abortion should have the right to refuse one for themselves.

- every person who supports abortion should have the right to have one.

- measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy - and by extension, abortions - should be widely available for voluntary use: birth control, proper sex ed, etc.

- alternatives to abortion should be made as attractive as possible: maternal and obstetric care should be free, medical science should work to reduce the risks of pregnancy as low as possible, long job-protected paid parental leave should be legally required of all employers, and affordable (or free) quality daycare should be available.

Points where I think reasonable discussion and compromise might be had:

- should abortion care be provided for free? (I would say yes)

- should hospitals be able to refuse to provide abortion services? (I would say no - this should be part of the basic slate of services needed to be licensed as a general hospital)

- should medical professionals whose job duties include abortion be able to refuse this part of their jobs? (I would say no)

- how far should we go to reduce the burdens of parenthood and, by extension, make alternatives to abortion more attractive? (I'm open to ideas on this one)