Can we compromise on abortion?

[Alien826]

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.

Trust me, I do think about this a lot, though most of it has been in the past, while coming to my current position on it. Please remember though, the OP was referring to the current mess we have with uncompromising people prepared to go to the limit to obtain their own desired result, not the rights and wrongs of abortion itself.

Do you think the Ukrainians should compromise with Russia (if such were offered) in order to stop further bloodshed? They are clearly in the right when they demand that the Russians totally remove themselves from their country. Please nobody start a debate over that instance, it's just an illustration that compromise can sometimes be a reasonable option.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trust me, I do think about this a lot, though most of it has been in the past, while coming to my current position on it. Please remember though, the OP was referring to the current mess we have with uncompromising people prepared to go to the limit to obtain their own desired result, not the rights and wrongs of abortion itself.

Do you think the Ukrainians should compromise with Russia (if such were offered) in order to stop further bloodshed? They are clearly in the right when they demand that the Russians totally remove themselves from their country. Please nobody start a debate over that instance, it's just an illustration that compromise can sometimes be a reasonable option.

Every issue has its Overton Window. On the abortion issue, the Overton Window in the US is all out of whack right now. Many other countries are much more reasonable right now.

I think things are better in Canada, though we still have issues: no legal restrictions on abortion, but definitely still some challenges with getting services to everyone who needs them.

 

[crossfire]

Besides the pragmatic argument that overzealous legislation is rapidly driving the dangers of childbirth to third-world levels in the areas affected by the overzealous legislation, another area when compromise might be explored is by considering the realm of personal conscience. The more you legislate, the more you drive the element of personal conscience out of the picture. In a legislative battle, the sheer number of voters favor pro-choice. If the pro-choice faction retaliates as legislatively zealously as the anti-abortion faction has, then the freedom of conscience to not provide abortion services currently enjoyed by the anti-abortion faction will probably become endangered to the extent that pregnant women who have lost their freedom of conscience where it is now legislated away.

No one wants a conscienceless society, neither the pro-choice faction, nor the anti-abortion faction. Both need to realize that freedom of conscience can easily be legislated away.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

No, I have explained my position.

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.

So I could say you support murder and where does that get us? Call me any terrible names you want that is not going to change my view that ending a human life is morally wrong when the choice were freely made that created that life.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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

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

Ok, take it up with them. I don't define pro life like that.

 

[crossfire]

No, I have explained my position.



So I could say you support murder and where does that get us? Call me any terrible names you want that is not going to change my view that ending a human life is morally wrong when the choice were freely made that created that life.

I wouldn't call abortion murder any more than I would call a miscarriage negligent homicide. Murder requires malice. From my observations, pregnant women do not have abortions out of malice. All of them struggle emotionally with their choice, but malice is usually not part of it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

I am ok not being a moderate on this issue, I never claimed to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I have explained my position.

So then you are trying to put pregnant people on a lower tier of rights than what we grant to corpses.

So I could say you support murder and where does that get us?

If you want to look foolish, go right ahead.

Call me any terrible names you want that is not going to change my view that ending a human life is morally wrong when the choice were freely made that created that life.

Again: I'm not trying to change your mind. I think you're probably a lost cause. I'm using you as an example for others in order to change their minds, mostly about encouraging people who already recognize the importance of abortion to get out and vote so that we don't get the sort of laws people like you are pushing for.

BTW: it's coming off as very hypocritical how you're so concerned about respect for yourself when your position is based on fundamental disrespect for others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, take it up with them. I don't define pro life like that.

More hypocrisy. Par for the course, I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

To have others respect your wishes you need to be able to defend your position logically and consistently. So far you have failed to do that. To call abortion murder puts a huge burden of proof on you. First it has to be an illegal killing. Otherwise killing in self defense is murder. Second you would need to prove that it is a human life. The capability to become a human is not the same as being a human so even if abortion were made illegal I doubt if you could succeed.

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

Strawman.

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?

Fathers need to be held responsible for their acts and mothers cannot cut off a father's rights either. A father can lose those rights, but the burden of proof that he did something wrong would be on those accusing him. And a mother can lose her rights to be a mother too. It happens at times. Once again, the burden of proof would be on the accusing parties.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So then you are trying to put pregnant people on a lower tier of rights than what we grant to corpses.

Nope.

If you want to look foolish, go right ahead.

Look in the mirror. You are doing the equivalent to pro life people. Disregarding their arguments and calling them names.

Again: I'm not trying to change your mind. I think you're probably a lost cause. I'm using you as an example for others in order to change their minds, mostly about encouraging people who already recognize the importance of abortion to get out and vote so that we don't get the sort of laws people like you are pushing for.

BTW: it's coming off as very hypocritical how you're so concerned about respect for yourself when your position is based on fundamental disrespect for others.

I have a fundamental respect for all human life. You do not.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

More hypocrisy. Par for the course, I guess.

How is it hypocritical? I told you how I define pro life and instead of respecting that an engaging with that premise you tell me how other people define pro life in ways I do not. This is childish stuff. Are you a child?

 

[fantome profane]

I have a fundamental respect for all human life. You do not.

How do you define the word "respect"? If you don't think people are capable of making decisions for themselves, do you really have respect for them?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

To have others respect your wishes you need to be able to defend your position logically and consistently. So far you have failed to do that. To call abortion murder puts a huge burden of proof on you. First it has to be an illegal killing. Otherwise killing in self defense is murder. Second you would need to prove that it is a human life. The capability to become a human is not the same as being a human so even if abortion were made illegal I doubt if you could succeed.

I don't think that pro choice people think it is murder, that is why I don't call them names like that.

Two cells are human life. If not, what are they?

Fathers need to be held responsible for their acts and mothers cannot cut off a father's rights either. A father can lose those rights, but the burden of proof that he did something wrong would be on those accusing him. And a mother can lose her rights to be a mother too. It happens at times. Once again, the burden of proof would be on the accusing parties.

Nice double standard. Fathers must be responsible for their acts but women don't need to be held responsible for their acts. Got it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How do you define the word "respect"? If you don't think people are capable of making decisions for themselves, do you really have respect for them?

I never said people are not capable of making decisions for themselves if they are adults. The problem is mothers are making a decision for another human life that had no say in being created through the free choice actions of the mother in almost all cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that pro choice people think it is murder, that is why I don't call them names like that.

Two cells are human life. If not, what are they?

Two cells would just be a fertilized egg that has split once. Being human is an emergent property.

Nice double standard. Fathers must be responsible for their acts but women don't need to be held responsible for their acts. Got it.

No double standard. Where did you get that rather insane conclusion from? The standards are identical.

 

[fantome profane]

Two cells are human life. If not, what are they?

You are equivocating.

If CSI finds some hair, or blood at a crime scene and analyze it and the test comes back and finds that it is human. That does not mean it is a human.

Two cells are not a human. A zygote is not a human. An embryo is not a human.

 

[fantome profane]

I never said people are not capable of making decisions for themselves if they are adults. The problem is mothers are making a decision for another human life that had no say in being created through the free choice actions of the mother in almost all cases.

This thing you are talking about has no say, because it cannot say. In that situation someone else must say for it. And person who is in the best situation is the mother.

But you don't respect the mother enough to allow that. You want politicians to have that say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is it hypocritical?

Well, you went from "pro-life people get to define what 'pro-life' means" to "ignore how those other pro-life people define what 'pro-life' means; *I* get to define it."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope.

When someone says that they don't want anyone else to use their blood, tissues or organs, we honour this decision regardless of how many lives it costs and the relationship of those lives to the person. We continue to honour this even after death.

You're arguing that we shouldn't honour this decision when it's made by a pregnant person. You're arguing that we should deny a right we even grant to a corpse.

Look in the mirror. You are doing the equivalent to pro life people. Disregarding their arguments and calling them names.

I haven't disregarded any arguments; I've addressed them directly and pointed out where they fail.

And if what you see offends you when someone holds up a metaphorical mirror and accurately describes what you're doing, perhaps you should reflect on what it is about your position that's causing the offense.

I have a fundamental respect for all human life. You do not.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your position shows that this isn't true.