Can we compromise on abortion?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Compromise has not happened here.

There has always been compromise; it's just not where you want it to be.

In the US, the arrangement where abortion was legal in every state but federal funds couldn't pay for it was a compromise.

Here in Canada, abortion being legal but late-term abortions being practically unavailable most of the time is a compromise.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As you say, "the rest of the world", that is many other countries, have compromised a long time ago and apart from the inevitable fringe elements no longer consider it something to argue about.

How do you think that looked like? Because in most wealthy nations abortion is integrated into normal Healthcare and paid for by the state on demand. You can get approval of abortion from a council committee for end stage pregnancies so long as it threatens your mental, let alone physical health.

And when the religious right said that religious healthcare workers shouod be able to refuse to do abortions, the state just said 'no,' and carried on.

Compromise has not happened here.

Too much compromise has already happened here. That's the problem. We should be saying "**** no and **** off" a hell of a lot more than we are. Particularly on matters of civil rights, which is why the US has lagged behind in every civil rights battle we've come up against.

Because our liberal centrists are too easily caught up in right apologetics in their myopic version of 'fairness.'

Not every pov is worth giving airtime, being considered or compromised with.

 

[Heyo]

I never said it was a person, I said it was human life.


It is a label that accurately identifies a position taken by the prolife person. Just because you disagree with how the term is used does not matter. What if I called pro choice people pro murderers? Would you have a problem with that? Lets not argue about the labels but about whether abortion is right or wrong. How does telling a prolife person you are not prolife on this other issue that has nothing to do with abortion change their stance on abortion? Call me anti abortion or anti choice on the abortion issue that is ok. I could bring up the fact the a lot or pro choice people are not prochoice on other things such as guns, health care, masks, vaccines etc. How is that relevant to the abortion issue?

It just shows how irrational the debate has become - on both sides. Euphemisms don't help to keep it rational, they are emotional crutches.
And the "pro life" spin is especially ridiculous when the "pro life" debater isn't also and equally against the death penalty, anti war and a vegetarian.

We don't need to restrict ourselves to slogans that fit on a bumper sticker here. So just state your position most precise and take your time.

I never did that.

I never said you did. It is just a common tool in the arsenal of your side. You don't have to use it, you don't have to like it but without you denouncing it, we have to assume you are at least indifferent to others using it.

This is not misleading. It is true and that human life has a right to life. That is the discussion. You are changing the discussion to personhood now.

Nope, You just made that up. Human rights are, explicitly stated or by practice, for people, i.e. humans with a birth certificate. Try to get a passport for an unborn and you'll learn that it is not considered to have any rights that are given to persons. It was always that way, I'm not changing that.

So ending human life is ok because the human life does not suffer? That seems like a bad basis for ending life. People can be murdered and not suffer. So non suffering is not a valid reason to end a human life in my opinion.

Again, there is precedent. After some deliberation and opinions of two doctors, you can end a human life by cutting off life support.

Sure, the problem is a lot of pro choice people here will and have said I am irrational and compare me to a white supremacist just because I am prolife (not you), that has nothing do do with my reason for being pro life. That does not help the discussion. I don't understand that. If they truly want to change people minds insulting them is not the way to do it. Unfortunately our society knows no different. There can be rational arguments on both sides and people can still disagree.

I have stated my position and part of my reasoning in post #362. What exactly is your position?

 

[Alien826]

Too much compromise has already happened here. That's the problem. We should be saying "**** no and **** off" a hell of a lot more than we are. Particularly on matters of civil rights, which is why the US has lagged behind in every civil rights battle we've come up against.

Because our liberal centrists are too easily caught up in right apologetics in their myopic version of 'fairness.'

Not every pov is worth giving airtime, being considered or compromised with.

Too much compromise? Maybe, but it's too late now. We have is the overturning of a constitutional principal that had been accepted legally for 50 years. And now we're seeing a State judge attempting to tell the FDA how to do its job, and who knows how the SCOTUS will rule when it eventually does.

I know, let's tell them to **** off! That'll stop it dead. If only we had thought of that before. Yes, I blame the Dems for a lot of this. If only they had defended reproductive rights more strongly. The writing was on the wall for years.

We're in a certain situation whether we like it or not, and standing in our corners waving our placards isn't going to help. I'm suggesting that some kind of compromise might help. Remember who we are helping. Thousands of women who will resort to back alley abortions if they are denied legal, safe procedures. Women who will be stuck with raising a child they didn't want and may not be the best parent.

I'm not suggesting any particular compromise, but at least let's recognise where we are, not where we would like to be or even where some argument says we should be. Most abortions happen early in the pregnancy, so a 15 week limit (just as an example) would allow a heck of a lot of abortions.

But I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And when the religious right said that religious healthcare workers shouod be able to refuse to do abortions, the state just said 'no,' and carried on.

In Canada, we compromised on that point... on abortion as well as other things like contraception.

Patients are still entitled to care, but if a medical provider objects to providing it on conscientious grounds, they can refer the patient to another provider for the service.

If no other provider is available, the provider with the objection is still obligated to provide the care.

 

[fantome profane]

Too much compromise? Maybe, but it's too late now. We have is the overturning of a constitutional principal that had been accepted legally for 50 years. And now we're seeing a State judge attempting to tell the FDA how to do its job, and who knows how the SCOTUS will rule when it eventually does.

I know, let's tell them to **** off! That'll stop it dead. If only we had thought of that before. Yes, I blame the Dems for a lot of this. If only they had defended reproductive rights more strongly. The writing was on the wall for years.

We're in a certain situation whether we like it or not, and standing in our corners waving our placards isn't going to help. I'm suggesting that some kind of compromise might help. Remember who we are helping. Thousands of women who will resort to back alley abortions if they are denied legal, safe procedures. Women who will be stuck with raising a child they didn't want and may not be the best parent.

I'm not suggesting any particular compromise, but at least let's recognise where we are, not where we would like to be or even where some argument says we should be. Most abortions happen early in the pregnancy, so a 15 week limit (just as an example) would allow a heck of a lot of abortions.

But I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing.

I do believe this is a temporary situation. Since the Dobbs decision every election has seen "pro-life" candidates loosing. If this trend continues, and I believe it will, abortion rights will be restored.

Sadly a lot of people are going to suffer, a lot of people are going to die in the meantime. But eventually the will of the people will prevail.

 

[crossfire]

Too much compromise? Maybe, but it's too late now. We have is the overturning of a constitutional principal that had been accepted legally for 50 years. And now we're seeing a State judge attempting to tell the FDA how to do its job, and who knows how the SCOTUS will rule when it eventually does.

I know, let's tell them to **** off! That'll stop it dead. If only we had thought of that before. Yes, I blame the Dems for a lot of this. If only they had defended reproductive rights more strongly. The writing was on the wall for years.

We're in a certain situation whether we like it or not, and standing in our corners waving our placards isn't going to help. I'm suggesting that some kind of compromise might help. Remember who we are helping. Thousands of women who will resort to back alley abortions if they are denied legal, safe procedures. Women who will be stuck with raising a child they didn't want and may not be the best parent.

I'm not suggesting any particular compromise, but at least let's recognise where we are, not where we would like to be or even where some argument says we should be. Most abortions happen early in the pregnancy, so a 15 week limit (just as an example) would allow a heck of a lot of abortions.

But I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing.

We are well beyond this point now in some areas of the country. Women who have miscarriages are being denied treatment because the treatment procedures are the same procedures as an early abortion. Doctors are leaving those areas out of fear of prosecution, leaving fewer care options available for women who want to bear children. It will quickly escalate if the malignant legislation is not repealed.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How about at age 46?

I'm sentient, capable of feeling pain, and can cleary express a desire to live.

If the situation ever arises where I will die without using my mother's body in some way, how do you think the law should restrict her rights?

As it stands now, she can't be legally compelled to provide a kidney, a pint of blood, or even a hair off her head to save my life.

I agree with this. She has no obligation to provide you one and I have explained multiple times the difference.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In the same way that deciding to drive a car isn't consent to being in a car crash, deciding to have sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

I agree, however if you are in a crash you are responsible for the consequences of that crash. Same with getting pregnant.

And even when someone consents to pregnancy, consent can be withdrawn.

Up until birth?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I also compared you to a rapist... and justifiably so on both counts, IMO.

Ok, nice conversation. Hope you are doing well.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It just shows how irrational the debate has become - on both sides. Euphemisms don't help to keep it rational, they are emotional crutches.
And the "pro life" spin is especially ridiculous when the "pro life" debater isn't also and equally against the death penalty, anti war and a vegetarian.

Who cares. Abortion is not about war, death penalty or vegetarianism. I can also say you are not pro choice on all subjects so you are not pro choice, but that does not have anything to do with abortion.

We don't need to restrict ourselves to slogans that fit on a bumper sticker here. So just state your position most precise and take your time.

I have.

I never said you did. It is just a common tool in the arsenal of your side. You don't have to use it, you don't have to like it but without you denouncing it, we have to assume you are at least indifferent to others using it.

That is not a logical conclusion at all. Why not ask me my stance instead of assuming one.

Nope, You just made that up. Human rights are, explicitly stated or by practice, for people, i.e. humans with a birth certificate. Try to get a passport for an unborn and you'll learn that it is not considered to have any rights that are given to persons. It was always that way, I'm not changing that.

All rights are made up by people. I stated my stance on the subject.

Again, there is precedent. After some deliberation and opinions of two doctors, you can end a human life by cutting off life support.

Ok, how does this apply?

I have stated my position and part of my reasoning in post #362. What exactly is your position?

I responded to that post.

 

[Heyo]

Who cares. Abortion is not about war, death penalty or vegetarianism. I can also say you are not pro choice on all subjects so you are not pro choice, but that does not have anything to do with abortion.

War, death penalty and vegetarianism have to do with life/death. Calling oneself "pro life" and limiting that to embryos is a bit disingenuous.

I have.

Where?

That is not a logical conclusion at all. Why not ask me my stance instead of assuming one.

I did.

All rights are made up by people. I stated my stance on the subject.

Where?

I responded to that post.

You did but you didn't answer the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with this. She has no obligation to provide you one and I have explained multiple times the difference.

Never in a way that was logically coherent, but you have tried... sorta.

Edit: regardless, it sounds like we agree that:

- at the moment of conception, the fertilized cell doesn't warrant violating the future parent's bodily autonomy.

- at age 46, the person the fertilized cell grew into doesn't warrant violating the parent's bodily autonomy.

Interpolate between those two points and what do you get?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, however if you are in a crash you are responsible for the consequences of that crash. Same with getting pregnant.

But you were talking about obligation.

We drive knowing that there's a risk that we could be in a collision or killed. None of this means that we consent to these outcomes, or that we can't take steps to mitigate our risk. We wear seat belts; we drive cars with airbags. We aren't obliged to accept an outcome just because we know it's a risk.

Same with sex and pregnancy: the fact that we know unplanned pregnancy is a risk of (PIVMO) sex, and that childbirth can result from pregnancy doesn't mean that people having sex have consented to or are obliged to have a child.

Up until birth?

Of course.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Too much compromise? Maybe, but it's too late now. We have is the overturning of a constitutional principal that had been accepted legally for 50 years. And now we're seeing a State judge attempting to tell the FDA how to do its job, and who knows how the SCOTUS will rule when it eventually does.

I know, let's tell them to **** off! That'll stop it dead. If only we had thought of that before. Yes, I blame the Dems for a lot of this. If only they had defended reproductive rights more strongly. The writing was on the wall for years.

We're in a certain situation whether we like it or not, and standing in our corners waving our placards isn't going to help. I'm suggesting that some kind of compromise might help. Remember who we are helping. Thousands of women who will resort to back alley abortions if they are denied legal, safe procedures. Women who will be stuck with raising a child they didn't want and may not be the best parent.

I'm not suggesting any particular compromise, but at least let's recognise where we are, not where we would like to be or even where some argument says we should be. Most abortions happen early in the pregnancy, so a 15 week limit (just as an example) would allow a heck of a lot of abortions.

But I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing.

Me too. But I'm also not going to raise the white flag to those looking to strip body autonomy from women just because it gets tiring. You're not talking about compromise, you're talking about conditional surrender. (You even liken it to how Ukraine should surrender) Not only will your pleas not stop them from continuously pushing towards no abortion. And they will absolutely use your capitulation to wedge further battles, but in the mean time you're suggesting that it's okay to endanger those slightly smaller group of women who don't find our they're pregnant until after 15wks because they were on hormone BC, or they have neuropathic conditions, or the fetus was weak and stunted growth led to no symptoms, or a unrelated condition had overlapping symptoms as pregnancy symptoms.

Why say no to back alley abortions for some when you can say no for everyone? Why do we need to capitulate when, and I can't stress this enough, you're not capitulating to reasonable people and they will not stop?

 

[crossfire]

I agree, however if you are in a crash you are responsible for the consequences of that crash. Same with getting pregnant.

Will the politicians who pass harmful legislation be held personally responsible for the harm caused to women who suffer injury as a result of these laws?

 

[Quintessence]

The personhood and rights of this is what certain advocates are wanting to prioritize over the fundamental human rights of women and others who become pregnant:

Reference - The Issue of Tissue | myanetwork​

That thing.

That thing right up there.

That's a 7 week embryo.

That's the thing they are fighting for. These states with the 6 week bans. That.

. . .

Yup. Seems legit. Lets compromise the rights of that over that of living, breathing humans. Makes sense.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Of course.

You liken me to white supremacists', you liken me to rapists because I think human life should not be killed. Then you say you are ok with abortion up until birth and you think you have the moral high ground. These are sick beliefs.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Will the politicians who pass harmful legislation be held personally responsible for the harm caused to women who suffer injury as a result of these laws?

This could be said about any law a politician makes. Why should this be a special case?

 

[crossfire]

This could be said about any law a politician makes. Why should this be a special case?

I have not heard of any politicians being held personally responsible for the damage caused by harmful laws they create and enforce, unlike people who cause car crashes.