If you just don’t want to give your opinion that is fine.
But if it is because you can’t conceive what a compromise would look like, that answers the question.
So without telling us what it is, can you imagine a compromise?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can we compromise on abortion?
- Thread starter Alien826
- Start date
But if it is because you can’t conceive what a compromise would look like, that answers the question.
So without telling us what it is, can you imagine a compromise?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
My point is more a practical one. Currently we have two sides, neither one of which wants to budge. It's resulted in a dangerously biased Supreme Court that has even made noises about banning contraception. The country is in danger of falling apart over it (and other things, yes). When the pro-choicers had the ascendancy, the pro-lifers spent years chipping away at access to abortion, with some states having only one abortion provider (I think that's right). Now the same thing is going to happen in reverse, as pro-choicers do everything they can to keep abortion legal where it still is.
Do we want this back and forth to go on for ever?
The right considers fœtuses people, with a right to life. I do not
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I hope you mean "reversed when someone wants children". Otherwise you're saying people have to be married to have children.
I kind of agree, though there would need to be a better chance of reversing vasectomies than is the case now. It would certainly eliminate accidental pregnancies, but I imagine people would still change their minds after getting pregnant sometimes. Plus the screams of "freedom" would be deafening.
Actually, that is all I wanted to accomplish with that suggestion.
On the contrary, that you would presume to be "practical" with the agency and wellbeing of my granddaughters and others is pretentious at best.
There were restrictions before. The previous arrangement was a compromise. Any compromise now would still leave us withgreater restrictions than we had before. It would constitute a government imposition of religious law, and a loss of the freedom the right is constantly harping on.
We Never Know
No Slack
"There were restrictions before"
The dems and repubs used to work together before. Key word is before.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I do have an opinion, but I didn't answer because that's not the thrust of the thread. I'm firmly pro-choice, so my preferred situation (pretty much what we had before Dobbs) would be unlikely to resemble the compromise, whatever that might be. What could I live with (as if I would have a choice)? Abortions in the case of rape or incest, or for young children, the health of the mother always to be an overriding factor, and enough time given to let the mother be sure she was pregnant and a reasonable time to make arrangements.
Well you said that there would be restrictions that the pro choice side would have to accept.
Even rhetorically speaking. (Is that the word?)
If you don’t agree with said restrictions proposed. That’s fine.
Just so I can gauge where the line would be drawn in the sand
LOL -- Not that far before.
Rephrase: There were restrictions a few years ago.
Orbit
I'm a planet
You are incorrect. Please refer to current practices in the state of TX
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Pretentious now, am I?
I'm not suggesting any particular position, just saying that maybe some kind of settled rules that took the wishes of both sides into effect might be better than the mess we have now. And don't discount the possibility that the pro-life side might win and your daughters and granddaughters might not have access to abortion at all.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
The test of a good compromise is that nobody gets everything they want. And I'm not being rhetorical, I'm talking about actual country-wide law.
If people are so stuck in their ideas that no compromise is possible, then so be it. I was just wondering how much flexibility there was among people on this forum. And for the record, I'm pro-choice.
I'll try this one more time. What we have now is the equivalent of a rock on top of a peak, wobbling to and fro. That's an unstable situation, and no matter which way it eventually rolls, a group of people are going to be very happy and another group are going to be very unhappy. How about trying to find a position for the rock where most people can agree, if that's possible.
The pro-choice side has been on board for this since the beginning. The anti-choicers tend to block attempts to address unwanted pregnancies.
Whilst I applaud your efforts.
I don’t know if there really is enough “middle ground taken” so to speak about such a topic, it is very complex and people feel very passionately about it. On both sides.
Indeed every compromise will come with its own set of drawbacks that the pro choice side will argue against.
Late term abortion restrictions for example.
These are the most medically necessary of all abortions performed (due to medical ailments not showing up until a certain time in development.)
I suppose both sides might agree that elective abortions should not be occurring in the third trimester. Possibly the second as well.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Right there. The only viable compromise was ditched by the recent SCOTUS.
The threat that facism might take hold isn't a good reason to compromise with the facists. Sometimes the reasonable pick between one and three isn't two, even if it causes an impasse.
Besides, the overton window in the US is so extremely far right shifted compared to the rest of the wealthy nations precisely because the right has gotten so good at pretending to compromise, then taking a further step to the right and demanding more compromise. (It's called ratcheting.)
Texas laws say treatments for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies remain legal but leave lots of space for confusion
Texas laws say treatments for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies remain legal but leave lots of space for confusion.Texas law specifically excludes ectopic pregnancies from its abortion laws. I was not incorrect.
Wrong. You are treating "anti-choicers"[sic] as a monolith. Pro-life advocates split on how to deal with contraception and other methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They don't "tend" to block addressing unwanted pregnancies. They vary on how to address them.