• 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?

GardenLady

Active Member
I don't think anything in particular happens at 15 weeks; I mention it because it is a feature of some laws being passed. As pregnancy progresses, the fetus becomes more developed. When all the parts are there, whether the fetus is viable outside the womb or not, it is not just a clump of cells. It's a human. We are talking about human life here. Yes, I know there are those who don't think a fetus is human until it's viable outside the womb and others not until it's born.

I gladly accept the asterisk.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't think anything in particular happens at 15 weeks; I mention it because it is a feature of some laws being passed. As pregnancy progresses, the fetus becomes more developed. When all the parts are there, whether the fetus is viable outside the womb or not, it is not just a clump of cells. It's a human. We are talking about human life here. Yes, I know there are those who don't think a fetus is human until it's viable outside the womb and others not until it's born.

I gladly accept the asterisk.

*I'm* not just a clump of cells either, but my mother has the absolute right to deny me the use of her body or any organ, tissue or fluid from her body, even if I will surely die without it.

Denying a pregnant person a right thay a parent with a one-day-old baby would have implies either:

- a fetus is entitled to rights that a baby is not, or
- a pregnant person is not entitled to normal human rights.

I'll let you decide for yourself which of these options you're basing your position on.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yeah I know I've made several comments in a row. Last one.... the GOP is clearly afraid of allowing the American people to vote directly on this issue by referendum based on what they saw in Kansas.
Not just the abortion issue, and not just the Kansas referendum. Polls consistently indicate that the majority support a lot of issues opposed by the GOP. That's why the Republicans are now concentrating on emotional triggers like gun control, abortion, book banning and 'wokeness', rather than substantive policy issues. They avoid fact-based discussion or debate. and concentrate on mud slinging and generating fear.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't think anything in particular happens at 15 weeks; I mention it because it is a feature of some laws being passed. As pregnancy progresses, the fetus becomes more developed. When all the parts are there, whether the fetus is viable outside the womb or not, it is not just a clump of cells. It's a human. We are talking about human life here. Yes, I know there are those who don't think a fetus is human until it's viable outside the womb and others not until it's born.

I gladly accept the asterisk.
I believe it's human at conception, but I don't believe it qualifies as a person. Rights are based on personhood, not species.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I see much vocal and fervent opposition to legal abortion from women, but they are mostly evangelicals and Catholics. My observation is that with men, their view on abortion is often determined by whether they are married or not. I find single men more likely to be pro-choice.
Evangelicals always tend to be annoying loud no matter what they back or oppose. So it may seem that there are more of them. But even with the Republicans the women are more pro-choice. In South Carolina the Republican women in the state congress joined with the Democrats to sink their state's almost total ban on abortion.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
A while back, I posted a similar thread to this on a Christian forum. What I got from the pro-life people there was an emphatic "no". Abortion is murder and we won't rest until it's stamped out totally.

I'd like to try again here, a more reasonable place, mostly.

Here's the question. Looking at the current situation in the USA, it seems to me that we can only come to some kind of peaceful agreement on abortion if both sides compromise. Pro-life people must allow some abortions and pro-choice people must accept some restrictions. Then, once the compromise is reached, most people have to accept it and abide by it.

I'm not proposing any particular solution, just saying that we can't go on like this forever.

What do you think?
It appears, by the answer, both sides are stuck in their positions.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I don't think anything in particular happens at 15 weeks;
Can you come around to a compromise that fixes that problem?
At around the 22nd to 24th week, the fetus develops a brain and a nervous system. I.e. it potentially feels pain. That doesn't make it a person but we grant the right to not be unnecessarily tortured to animals who are also not persons.

So, when you shift your limit to 20, 22, 24 weeks, you have an argument.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
It appears, by the answer, both sides are stuck in their positions.

Largely, yes. But remember, people that post on Internet forums tend to have very "definite" views about things. I still have hope that there are a lot of moderate people out there that are open to compromise. Time will tell.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Except Catholics. Most Catholics have been opposed to abortion all along. Even though (per Guttmacher) about 1/4 of abortion patients arae Catholic. As a former Catholic, I found it disturbing that the Catholic church railed against both abortion and contraception.
I agree, but as Catholics we do have the right of personal discernment according to the Catechism.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I agree, but as Catholics we do have the right of personal discernment according to the Catechism.
I'm not sure how this lines up with official policy, but I know someone who was told that if she voted for Hilary she would go to hell. This was from lay person who was quoting what the Priest said from the pulpit. If that's true, it's not much of a choice you are offered.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
And in this case it is neither good, nor practical to compromise on a basic human right.
Most countries have restrictions on late term abortions. Even though that technically infringes on bodily autonomy, it is widely accepted and practical. In the US, Roe v Wade was a working compromise for 50 years. Problems only arose when forced birthers wouldn't accept the compromise.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Most countries have restrictions on late term abortions. Even though that technically infringes on bodily autonomy, it is widely accepted and practical. In the US, Roe v Wade was a working compromise for 50 years. Problems only arose when forced birthers wouldn't accept the compromise.
Forced birthers is a good term. I've read stories about women being denied medical treatment until after they expel a dead fetus. It's "go home until you get sepsis."
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Can you come around to a compromise that fixes that problem?
At around the 22nd to 24th week, the fetus develops a brain and a nervous system. I.e. it potentially feels pain. That doesn't make it a person but we grant the right to not be unnecessarily tortured to animals who are also not persons.

So, when you shift your limit to 20, 22, 24 weeks, you have an argument.
This gets back to why I think that limiting any insurance coverage after 22 weeks is a good compromise, unless medically necessary. One of the problems with medically necessary abortions would be proving that it is medically necessary. Antiabortionists would often try to stonewall those cases knowing that it increased the chances of it going to term. They did not care for the life and health of the mother or fetus. They just want to avoid all abortions. My compromise would put pressure on doctors and parents. It takes time for insurance to go through. If the doctor did not go through proper diligence and confirm that it was medically necessary he might not get paid. If the mother was acting on a very late change of heart she could have a massive medical bill.

This is already an almost unheard of event. By 22 weeks 99% of all abortions have already occurred. Those that have late term abortions want to have that baby. They are almost all forced to abort due to events not under their control. People are worried about almost nonexistent abortions.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The science definition of life encompasses the human unborn, since the unborn shows all the criteria of life. A single cell bacteria is considered alive. Each cell in the embryo is alive in that sense, while combined it also is alive. The political strategy is to ignore science, and then say the unborn is not a person until it is born, is pseudo-science. The Atheists, who claim to be on the side of science, need to step up.

In terms of the argument of personhood, if you compare the unborn during pregnancy, to a new born baby, the new born baby is much more dependent on the efforts of the mother, than it is the unborn The unborn is much more autonomous. It takes what it needs from the mother, with no conscious effort by the mother. Mothers can ignore the unborn for months and may not even know she is pregnant, since unborn is quietly self sufficient within the matrix of her body. Some women will even continue to burn the candle from both ends, while pregnant. The unborn adapts, often with little long term harm. The born baby, on the other hand, is very vulnerable. It is cut off from its unborn instincts, and now has many new dependencies. Lefties always think upside down and fool themselves.

Pregnancy is a well understood phenomena. Getting pregnant is not rocket science. The Political left pushes sex education in school, even for small children, they say to help avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy. There are many ways, taught in school, to avoid pregnancy, that even a first grader can recite. How about "adult" women learn to be applied and proactive, based on the sex education taught to them as small children in schools? This could help solve the problem. Adults who cannot apply, what is taught to children, may not be able to make good choices in other matters. Others may have to choose for them. This is what is happening.

Many people do not agree with abortion, while there are many others who do. One compromise, is to buffer those who do not want anything to do with abortion, by placing all the responsibilities, and all the expenses just on those who want abortion. If you wish to play, you need to pay. A woman's right to choose, stops at forcing others to pay; via common insurance and taxes. This overreach is creating the backlash, since rights stop when they deprive others of rights. You are expecting others to pay, even if abortion is against their conscience. This takes away their human and religious rights. The solution is for women to take care of their own business, like an adult. Spoiled dependent children are not the best judges for anything. If a parent has to supports a child, they have a say in what the child can and cannot do.

The Political Left has perfected a way to buy votes, using other people's money, including that of their political opponent. How many who want abortion will vote Left? And how many of these think everyone needs to pay? This robbery theme is common to all the Left's social engineering scams. It is also what is driving the national debt house of cards toward collapse. The Constitution only says to provide for the common defense; provide equals money. Promote the general welfare, can be done via volunteers and spokesmen. Promote is not the same as provide. Only one involves common tax money.

One starter solution is to separate tax revenue, by political party, with each party only able to use their tax revenues, from their voter base, for their own needs. Abortion, which is most favored by the Left, would be your own private concern paid for by the Left. But the Left would lose extra stolen money used to promote their candidates. The Left leadership does not wish to stop stealing, so those who seek abortion for are left in the middle, between conflicting needs and rights.

The idea of allowing the States to decide, ends up placing more responsibility on Left leaning states, to pay for their own freebies for votes. This is moving the bar in the proper direction. This makes abortion available where wanted, and isolates were not want. It also places all the expenses on the shoulders of those who use it to get votes and those who want it. However, the Left States will see more debt and will have to adjust, until abortion is legal in places but minimized; not over promoted with free money.
 
Last edited:
Top