I agree...
But in today's societal makeup - less would still be better. Heartbeat bills could be viewed as 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 in today's societal makeup - less would still be better. Heartbeat bills could be viewed as a compromise.
Heyo
Veteran Member
What is the argument again why a heartbeat makes an embryo special?
It is an indication that the baby has life.
Six-week abortion bans are effectively an abortion ban in many cases. They aren't a compromise.
Someone with an irregular menstrual cycle may not even realize that their period is late by that point.
Any compromise can be seen as an "abortion ban". Comprise means you come to the middle.
Application? Can I assume that the person is taking precautions?
My point was that for many people, what you propose would mean no opportunity to get an abortion at all.
What a compromise looks like depends on what your goal is. Is your goal prevention of abortion or are you only interested in criminalization of abortion? There's lots of room for compromise if you're actually interested in preventing abortion.
It would appear that you would be a good example of why no compromise can be accomplished.
There's lots of room for me to compromise on preventing abortion, so I take it that your goal is only criminalization, not prevention. Am I right?
You are wrong in the essence. And what premise do we differ on "preventing abortion" that we need to compromise on? You are offering a compromise on an issue that isn't an issue. I take your goal is to de-criminalize any abortion. Am I right?
Heyo
Veteran Member
A very weak one. Not everything that has a heartbeat is alive and not everything that is alive has a heartbeat. You can see a blastocyst form in a test tube before implantation and you know it is alive by seeing it grow.
"Weak" would be a personal perspective. Are you suggesting we should create babies in a test tube until it has a heartbeat for testing sake?
Heyo
Veteran Member
The human gestation period is about 40 weeks. The middle is 20 weeks. I consider that a compromise. And it is also, with a short period of safety, the moment we can assume that the fetus can suffer. As reducing suffering and promoting well being is one of my (and also widely accepted) pillars of morality, I can argue for curtailing the woman's right to bodily autonomy with a better reason than a heartbeat. Furthermore it is practical as there is enough time for the woman to know that she is pregnant and arrange to end the pregnancy.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Where did that strange non sequitur come from?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I said "determined" by facts, not "supported" by facts. When you have something as clearly demonstrable as the Earth orbiting the Sun, that's the edn of the discussion unless you are seriously deficient in brain cells. There's nothing that definite about the abortion debate. Sure, we can talk about the fetus being "life" or whether it can feel pain at a particular stage of development, and science can help us there, but in the end we decide on subjective factors, like how much we value the fetus compared to the woman carrying it.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
More or less, yes. What's your point?
Not possible.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Now here's a ray of light.
abcnews.go.com
Nikki Haley makes a lot of sense, in what could be the start of a dialog. She's pro-life of course, but look for the compromises in what she says. She starts by saying that a Federal law, either for or against abortion, is politically impossible at the moment. She goes on to talk about what many would call compromise, like this:
Haley did offer some broad ideas regarding abortion and reproductive rights, including supporting adoptive families, advocating for "pro-life doctors and nurses," limiting elective late-term abortions, increasing access to contraception and, in a subtle rebuke of a minority of her Republican colleagues, opposing efforts to criminalize women who get abortions.
Nikki Haley calls for 'consensus' and 'sensitivity' on abortion, says specifics will take work
Nikki Haley made a moderate case for a “national consensus” on abortion during remarks Tuesday morning
Nikki Haley makes a lot of sense, in what could be the start of a dialog. She's pro-life of course, but look for the compromises in what she says. She starts by saying that a Federal law, either for or against abortion, is politically impossible at the moment. She goes on to talk about what many would call compromise, like this:
Haley did offer some broad ideas regarding abortion and reproductive rights, including supporting adoptive families, advocating for "pro-life doctors and nurses," limiting elective late-term abortions, increasing access to contraception and, in a subtle rebuke of a minority of her Republican colleagues, opposing efforts to criminalize women who get abortions.
That compromise was obviously not acceptable to pro-birthers. With that compromise repealed, women can't even get miscarriage care in the zealously legislated pro-birth areas, and even birthing women are starting to get turned away from healthcare in those areas. The question then becomes one of how long can the pro-birthers close their eyes to the malignant consequences of their zealous legislation.
Well, I think there are other issues that should be high priority: combatting climate change, the housing crisis, unemployment, etc.
If you had some plan to voluntarily convince people not to have abortions and this plan needed funding, I would be open to discussions about how much money should be diverted from programs to address those other important issues to your plan.
You see preventing abortions as "an issue that isn't an issue"?
What I see as the ideal scenario on this issue would be:
1. at every point during pregnancy, pregnant people have access to safe, legal and free methods to end their pregnancy.
2. abortion care services would be part of the bundle of services required for licensure of a general hospital.
3. medical professionals - including pharmacists - whose duties include medical or surgical abortion-related services but refused to perform their duties would be in breach of their professional code of ethics and subject to discipline.
4. the voluntary choice not to abort would be made as easy as possible with long job-protected paid pregnancy leave, free medical care for pregnant people and children, and other programs.
I am willing to compromise on point 2 and point 3, and as I mentioned, I'm willing to consider any program or policy that reduces abortion rates by giving pregnant people more attractive options that they freely choose.
Last edited:
This is my view. Compromise isn't a virtue. Especially when one side is using compromise to further their own interests on a thing (body autonomy) that should never have been compromised on at *any* level. Just like 'some slavery' isn't a reasonable position between no slavery and a lot of slavery, some removal of body autonomy isn't either.