Can we compromise on abortion?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

interesting

And less extreme than what the Bible presents: that male babies should be counted as people 30 days after birth and female babies should never be counted as people.

 

[Kenny]

I've said several times that near full term, a pregnant person's right to end the pregnancy could be achieved through inducing a live birth.

Regardless, you keep making it clear that the question of whether late-term abortions happen doesn't matter to you; the only issue you're interested in is whether they're illegal.

I've told you every way that I can think of that I would be happy to bring about a world where no late-term abortions happen, but that isn't what you want. You aren't interested in that world; you're only after a world where people who seek abortions and the people who help them are made to be criminals.

Again, when you insert words into people's mouths such as "late-term abortions happen doesn't matter to you" is another example of how people never reach consensus - no compromise.

What would you do if the person doesn't want the baby to live? (It has happened before). How would you prevent it?

 

[Kenny]

And less extreme than what the Bible presents: that male babies should be counted as people 30 days after birth and female babies should never be counted as people.

Another example of why people can't dialogue and find compromise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, when you insert words into people's mouths such as "late-term abortions happen doesn't matter to you" is another example of how people never reach consensus - no compromise.

It's a fair summary of your position in this thread. Any time anyone brings up any measure to address abortion other than criminalization, you just ignore it or dodge it.

So... are you willing to compromise? Are you willing to set aside your misogyny if it means actually prevent abortions?

What would you do if the person doesn't want the baby to live? (It has happened before). How would you prevent it?

Bodily security implies the right to end tbe pregnancy, not necessarily the right to end it in a specific way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another example of why people can't dialogue and find compromise.

You mean the Bible?

 

[metis]

Transgender is a similar Lefty business model, in that you cannot change your sex, naturally, with only will power and choice.

Oh, so they supposedly invented this, eh?

In both cases, the Left is trying to money launder tax payers dollars in the market places. This is not even free market anymore but involves kickbacks.

Nonsensical stereotype.

The Left is strange in the sense they say they hate the free market, but they are the first to stand in line for unnatural goods and services as they become available.

Made up trash.

They claim they want to save the planet, stay natural, green and organic, but they fanatically seek artificially created options.

Oh, my aching back!

 

[crossfire]

Abortion is only made possible because of science and business. If we took away the science and business variable; medical industries, anyone who wanted an abortion would be hard pressed to find where to get one. It is a manmade option created by the market place. It is not natural or organic.

A miscarriage is different in that the natural body decides. This requires no artificial additives and it occurs for free, without your choice or will. Abortion comes down to choice, based on the options created by man made goods and services in the market place. It is supply driven behavior pushed by the Left. If the man made supply did not exist, what would you do?

Transgender is a similar Lefty business model, in that you cannot change your sex, naturally, with only will power and choice. These choices are being made available in the market place for profit. The options for transgender used to be limited to fashion and cosmetics; dress up, but now the market place offers drugs and surgery. If the market place did not supply these options; supply driven, what would you do? In both cases, the Left is trying to money launder tax payers dollars in the market places. This is not even free market anymore but involves kickbacks.

The Left is strange in the sense they say they hate the free market, but they are the first to stand in line for unnatural goods and services as they become available. They claim they want to save the planet, stay natural, green and organic, but they fanatically seek artificially created options. Such a split brain may not be able to make sound choices.

Would you prefer going back to the old fashioned way of the spouse beating the woman until she has a miscarriage? I'm afraid that's going to become "popular" again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abortion is only made possible because of science and business.

Well, no.

Abortion is apparently as old as human pregnancy.

From as far back as we have the written word, we have descriptions of abortion. As far back as we have medical texts, we have listings of abortifacient drugs.

What is relatively modern is safe abortion.

 

[wellwisher]

As usual with so many of your posts, the above is nothing short of nonsensical stereotyping.

Also, you may want the government to dictate what a woman must do with that which is inside her, so what are you willing to do next? tell her when she must have an operation? which meds she must take? Talk about "government overreach"!

Pregnancy is not cancer, which is a disease that can happen beyond one's control. Pregnancy can be avoided and the need for abortion minimized. There are plenty of preventive measures in the market place. This is not rocket science. One does not have to fully change behavior, beyond applying what is taught to school children. Maybe those school lessons are the source of the problem; unintended consequences.

As an analogy, guns are considered a problem by the Left. They want to restrict gun ownership, like the Right does with abortion. To that end, there are some restrictions in place. Gun owners do not like it, either. With guns, one needs to be an adult, have a background check and even an interview to own a gun. Now there is a mental health check. Some states are less restrictive.

Even though there is a Constitutional right to bear arms, like we have the state to state right to have an abortion, you need to buy your own guns, even if you are poor. Having a right, means the option to choose, but it does not mean entitled to a free ride at the expense of others.

These two situations are very similar, since both involve rights, choices, both can impact life, and both are connected to the free market. Rights leave options open; right to bear arms or right to have an abortions, but rights do not guarantee a free ride.

Based on the similarity, would it be a good idea for the government to buy guns for any poor person, of age, who wants a gun, so they can practice their right to bear arms? Now, even poor women want guns, have to buy their own guns, thereby forcing them to budget for this desire. Government overreach is what abortion wants; free ride beyond a right.

Would it be a good idea to teach gun use and gun safety in schools, especially in the inner cities where gun violence is a problem. If we use the sex education model, we can teach all children, starting at a young age, to use guns properly, and understanding all the parts and safety measures, like we do in sex education. Would this lower gun violence? Or do you think would it would create a worse situation, like sex education and the rising hysteria of needing an abortion. Should we also provide guns to poor people, who wish to practice their right, at no cost, since they cannot afford a new safer gun? Or should they still need to find a cheap used gun in back alleys, that are dirty and may misfire or worse?

I do not believe in any government overreach, since the boneheads who cannot even balance a checkbook; budget, are too shallow and stupid to make important decisions for anyone. They know how to win an election, but lack the needed skills. They are more like actors, playing the roles of statesmen; more for show than for go. Rights are for adults who self reliant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm XY not XX.

I'm a realist. Though I value life, I also understand that not everyone has my worldview. If people are going to take the life of another person, then let's minimize the potential (birth control?) as much as possible. Pain and suffering is another issue I would love to avoid so a limit on time would be important.


It is quite relevant. some points.

It is not a common definition unless:
1) you are a doctor that has been trained to say it that way - as it is a relatively new definition
2) you don't believe it is a baby.

I have never once heard from a pregnant woman (whether they want the baby or not) say:

1) My zygote is growing
2) My fetus is kicking my side
3) My cells inside my uterus are morphing into a similitude of a humanoid being.

Even a child will say "it is a baby" unless you train the child to say otherwise. Sometime children are wiser.

You are conflating the experiences of those that want to have a baby with all cases. Most people when they get pregnant will talk about "my baby". Though if that fetus dies they do not tend to grieve as much as a woman that went through birth and later lost her child. They might not openly state it, but there is a difference between the two examples. And not even the Bible seems to support your rather extreme views, which makes on wonder where they came from.

One needs to remember that their own personal experiences are not necessarily the experiences of everyone. And slavery is wrong no matter how it is applied.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Expecting what? It is about context. It isn't "I'm expecting my zygote to morph into a baby"

"We're expecting a baby" means "we don't have a baby yet, but we will have one in future."

If you thought it was already a baby, you wouldn't say "expecting," because you would think that the baby was already here.

"We're expecting relatives to visit."
"You are? When are they getting here?"
"They're already here. They've been here for a week."
"???"

 

[Kenny]

You are conflating the experiences of those that want to have a baby with all cases. Most people when they get pregnant will talk about "my baby".

So, are you saying there are cases where people actually say "I am carrying a fetus?".

Though if that fetus dies they do not tend to grieve as much as a woman that went through birth and later lost her child. They might not openly state it, but there is a difference between the two examples.

I think you hit a nail on the head albeit I would come to the same conclusion through a different road. When we can impersonalize the baby into just a blob of cells, it does make it easier not to grieve. Personally, I think that is the main reason for impersonalizing it.

The reality is that although we have done our best to make it easier, we really haven't quantified the psychological effects even with the changing of wording:

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009 | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009 - Volume 199 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

And not even the Bible seems to support your rather extreme views, which makes on wonder where they came from.

I'm not sure why you are referencing the Bible. I haven't.

One needs to remember that their own personal experiences are not necessarily the experiences of everyone. And slavery is wrong no matter how it is applied.

Again... how "slavery" is introduced here is beyond my scope of comprehension.

I did mention that not everyone has my worldview which means my "personal experiences are not necessarily the experiences of everyone"

 

[Kenny]

"We're expecting a baby" means "we don't have a baby yet, but we will have one in future."

If you thought it was already a baby, you wouldn't say "expecting," because you would think that the baby was already here.

"We're expecting relatives to visit."
"You are? When are they getting here?"
"They're already here. They've been here for a week."
"???"

I think it is twisting reality in as much as they all say "My baby is getting heavy and can't wait until he/she is delivered"

I think you are making an attempt to put a round peg in a square hole

 

[Heyo]

I'm XY not XX.

I didn't mean the sex but the horrible position that suffering is good.

I'm a realist. Though I value life, I also understand that not everyone has my worldview. If people are going to take the life of another person, then let's minimize the potential (birth control?) as much as possible. Pain and suffering is another issue I would love to avoid so a limit on time would be important.

Since we seem to have very similar moral values, we should come to similar conclusions. I also value life (though I don't count it as a value per se, it is a conclusion from valuing well being). You may not value equality or freedom (my other basic values) but that isn't necessary.
As a fetus can't feel pain before 22nd to 24th week of development, there's no harm, so no foul. But an unwanted (or, at the time, inconvenient) child will most likely not lead the best life and the life of the mother may also be less pleasant.
So, valuing well being is alone a reason to be for reasonable abortion laws, no need to invoke liberty or equality.
Next, as we are both realists, we have to look at who wants and make the abortion laws. As an anti abortionist you have to admit that you have some strange bedfellows, even though you don't exactly agree with their demands and methods. Badly formulated laws have already cause much pain and suffering when medically necessary abortions were not performed because of the laws. And those people are not for better accessible birth control or better sex ed. Offer them an inch and they'll take a mile.
And those people don't value life as much as you and I do. They usually are against abortion but at the same time for capital punishment, lax gun laws and a strong military. I wouldn't like to be associate with that.
These people (and the laws they make) don't promote universal well being. Countries (and states) with strong women's rights (like access to abortion) statistically have more happy and prosperous people - and less abortions.
So, as a realist, you have to be for reasonable abortion laws because that prevents abortions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is twisting reality in as much as they all say "My baby is getting heavy and can't wait until he/she is delivered"

Some people say things like that, sure.

I think you are making an attempt to put a round peg in a square hole

You can go right ahead and think that if you need to.

 

[The Hammer]

Abortion is only made possible because of science and business. If we took away the science and business variable; medical industries, anyone who wanted an abortion would be hard pressed to find where to get one.

This is not true. People have been using plants and other things to induce abortions well before modern medicine.

Even medieval Catholic nuns were performing abortions.

Saints once did abortions – it was a lesser sin than oral sex

Abortion in the Early Middle Ages, c.500-900 Archives - JSTOR Daily

daily.jstor.org

 

[Alien826]

Well, no.

Abortion is apparently as old as human pregnancy.

From as far back as we have the written word, we have descriptions of abortion. As far back as we have medical texts, we have listings of abortifacient drugs.

What is relatively modern is safe abortion.

Well said.

I read something about this. Apparently a couple of hundred years or more ago this was known as "flow adjustment", meaning restoring the menstrual cycle, and many products were on offer. The plant pennyroyal is an example. Obviously everyone involved knew perfectly well what they were doing, but didn't want to use the word "abortion".

To me, it's a prime example of a basic principle, illustrated recently under Prohibition. If people want something badly enough they will find a way to circumvent the law.

 

[Alien826]

You argue that both sides of the debate must compromise, but what I think needs to happen is that radical extremists on both sides of the argument have to get out of the way and let rational, moral people clean up the mess they've made. In the end, there's going to be choice and there's going to be life. Perhaps the 50 years of infringement of the rights of people was necessary so that its evil could be recognized for what it was. We've been there; we've done that; and it was wrong. The path forward isn't compromise; the path forward is the death of extreme, radical tyranny.

Well, that might be a way to achieve compromise (to get rid of the extremists) but I don't see that happening. Rational people can still compromise if they can ignore those extremists and get on with it.

I'm not sure how Roe v Wade infringed on anyone's rights, unless you see the ability to stop other people doing something as a right. It actually added the right to an abortion, previously absent.

Incidentally, I consider the idea of separate laws in separate States to be a bit silly. If we have States where abortion is illegal people will just travel to another State and I predict no decrease in abortions after things settle down. Imo State (and County and City) laws should apply to matters relevant to that constituency. Abortion is the same everywhere. And why do I have to get a new driver's license when I move to a new State? Nothing relevant changes. (Just another example).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well said.

I read something about this. Apparently a couple of hundred years or more ago this was known as "flow adjustment", meaning restoring the menstrual cycle, and many products were on offer. The plant pennyroyal is an example. Obviously everyone involved knew perfectly well what they were doing, but didn't want to use the word "abortion".

To me, it's a prime example of a basic principle, illustrated recently under Prohibition. If people want something badly enough they will find a way to circumvent the law.

I remember listening to my grandmother talk about the people who grew up on her street, The Joneses were like this, and the Smiths were this way, blah, blah. Well, one time when she was telling me a story about the cute little neighbour boy who used to stick his head through the fence to say "hello" and she referred to him as "vinegar head." When I asked her what that meant, she kind of just looked off into space with a weird look in her eye.

Just last year I was thinking about it, and I asked my mother what on earth "vinegar head" means. Apparently, women used to try to abort by soaking a cloth in vinegar and sticking it up "there" in the hopes it would cause an abortion. So, I guess what my Nana was trying to say was that the cute little neighbour boy was an accident.

I guess what I'm trying to do is reinforce your point that "if people want something badly enough, they'll find a way to circumvent the law" and that abortion doesn't disappear just because you outlaw it - it just makes it more dangerous and leads people down dangerous roads in their attempt to deal with the situation themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, are you saying there are cases where people actually say "I am carrying a fetus?".

I see, not paying attention again. No, by the time it is a fetus most abortions have occurred. 80% of all abortions have occurred by the tenth week, when an embryo becomes a fetus:

Abortion in the United States

The Guttmacher Institute recently published new data on abortion in the United States. As we work to update our fact sheets with the latest data, please be aware that some of the information below is out of date. In the meantime, please refer to the following resources for the most current facts...

www.guttmacher.org

It is parents that want to have a baby that tend to use incorrect terminology. There is nothing wrong with that for them. It is wrong to try to apply that terminology to everyone.

I think you hit a nail on the head albeit I would come to the same conclusion through a different road. When we can impersonalize the baby into just a blob of cells, it does make it easier not to grieve. Personally, I think that is the main reason for impersonalizing it.

Then you would be wrong since it clearly is not a "person" at that time. Even the Bible agrees with that.

The reality is that although we have done our best to make it easier, we really haven't quantified the psychological effects even with the changing of wording:

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009 | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009 - Volume 199 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

I'm not sure why you are referencing the Bible. I haven't.

It would appear to be your real reason for your beliefs. You have totally failed to make a rational argument. When that occurs people rely upon religion.

Again... how "slavery" is introduced here is beyond my scope of comprehension.

Which is a pity, because that is what you are advocating. I am sure that it has been explained to you. At a point it becomes rather obvious that people are not understanding on purpose.

I did mention that not everyone has my worldview which means my "personal experiences are not necessarily the experiences of everyone"

Then a proper compromise would be for you not to get an abortion and leave such a difficult decision up to the people that are directly affected by the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Now that is a reasonable compromise.