Can we compromise on abortion?

[crossfire]

It takes time for radical extremists to be proven wrong. Sometimes it can take 50 years.

Now that the Supreme Court has stopped legislating abortion from the bench, the states have returned to debate and passed legislation on the abortion issue. Rights not enumerated in the Constitution have been returned to the people. Absolutists and all those who have fallen prey to the false dichotomy of life versus choice have been disempowered and people of reason and moral character have been empowered.

I agree: this will not go on forever. What will happen is - it might take 5 years it might take 30 years - what will happen is that it will gradually become clear which states have passed the superior legislation and which states have passed the inferior legislation. It's at that point that the U.S. will have attained the maturity necessary to handle the abortion issue appropriately. They will look back on history and remark how uncivilized the generations of the past were.

The main important thing is that the issue is no longer being imposed on the people as a matter of unquestionable authority by radical extremists.

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.

What exactly do you mean "the 50 years of infringement of rights of people was necessary so that it's evil could be recognized for what it was?" I'm assuming you are referring to the 50 years under Roe v Wade. Which "rights of the people were being infringed?" I certainly saw evil--people bombing clinics and murdering doctors, and urging others to do the same. Setting up fake clinics and lying to vulnerable women.

Is this what you were referring to with the "infringement of the rights of people?"

 

[metis]

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.

Pregnancy can't always be avoided because the drive to reproduce is VERY strong, and sometimes attempts at prevention don't work.

Maybe those school lessons are the source of the problem; unintended consequences.

What evidence do you have for this? Do you honestly believe that ignorance is helpful?

As an analogy, guns are considered a problem by the Left. They want to restrict gun ownership, like the Right does with abortion.

Since the greater the proliferation of guns, the higher the homicide and violent crime rate typically is-- so yes, having more guns is not the solution regardless as to what some of the right-wing talking heads tell you.

Government overreach is what abortion wants; free ride beyond a right.

But banning abortions is "government overreach" as even the majority of Republican women will tell you.

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?

What a mangled mess the above paragraph is.

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.

If you truly were opposed to government overreach, you would allow women to make decisions based on what she and her doctor recommend. IOW, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

 

[metis]

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.

And I painfully remember those days, and that's only part of the story of what happened.

 

[Kenny]

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:

Then, can you at least agree that the other 20% can be stopped?

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.

No... as I mentioned before, you have to be in the medical field to be trained to use the terminology or maybe an atheist.

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

Again... not sure why you are adding "the Bible". I haven't mentioned the Bible. When is "a person".... "a person"? Isn't that the issue at hand?

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.

It's comments like these that make "compromise" impossible.

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.

It's comments like these that make dialogue impossible

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.

It's comments like these that gives great examples why nothing gets accomplished.

 

[crossfire]

And I painfully remember those days, and that's only part of the story of what happened.

Today, domestic violence victims get their medical coverage cancelled as well. :/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then, can you at least agree that the other 20% can be stopped?

What do you mean by that? And why should we? The burden of proof is upon those trying to restrict the actions of others and they just cannot meet that burden. To impose even a "little slavery" on someone you need an awfully good reason. You do not seem to understand the concept of bodily autonomy.

No... as I mentioned before, you have to be in the medical field to be trained to use the terminology or maybe an atheist.

Or honest.

Again... not sure why you are adding "the Bible". I haven't mentioned the Bible. When is "a person".... "a person"? Isn't that the issue at hand?

What clear reason do you have for your stance? You can't seem to justify your beliefs if base them on secular reasoning. We can see why you believe what you believe. Instead of running away from the obvious you could try to justify your beliefs for once.

It's comments like these that make "compromise" impossible.

You may be right. The facts are all against those trying to limit the rights of others. This is not so much about compromise, it is about demonstrating why the antiabortion people are wrong.

It's comments like these that make dialogue impossible

Oh, you can do better. That is why such comments are made.

It's comments like these that gives great examples why nothing gets accomplished.

No, just because you failed does not man that nothing is getting accomplished. You need to face facts. When even very right wing Kansas has an initiative vote that confirms the right to abortions you should know that safe and legal abortions are the future. The Republicans are only harming themselves with this current stance.

Here is the problem, you cannot claim that it is a moral stance when one cannot justify those morals. I can justify my stance. I do not see you doing the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then, can you at least agree that the other 20% can be stopped?

If abortions were stopped by giving pregnant people better options that they freely chose, what percentage would satisfy you?

If you could prevent as many abortions as you like, but it would be only through methods that don't involve coercion or harming pregnant people, how many prevented abortions would make it worth your while?

 

[fantome profane]

To impose even a "little slavery" on someone you need an awfully good reason.

That is exactly it.

Some here seem to think a fair compromise would be just to oppress people a little bit, or maybe it they could just oppress fewer people.

Of course to the people being oppressed I am sure it doesn't seem like a little bit, or like a compromise.

 

[Heyo]

No... as I mentioned before, you have to be in the medical field to be trained to use the terminology or maybe an atheist.

Again... not sure why you are adding "the Bible". I haven't mentioned the Bible. When is "a person".... "a person"? Isn't that the issue at hand?

Personhood is a legal concept. Read the laws that deal with it. Except for very special cases (conjoined twins, who are two persons) a person can (at least in theory) move (or be moved) freely without being connected via an umbilical cord and placenta to a person.
That's why there are different terms for babies and fetuses. They are different. Trying to deny that difference is not helping - and one of the reasons it is so hard to find a compromise. You can't compromise with people who deny reality.

 

[Kenny]

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

Then I am not like Sister Teresa.

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.

Then we should at least agree at the 20 week mark as a compromise.

I always have the problem of "unwanted", "at the time" and "inconvenient". Like you mentioned below, you give an inch and they take a mile. They certainly did that with abortion as now, in certain states, you can have an abortion all the way and including the third trimester.

The mile that comes later with those words is "My parents got sick and they are unwanted, inconvenient and not at the right time".

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.

You would have to be more specific. Generalities like "strange bedfellows" goes both ways. Badly formulated laws can always be corrected.

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.

I think those are apples and oranges and another subject. Babies in the womb don't murder or attack other nations (until they are grown up out of the body of their mom )

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.

Too general and too many caveats. Oregon has abortion at any time and their "quality of life" isn't that great as drug addictions and homelessness becomes more and more of a problem.

So, as a realist, you have to be for reasonable abortion laws because that prevents abortions.

I really don't understand that statement.

 

[Kenny]

What do you mean by that? And why should we? The burden of proof is upon those trying to restrict the actions of others and they just cannot meet that burden. To impose even a "little slavery" on someone you need an awfully good reason. You do not seem to understand the concept of bodily autonomy.

And this is why "compromise" is impossible. You are a great example of it.

 

[Kenny]

If abortions were stopped by giving pregnant people better options that they freely chose, what percentage would satisfy you?

If you could prevent as many abortions as you like, but it would be only through methods that don't involve coercion or harming pregnant people, how many prevented abortions would make it worth your while?

That didn't answer the question.

 

[Kenny]

Personhood is a legal concept. Read the laws that deal with it. Except for very special cases (conjoined twins, who are two persons) a person can (at least in theory) move (or be moved) freely without being connected via an umbilical cord and placenta to a person.
That's why there are different terms for babies and fetuses. They are different. Trying to deny that difference is not helping - and one of the reasons it is so hard to find a compromise. You can't compromise with people who deny reality.

Of course it is a legal question. We are talking about "legalities" here.

Here I am talking about compromise as I say "baby" and you say "it is so hard to find a compromise"?

But it appears that you are saying that a baby that reaches viability is a person. Am I correct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That didn't answer the question.

But your dodge certainly answers mine.

I get why you don't want to answer, because you're being hypocritical either way:

- if you say that there are respectful, positive measures that you'd support, well... why haven't you actually been supporting them? There would be a disconnect between your position in theory and your position in practice.

- if you say there aren't any respectful measures that you'd support to reduce abortions, then you'd be effectively admitting that you don't actually care about preventing abortions. Your justification for your anti-choice position would be based on a lie.

I can definitely see the appeal of refusing to engage with this line of questioning, because you'd lose face no matter what.

 

[metis]

They certainly did that with abortion as now, in certain states, you can have an abortion all the way and including the third trimester.

Roughly 1.5% have an abortion after the 1st trimester.

 

[Heyo]

Of course it is a legal question. We are talking about "legalities" here.

Here I am talking about compromise as I say "baby" and you say "it is so hard to find a compromise"?

Using the term "baby" for a fetus is an attempt to steer away from a rational discussion and make it emotional. And it works. Every time you do it, I want to change my position to allowing to remove those parasites until the day of birth.

But it appears that you are saying that a baby that reaches viability is a person. Am I correct?

No, you aren't and thought I made that clear.

a person can (at least in theory) move (or be moved) freely without being connected via an umbilical cord and placenta to a person.

I.e. personhood (or a fetus becoming a baby) is reached at birth, independent of status of development. An 8 1/2 month fetus is not a person, a 7 month premature born is a person (who may not be viable outside of an incubator).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course it is a legal question. We are talking about "legalities" here.

Are we? I thought we were talking about preventing abortion.

 

[Kenny]

But your dodge certainly answers mine.

I get why you don't want to answer, because you're being hypocritical either way:

A great illustration as to why conversation and debates never find compromise. Thanks for confirming my position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A great illustration as to why conversation and debates never find compromise. Thanks for confirming my position.

Another post where you dodge having to answer which sort of hypocrisy you've chosen for yourself. Good job.

 

[Kenny]

Are we? I thought we were talking about preventing abortion.

Maybe that is why we are connecting? Are we talking comprise within context of laws?