Can we compromise on abortion?

[Shaul]

The child? The child is not the issue. The issue is filthy rapists+filthy christians/abrahamics.

What you wrote was that the child was not legitimate, not that the rapist had no legitimacy. What you wrote made the child and its legitimacy the issue, not the rapists. Which is why I asked for more clarification. So, do you agree that the child has legitimacy even though the rapist and the rapist's acts do not?

And why you are now adding Christians/Abrahamics[sic] into the discussion isn't clear to me at all. They have nothing to do with a discussion about whether a child who is the product of a rape has legitimacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good news for everyone. The Supreme Court thought that it was a really bad idea to hand the next election to the Democrats so they reversed the decision of that crazy Texas judge:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-mifepristone/index.html

 

[crossfire]

Doctors aren't lawyers and they don't want to practice in states with abortion bans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ban-states-obgyn-residency-applications/

I'm also starting to see reports of families wanting to have children who are considering relocating to states where the healthcare to do so is available. Alternatively, they are opting not to have any more children. They don't want to put the health of the moms at risk.

Idaho woman shares 19-day miscarriage on TikTok, says state's abortion laws prevented her from getting care

Carmen Broesder, 35, from Nampa, Idaho, shared her 19-day long miscarriage on TikTok after she said she was denied care due to Idaho's new abortion ban.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Brian2]

Because it is their body. As in my previous post, does someone that needs a kidney have the right to hook up to you bodily for 9 months while he or she waits for a transplant? If not then why does a fetus have that right?

What are you talking about? A foetus can't do anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you talking about? A foetus can't do anything.

What?. Are you even paying attention?

 

[Alien826]

Good news for everyone. The Supreme Court thought that it was a really bad idea to hand the next election to the Democrats so they reversed the decision of that crazy Texas judge:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-mifepristone/index.html

Strictly, The SCOTUS didn't reverse the decision. It blocked implementation while the case works it's way through the appeals procedure. It's by no means settled and will probably arrive at the SCOTUS eventually for a final ruling. I'm far from confident that it will be overturned at that stage, given the composition of the Court. Note that two justices (Alito and Thomas) dissented to this eminently sensible decision.

In the meantime a lot of people can relax for a while, not least the manufacturers, who would have been subject to a serious disruption to their business, not knowing whether the ruling was permanent or not.

My personal feeling is that, abortion aside even, this was a very bad decision. If supported, we would have politically motivated judges able to stop the use of drugs without reference to the drug's actual safety. What's next? Blocking HPV vaccines? The "religious right" doesn't like them because they think that the purpose of HPV is to discourage sex.

I'm with you on the "good news" though!

 

[TLK Valentine]

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?

Sure -- in fact, I'll even suggest a particular solution.
Abortion is legal up to 22 weeks, and illegal after that, except in cases where previously unforeseen medical complications are comromising the health of the mother or the child.

(Incidentally, which Christian forum did you first try this question on?)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just today, I heard Leslie Rutledge, Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas, defend that states ban on all abortions (with the exception of saving the life of the mother), but saying that when a woman decides to have an abortion, she's "making a decision she'll have to live with the rest of her life."

She wisely counters that it is so much better that the government make a decision for her -- which she will still have to live with for the rest of her life, while the government won't won't even notice!

And THAT, my friends, is today's Republican version of "personal liberty." (Oh, and whether a family and the medical profession can help a trans kid, or what may be read in libraries, all of which -- by virtue of their superior education proven by an ability to get elected with rich people's money -- they are so much better equipped to decide to allow as "personal liberty.")

Liars and hypocrites, mostly without the brains to even know that they are lying and being hypocritical.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The child? The child is not the issue. The issue is filthy rapists+filthy christians/abrahamics.

The only thing filthy here is your pathetic bigotry.

 

[Shaul]

Just today, I heard Leslie Rutledge, Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas, defend that states ban on all abortions (with the exception of saving the life of the mother), but saying that when a woman decides to have an abortion, she's "making a decision she'll have to live with the rest of her life."

She wisely counters that it is so much better that the government make a decision for her -- which she will still have to live with for the rest of her life, while the government won't won't even notice!

And THAT, my friends, is today's Republican version of "personal liberty." (Oh, and whether a family and the medical profession can help a trans kid, or what may be read in libraries, all of which -- by virtue of their superior education proven by an ability to get elected with rich people's money -- they are so much better equipped to decide to allow as "personal liberty.")

Liars and hypocrites, mostly without the brains to even know that they are lying and being hypocritical.

The only quote from Lt. Governor Rutledge you gave was [a woman who decides to have an abortion is]"making a decision she'll have to live with the rest of her life". You also claim she is a liar. Therefore you are asserting that a woman who makes a decision to have an abortion will not have to live with that decision the rest of her life and that Lt. Governor Rutledge knows she won't. "Brilliant".

 

[Koldo]

Sure -- in fact, I'll even suggest a particular solution.
Abortion is legal up to 22 weeks, and illegal after that, except in cases where previously unforeseen medical complications are comromising the health of the mother or the child.

(Incidentally, which Christian forum did you first try this question on?)

Isn't that when the vast majority of abortions happen already? If you are not losing anything of value, how is it a compromise?

 

[Heyo]

Isn't that when the vast majority of abortions happen already? If you are not losing anything of value, how is it a compromise?

The "Pro Choicers" want government out of the free choices of women, the "Pro Lifers" want women to have no choice.
By giving women a choice for the first part of the pregnancy and the government the choice for the later part, there is a compromise.

 

[Koldo]

The "Pro Choicers" want government out of the free choices of women, the "Pro Lifers" want women to have no choice.
By giving women a choice for the first part of the pregnancy and the government the choice for the later part, there is a compromise.

In practice, almost nothing would change though. The Pro Choice side would get pretty much exactly what it wanted in the first place, since the vast majority of abortions already take place within the first 20-ish weeks. An actual compromise would be something like limiting abortion up to the first 12 weeks.

 

[crossfire]

In practice, almost nothing would change though. The Pro Choice side would get pretty much exactly what it wanted in the first place, since the vast majority of abortions already take place within the first 20-ish weeks. An actual compromise would be something like limiting abortion up to the first 12 weeks.

Actually, a true compromise would be for the government to have to ok all medical procedures for all people in order for them to be legal, not just pregnant women. I seriously doubt that anyone is willing to hand that much control over to the government.

(See the Kansas State Constitution ruling)

 

[Koldo]

Actually, a true compromise would be for the government to have to ok all medical procedures for all people in order for them to be legal, not just pregnant women. I seriously doubt that anyone is willing to hand that much control over to the government.

(See the Kansas State Constitution ruling)

If no one wants that, how is it a compromise?

 

[Kfox]

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?

Why can't we go on like this forever? As long as a law is in place concerning the issue, why is it necessary for everybody to agree? And not just abortion but any issue? Why shouldn't it be okay for people to disagree with one another?

 

[crossfire]

If no one wants that, how is it a compromise?

Do you think pregnant women want that?

Read the Kansas State Constitution--you might recognize the words in it from the Declaration of Independence. Then check out the Judge's findings regarding the Kansas State Constitution and an attempt to ban abortion there that was put to a vote of the people.

 

[Heyo]

In practice, almost nothing would change though. The Pro Choice side would get pretty much exactly what it wanted in the first place, since the vast majority of abortions already take place within the first 20-ish weeks. An actual compromise would be something like limiting abortion up to the first 12 weeks.

As I said before, Roe v. Wade was the compromise that worked for 50 years. The religious right has cancelled the agreement. Now the fight is on, again.

 

[Koldo]

As I said before, Roe v. Wade was the compromise that worked for 50 years. The religious right has cancelled the agreement. Now the fight is on, again.

I am sorry but that really wasn't a compromise. When one group gets almost everything they want and the other gets almost nothing, that is not a compromise.

 

[Koldo]

Do you think pregnant women want that?

Read the Kansas State Constitution--you might recognize the words in it from the Declaration of Independence. Then check out the Judge's findings regarding the Kansas State Constitution and an attempt to ban abortion there that was put to a vote of the people.

Want what?