Can we compromise on abortion?

[Heyo]

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.

It was a good compromise at the time and you can't fault people for obeying the laws.

 

[crossfire]

Want what?

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)

Let me repost and you can tell me which part you don't understand. I'll go ahead and expand on the Kansas State Constitution part: If you read it, you will probably recognize it quoting the Declaration of Independence as part of the State Constitution, stating that all men are created equal and enjoy inherent rights. This would include pregnant women. To single pregnant women out to take away rights others enjoy would be to compromise the words of the Declaration of Independence codified in the Kansas State Constitution. The people of Kansas were not willing to compromise their admirable State Constitution.

 

[Koldo]

It was a good compromise at the time and you can't fault people for obeying the laws.

But that's the point: There wasn't a compromise. Calling it so doesn't make it so. A compromise entails both sides making a concession.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As it's a medical procedure no. There can be no compromise as compromise allows those who don't belong to influence and make healthcare decisions that must remain between patient and doctor.

 

[Koldo]

Let me repost and you can tell me which part you don't understand. I'll go ahead and expand on the Kansas State Constitution part: If you read it, you will probably recognize it quoting the Declaration of Independence as part of the State Constitution, stating that all men are created equal and enjoy inherent rights. This would include pregnant women. To single pregnant women out to take away rights others enjoy would be to compromise the words of the Declaration of Independence codified in the Kansas State Constitution. The people of Kansas were not willing to compromise their admirable State Constitution.

Ahhhh.
You are using the word compromise in a different way, with the other meaning it has. I am using it as per the topic title: an agreement (with mutual concessions).

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

It's not as black & white as you say.
Some Dems oppose abortion.
Some Pubs favor it.
Also, it's rather bigoted to label anti-abortion types as "liars" & "hypocrites".
I know many who are sincere in their opposition....this despite my viewing
their position as immoral knuckle walking ill-considered theocratic
authoritarianism.
(My apologies to knuckle walkers.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's not as black & white as you say.
Some Dems oppose abortion.
Some Pubs favor it.
Also, it's rather bigoted to label anti-abortion types as "liars" & "hypocrites".
I know many who are sincere in their opposition....this despite my viewing
their position as immoral knuckle walking ill-considered theocratic
authoritarianism.
(My apologies to knuckle walkers.)

And this knuckle-walker?

"During a hearing by the Ohio House’s Constitutional Resolutions Committee on Tuesday, Laura Strietmann, the executive director of Cincinnati Right to Life organization, argued that raped 10-year-olds are capable and should carry their attacker’s children to term."​

​

“I know that a 10-year-old might not understand pregnancy, but I also know that a 10-year-old understands life and playing with dolls,” Strietmann contended. “I know when my daughter was ten years old, she cried and begged for a little sister or a baby. And while a pregnancy might have been difficult on a 10-year-old body, a woman’s body is designed to carry life. That is a biological fact.” ​

Right to Life leader in Ohio says 10-year-old rape victims should carry babies to term

During a hearing by the Ohio House's Constitutional Resolutions Committee on Tuesday, Laura Strietmann, the executive director of Cincinnati Right to Life organization, argued that raped 10-year-olds are capable and should carry their attacker’s children to term.

heartlandsignal.com

​

 

[Revoltingest]

And this knuckle-walker?

"During a hearing by the Ohio House’s Constitutional Resolutions Committee on Tuesday, Laura Strietmann, the executive director of Cincinnati Right to Life organization, argued that raped 10-year-olds are capable and should carry their attacker’s children to term."​

​

“I know that a 10-year-old might not understand pregnancy, but I also know that a 10-year-old understands life and playing with dolls,” Strietmann contended. “I know when my daughter was ten years old, she cried and begged for a little sister or a baby. And while a pregnancy might have been difficult on a 10-year-old body, a woman’s body is designed to carry life. That is a biological fact.” ​

Right to Life leader in Ohio says 10-year-old rape victims should carry babies to term

During a hearing by the Ohio House's Constitutional Resolutions Committee on Tuesday, Laura Strietmann, the executive director of Cincinnati Right to Life organization, argued that raped 10-year-olds are capable and should carry their attacker’s children to term.

heartlandsignal.com

​

Obviously, I disagree with such views.
But not all Pubs hold them.

 

[Heyo]

Ahhhh.
You are using the word compromise in a different way, with the other meaning it has. I am using it as per the topic title: an agreement (with mutual concessions).

When I mug you and want to take all your money, do you think it is a good compromise when we agree that I take only half of it?
And when I do it again to you the next day, would that again be a good compromise?

 

[fantome profane]

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?

I have been thinking more about this. And it seems the kind of "compromise" that people had in mind is "we take away some of your human rights, but we generously leave you with a little bit".

But what if we thought about this a little differently. What would the "pro-life" side actually be willing to give in trade for these people giving up their rights? Not that this would ever actually happen, but something to think about.

How about health care? In exchange for their bodily autonomy they get free quality medical care. Or how about education? What if we gave everyone who has a uterus free education in exchange for not being allowed to decide for themselves? Or what about gun control? I mean if you are going to force women to give birth the least you can do is protect those children. And there are lots of other things that they could put on the table in exchange for this incredible thing they are asking for. Pay equity, free housing, a brand new car!

And perhaps even respect as well.

What do you think?

 

[Alien826]

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?

Obviously it's OK for people to disagree. This is more than simple disagreement though. One side thinks that the other side murders babies and wants to make abortion illegal. The other side disagrees about the murder thing, wants abortion to be legal and tells the other side to butt out. The country is being divided into two "sides" over it, to the point whare elections are being decided on this issue alone.

And there isn't a law in place, is there? Lots of different laws, all conflicting is what I see.

 

[Koldo]

When I mug you and want to take all your money, do you think it is a good compromise when we agree that I take only half of it?
And when I do it again to you the next day, would that again be a good compromise?

In other words, you don't see a compromise as being possible. And therefore what the US had before was not a compromise...

 

[Heyo]

I have been thinking more about this. And it seems the kind of "compromise" that people had in mind is "we take away some of your human rights, but we generously leave you with a little bit".

But what if we thought about this a little differently. What would the "pro-life" side actually be willing to give in trade for these people giving up their rights? Not that this would ever actually happen, but something to think about.

How about health care? In exchange for their bodily autonomy they get free quality medical care. Or how about education? What if we gave everyone who has a uterus free education in exchange for not being allowed to decide for themselves? Or what about gun control? I mean if you are going to force women to give birth the least you can do is protect those children. And there are lots of other things that they could put on the table in exchange for this incredible thing they are asking for. Pay equity, free housing, a brand new car!

And perhaps even respect as well.

What do you think?

:winner:

 

[Heyo]

In other words, you don't see a compromise as being possible. And therefore what the US had before was not a compromise...

I don't think a compromise is possible in the current political climate in the US. The religious right isn't asking for a compromise, they are asking for an *** whooping.

 

[Alien826]

When I mug you and want to take all your money, do you think it is a good compromise when we agree that I take only half of it?
And when I do it again to you the next day, would that again be a good compromise?

Don't add words to the definition! You're calling it a "good compromise".

Here's a definition that I prefer. A "workable compromise". What that means is that both sides agree to the new rules (or agreement) and can live with it. It doesn't have to be equal or fair in the eyes of anyone but the parties to the agreement. Inevitably, if the parties are not really close in their positions, one or both sides will not be totally happy. Typically they do it because having an agreement is preferable to continuing to fight over it.

As an illustration, I'll alter your example a little if I may. A mobster comes into your shop and offers to "protect" your business from "bad guys" for $100 a week. You know perfectly well that he is really agreeing not to damage your shop himself, but you also know that he is paying off the cops and they won't help you. You think you can pay $50 without impacting your business too much and offer that. He agrees. He gets less than he asked initially, but gets something. You get him off your back. That's bad in all kinds of ways, but it is a workable compromise.

 

[Alien826]

This has gone in for a while so I'll come in.

Predictably, many have used it to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion. Many see my point.

Essentially it was a question. Is compromise possible? On balance, I think the answer is "no". Whether compromise is even desirable was not part of my intention, and I think remains an open question.

 

[Heyo]

Don't add words to the definition! You're calling it a "good compromise".

Here's a definition that I prefer. A "workable compromise". What that means is that both sides agree to the new rules (or agreement) and can live with it. It doesn't have to be equal or fair in the eyes of anyone but the parties to the agreement. Inevitably, if the parties are not really close in their positions, one or both sides will not be totally happy. Typically they do it because having an agreement is preferable to continuing to fight over it.

As an illustration, I'll alter your example a little if I may. A mobster comes into your shop and offers to "protect" your business from "bad guys" for $100 a week. You know perfectly well that he is really agreeing not to damage your shop himself, but you also know that he is paying off the cops and they won't help you. You think you can pay $50 without impacting your business too much and offer that. He agrees. He gets less than he asked initially, but gets something. You get him off your back. That's bad in all kinds of ways, but it is a workable compromise.

With that definition, I consider Roe v. Wade a very workable compromise. It worked for 50 years.
But now the mobster isn't contend with $50 any more and tries again to get the 100. He thinks he can get away with it because he is now controlling not only the cops but the DA and the judge also.

 

[Alien826]

I have been thinking more about this. And it seems the kind of "compromise" that people had in mind is "we take away some of your human rights, but we generously leave you with a little bit".

But what if we thought about this a little differently. What would the "pro-life" side actually be willing to give in trade for these people giving up their rights? Not that this would ever actually happen, but something to think about.

How about health care? In exchange for their bodily autonomy they get free quality medical care. Or how about education? What if we gave everyone who has a uterus free education in exchange for not being allowed to decide for themselves? Or what about gun control? I mean if you are going to force women to give birth the least you can do is protect those children. And there are lots of other things that they could put on the table in exchange for this incredible thing they are asking for. Pay equity, free housing, a brand new car!

And perhaps even respect as well.

What do you think?

This is a very interesting reply.

My first reaction was, how about the Catholic church giving up their opposition to birth control?

If we assume honesty on both sides (Hahaha) maybe we could agree on some basic idea. That could be that both sides prefer abortion not to happen. The pro-life side is clear on this, and don't the pro-choice people prefer that nobody needs an abortion because all pregnancies are desired? That could lead to a common effort to make contraception better and more available, involving some research, maybe free contraceptives and lots of education. That way the two sides could unite, in at least one area.

Yes, I know that's unlikely, not least because the religious right are really against sex itself, not contraception.

 

[Alien826]

With that definition, I consider Roe v. Wade a very workable compromise. It worked for 50 years.
But now the mobster isn't contend with $50 any more and tries again to get the 100. He thinks he can get away with it because he is now controlling not only the cops but the DA and the judge also.

Roe wasn't a workable compromise because one side didn't agree to it and continued to fight to change it.

And my mobster example is unlikely to happen because it implies that he has agreed to stick to it. I was just trying to address the idea that a bad feature (like a protection racket) didn't make something unworkable or not a compromise. Following your extension to it, what makes it not a compromise is that the mobster didn't really agree to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

What do you think an ideal level of dehumanization for pregnant people would be?