Can we compromise on abortion?

[Alien826]

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?

 

[Orbit]

10 to 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. The only treatment is abortion. There are also ectopic pregnancies, which will kill the mother, and the fetus isn't viable and can't be "transplanted" to the womb. The only treatment is abortion.

The draconian abortion laws make doctors afraid to provide these women with life-saving health care. The anti-abortion fanatics need to understand this.

 

[PureX]

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?

We had a compromise that was agreeable and was working for most people. But the republican party decided to destroy it so they could win some elections. They pandered to a small minority of people that don't believe in compromise, were then 'owned' by them, and now our whole government is broken.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Any restriction on abortion amounts to an infringement on the fundamental rights and value of pregnant people - or people who might become pregnant.

IMO, no restriction on rights is acceptable. The proper place for compromise is on other measures: if alternatives to abortion are provided that are so attractive and available that everyone freely chooses non-abortive options, then both sides can be happy.

... or rather, they'd be happy if they're honest in their positions. As I've pointed out before, anti-choice positions often make no sense if we assume they're motivated by a concern for fetuses and embryos, but all make sense if we assume they're motivated by a desire to punish women for having sex they don't approve of.

If I'm right about the true motives of anti-choicers, they wouldn't be satisfied even with zero abortions if public policy made a bunch of pregnant people happier or better off.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we assume anti-choicers are honest, then there's no inherent conflict between their goal and the pro-choice goal:

- anti-choicers want there to be zero abortions.

- pro-choicers want abortion services to be legal, safe and available, but them only to be used in cases where the pregnant person wants them.

Create a society where abortion is legal, safe and available but nobody chooses to use it and you've satisfied both sides.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

There's no compromise with people who won't even agree it's a human life at stake, and who want to control and redefine language for ideological ends (hence why they snap at you when you call them unborn babies and so on). If we can't even agree on basic fundamentals, there's nowhere to go in the conversation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's no compromise with people who won't even agree it's a human life at stake, and who want to control and redefine language for ideological ends (hence why they snap at you when you call them unborn babies and so on). If we can't even agree on basic fundamentals, there's nowhere to go in the conversation.

Bodily autonomy makes "unborn babies" arguments moot anyway.

If an actual child - born, clearly sentient and expressing a desire to live - doesn't have the right to their parent's organs or tissue without the parent's consent, an embryo or fetus doesn't have that right either.

I would say that one of the fundamentals that everyone should agree on is that a pregnant person has all the rights and value of a human being, but anti-choicers can't even concede to that much.

 

[pearl]

What do you think?

Every proposed solution seems to have its flaws. Even allowing abortion is the case of rape has its problems. Anti-abortionists claim the innocence of the unborn, then how can they compromise away the innocence of a fetus, sins of the father? Pro-choicer simply means 'I won't' have one but others ought to be able to. I have yet to see any increase in programs to assist a mother and baby post uterus. The only answer is to drop him/her off to an adoption agency, or hospital or fire station.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Bodily autonomy makes "unborn babies" arguments moot anyway.

If an actual child - born, clearly sentient and expressing a desire to live - doesn't have the right to their parent's organs or tissue without the parent's consent, an embryo or fetus doesn't have that right either.

I would say that one of the fundamentals that everyone should agree on is that a pregnant person has all the rights and value of a human being, but anti-choicers can't even concede to that much.

Yep. I've often said that it wouldn't matter to me if the person inside was magically a fully adult, sapient individual. The mother still has the authority over how their body gets used and how long it gets used. Nobody at any point, through any circumstance, is entitled to the use of someone else's body against their will.

 

[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?

Suggestion. All males must receive vasectomies, which will be reversed at when they get married.

 

[MikeF]

I'm not proposing any particular solution, just saying that we can't go on like this forever.

What do you think?

I do not think there is room for compromise on the anti-abortion side. I think there is much more wrapped up in it than simply abortion. I think it is simply one front on a battle against the societal slide to liberal secularism for those who see that as a negative thing. Any compromise towards abortion would be seen as one more devastating blow against the ideal of a Christian American, with strong family values and clear gender roles. As a matter of fact, I see the recent success at the Supreme Court only reinforcing their anti-abortion stance and emboldening them to work harder on other fronts.

 

[Heyo]

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?

What I said before. The conversation has become dogmatic a long time ago and rationality has left the discussion. And there are many more dogmatic people on the forced-birth side of the discussion, it seems.

 

[Left Coast]

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?

The compromise I can see would be to prohibit abortions past viability unless there's a medical emergency. But I don't know how popular it would realistically be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think abortion is a despicable act aside from clear and obvious complications, but compared to the horrors of infanticide, it's almost humane.

 

[fantome profane]

The thing that most people fail to realize is that Roe vs Wade was a compromise.

 

[Revoltingest]

Any restriction on abortion amounts to an infringement on the fundamental rights and value of pregnant people - or people who might become pregnant.

That kind of all-or-nothing view doesn't work for the
extremes of either side. In the real world, things that
are politically impossible aren't worth pursuing.
Ultimately, I predict that there'll be some threshold of
this or that many months, before which abortion will
be legal without restriction. And thereafter, restrictions
of some kind will be imposed.

And most anti-abortion types who cry "No compromise!"
& "Abortion is murder of a human being!" don't really
believe that. Most allow for abortion to save the mother's
life, which is a compromise, ie, to "murder" one person to
save the life of another. And many also allow "murder" of
the "child" if the result of rape or incest. It's compromise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's my compromise:

If you are against abortion, don't get an abortion.
If you want/need an abortion, get an abortion.
Everyone mind their own business.

That's basically how it works here.

 

[Alien826]

That kind of all-or-nothing view doesn't work for the
extremes of either side. In the real world, things that
are politically impossible aren't worth pursuing.
Ultimately, I predict that there'll be some threshold of
this or that many months, before which abortion will
be legal without restriction. And thereafter, restrictions
of some kind will be imposed.

And most anti-abortion types who cry "No compromise!"
& "Abortion is murder of a human being!" don't really
believe that. Most allow for abortion to save the mother's
life, which is a compromise, ie, to "murder" one person to
save the life of another. And many also allow "murder" of
the "child" if the result of rape or incest. It's compromise.

That's the best one so far, IMO. I'm a little disappointed, but not too surprised, at how little compromise there has been.

So far then ...

No compromise:
Pro-life: 2
Pro-choice: 8

Compromise: 2

Other: 2

Come on, pro-lifers, you can do better than that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a reasonable solution. All abortions are to be legal. But abortions after 22 weeks are not to be covered by insurance unless medically necessary. Like it or not abortions are often a needed service for women. It is really not anyone else's business besides the woman and her health care giver. Abortions after 22 weeks are very very rare and are practically never not medically necessary. But the holier than thou types can rest assured that if it ever happens it is the woman who will end up paying for it.

 

[Jimmy]

Unfortunately I highly doubt it.