Can we compromise on abortion?

[Alien826]

Whilst I applaud your efforts.
I don’t know if there really is enough “middle ground taken” so to speak about such a topic, it is very complex and people feel very passionately about it. On both sides.

Indeed every compromise will come with its own set of drawbacks that the pro choice side will argue against.

Late term abortion restrictions for example.
These are the most medically necessary of all abortions performed (due to medical ailments not showing up until a certain time in development.)
I suppose both sides might agree that elective abortions should not be occurring in the third trimester. Possibly the second as well.

I never said it would be easy. Or even possible.

You're right about late term abortions. I believe they are comparatively rare and almost all medically necessary.

 

[SomeRandom]

I never said it would be easy. Or even possible.

You're right about late term abortions. I believe they are comparatively rare and almost all medically necessary.

Fair enough

 

[Heyo]

I'll try this one more time. What we have now is the equivalent of a rock on top of a peak, wobbling to and fro. That's an unstable situation, and no matter which way it eventually rolls, a group of people are going to be very happy and another group are going to be very unhappy. How about trying to find a position for the rock where most people can agree, if that's possible.

The rock was very stable for 50 years with Roe vs. Wade. It took the religious right some very shady moves to undermine the foundations. They didn't accept the established compromise and they show no signs that they are willing to return to it. They are the ones who created the all-or-nothing war and they deserve to get nothing.

 

[crossfire]

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.

It wasn't that long ago when they were blowing up clinics and murdering doctors.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Texas laws say treatments for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies remain legal but leave lots of space for confusion​

Texas laws say treatments for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies remain legal but leave lots of space for confusion.

Texas law specifically excludes ectopic pregnancies from its abortion laws. I was not incorrect.

They're still abortions. Abortion ends any pregnancy, including ones which can't come to full term or even ones where the zygote or fetus has died and failed to miscarry (purge pregnancy tissue). That the law makes an exception for them (with vague language coming from a bunch of stupid theocrat politicians rather than doctors) doesn't change what it is.

And that sort of butchered legal trespass into medical scope of practice is what got people like Savita Halappanavar killed.

 

[PureX]

It wasn't that long ago when they were blowing up clinics and murdering doctors.

Yes, but they went to jail for it. Now they own the republican party and the supreme court, and are sending the mothers and their doctors to jail.

The whole purpose of politics is to find functional compromises among people with different views and agendas. But the republican party decided they had to pander to extremists to get elected, and so they stopped seeking any compromise. And now our government is totally ineffective at responding to the problems of the day because it cannot find a workable compromise on anything. And the compromise we had established in the past are being broken. It's destroying the nation, but the extremists don't care, and the republicans don't have the courage to stop pandering to them.

One has to let go of selfishness to achieve a compromise.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, but they went to jail for it. Now they own the republican party and the supreme court, and are sending the mothers and their doctors to jail.

The whole purpose of politics is to find functional compromises among people with different views and agendas. But the republican party decided they had to pander to extremists to get elected, and so they stopped seeking any compromise. And now our government is totally ineffective at responding to the problems of the day because it cannot find a workable compromise on anything. And the compromise we had established in the past are being broken. It's destroying the nation, but the extremists don't care, and the republicans don't have the courage to stop pandering to them.

One has to let go of selfishness to achieve a compromise.

They were bombing clinics and murdering doctors back when we had the Roe v Wade compromise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wrong. You are treating "anti-choicers"[sic] as a monolith. Pro-life advocates split on how to deal with contraception and other methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They don't "tend" to block addressing unwanted pregnancies. They vary on how to address them.

What measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies do you think anti-choicers are trying to implement?

 

[PureX]

They were bombing clinics and murdering doctors back when we had the Roe v Wade compromise.

Yes, but that was rare, and they were considered criminals. They were criminally extreme. Now that selfish extremism has become legal and acceptable thanks to the selfish and spineless Republican Party. Now there can be no compromise because the extremists want everything their way and they are willing to destroy both government and society to get it.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, but that was rare, and they were considered criminals. They were criminally extreme. Now that selfish extremism has become legal and acceptable thanks to the selfish and spineless Republican Party. Now there can be no compromise because the extremists want everything their way and they are willing to destroy both government and society to get it.

Not to mention the fertility of their own constituents by denying miscarriage aftercare (which happen to consist of the same procedures as abortions.) If they keep it up, A Handmaiden's Tale might come true.

 

[PureX]

Not to mention the fertility of their own constituents by denying miscarriage aftercare (which happen to consist of the same procedures as abortions.) If they keep it up, A Handmaiden's Tale might come true.

An ever increasing proportion of the American people are turning against their moral bullying and bigoted extremism. Especially young people. The time of their reckoning is coming. Even their republican toadies in government are going to have to turn against them soon, or lose their seats. The momentary rise of the right wing extremist is coming to an end.

 

[HonestJoe]

What do you think?

Did you not have that in much of the US for some time, just like many other developed nations? Abortion was never entirely unrestricted or unregulated anywhere and while there are certainly extremists who do argue for unconditional freedom, most people defined as "pro-choice" support the kind of common sense restrictions and regulations that have long existed. A lot of those defined as "pro-life" often support extremely strict restrictions or onerous regulation that they know will effectively all but ban abortion, beyond those extremists who openly call for complete and unconditional bans.

I think the root problem is that too many people (on all sides) treat this as an issue of principle rather than one of practical realities.

 

[Orbit]

Texas laws say treatments for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies remain legal but leave lots of space for confusion​

Texas laws say treatments for miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies remain legal but leave lots of space for confusion.

Texas law specifically excludes ectopic pregnancies from its abortion laws. I was not incorrect.

That’s a great headline but here on the ground miscarrying women are being told to “come back when you get an infection “ because doctors are afraid of being prosecuted; and doctors are telling women the law is unclear.

 

[Brian2]

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?

In the name of freedom, pro abortion activists push the boundaries and make abortion easier and later in the pregnancy.
The compromise they want is to let them do what they want and let the pro lifers not get abortions.
The bad guys are obviously the pro lifers who want to restrict freedom and whose motive is nothing to do with the life of the unborn, but is to control women. And even if their motive was to protect the life of the unborn, that is nothing to do with them, it is a decision for the pregnant woman.
BUT what I really think is that it would be good to have laws that are a compromise but that see the unborn as a human life that is not born yet and make compromises with that in mind.

 

[PureX]

In the name of freedom, pro abortion activists push the boundaries and make abortion easier and later in the pregnancy.
The compromise they want is to let them do what they want and let the pro lifers not get abortions.
The bad guys are obviously the pro lifers who want to restrict freedom and whose motive is nothing to do with the life of the unborn, but is to control women. And even if their motive was to protect the life of the unborn, that is nothing to do with them, it is a decision for the pregnant woman.
BUT what I really think is that it would be good to have laws that are a compromise but that see the unborn as a human life that is not born yet and make compromises with that in mind.

That's exactly what we had for many decades. But the religious extremists couldn't abide that compromise. And they were willing to elect politicians that were willing to put unqualified, biased judges on the courts to get their way. They were either going to get their way or they were going to destroy the government and the judicial system trying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The right considers fœtuses people, with a right to life. I do not

It is actually worse than that. The right consider fetuses as having more rights than people. If you woke up and someone had hooked you up to another person so that they could use your kidneys for dialysis you could imply unplug them from you. Others do not have a right to use your body without your permission. Why do fetuses have that right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the name of freedom, pro abortion activists push the boundaries and make abortion easier and later in the pregnancy.
The compromise they want is to let them do what they want and let the pro lifers not get abortions.
The bad guys are obviously the pro lifers who want to restrict freedom and whose motive is nothing to do with the life of the unborn, but is to control women. And even if their motive was to protect the life of the unborn, that is nothing to do with them, it is a decision for the pregnant woman.
BUT what I really think is that it would be good to have laws that are a compromise but that see the unborn as a human life that is not born yet and make compromises with that in mind.

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?

 

[Brian2]

That's exactly what we had for many decades. But the religious extremists couldn't abide that compromise. And they were willing to elect politicians that were willing to put unqualified, biased judges on the courts to get their way. They were either going to get their way or they were going to destroy the government and the judicial system trying.

What goes on in politics is sad. In the US I imagine it was the manipulation of people by Trump for the sake of their votes.

 

[PureX]

What goes on in politics is sad. In the US I imagine it was the manipulation of people by Trump for the sake of their votes.

Actually, it started with Bush Jr. He was not a popular choice for governor or president, and could not win. So his campaign manager Karl Rove made him out to be a Christian fundamentalist and began putting flyers on cars in church parking lots claiming that Bush's opponent Ann Richards was a lesbian, and later that John McCain was fathering black babies while his wife was dying of cancer. All lies aimed at stirring up the religious bigotry of southern Christians to get them out to vote against the sinners, by voting for Bush.

Rove was hailed by the Republican Party as a "genius" for all this BS and the Republican Party has been pandering to those bigoted, ignorant Christian fundamentalists ever since. Mostly by never compromising on anything they want. As that plays really well in the Bible Belt.

 

[metis]

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?

It's a nice thought but it's not gonna "sell".

The issue at its base is who is going to control a woman's body, including that which is within it: the woman or the government [federal and/or state]?