Can we compromise on abortion?

[fantome profane]

Do you think the Ukrainians should compromise with Russia (if such were offered) in order to stop further bloodshed? They are clearly in the right when they demand that the Russians totally remove themselves from their country. Please nobody start a debate over that instance, it's just an illustration that compromise can sometimes be a reasonable option.

But the point is that it is up to Ukraine to decide if they want to compromise. My opinion is not relevant, your opinion is not relevant, Joe Biden's opinion is not relevant. It is their choice.

And I would not be willing to compromise on whether or not Ukraine gets to make that decision for themselves.

 

[Heyo]

What else is it if not a human life. It is human and it is life. I hold this belief because it is true.

And it is not a person.

I'm late to the discussion but I think I can clear some things up.

In the end abortion is not a thing that can be decided rationally, it is value call.
But there are a lot of irrational arguments used (mostly, but not exclusively, by the anti abortion side) which can be agreed upon by rational interlocutors.

The moniker "pro life" is the first irrational thing. It is an attempt at spinning the narrative. And for many "pro lifers" it is false advertising. I'm more pro life than them.

The next thing is to call an embryo or sometimes even a zygote a "baby". Trying to use emotional terms to steer away from a rational discussion.

Not wrong but still misleading is the argument "it is human and it is alive". True, but not a person and therefore not a rational argument for a "right to life".

One argument that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the reason I advocate a 20 week limit for abortions: suffering. It is one of the pillars of my and many others moral primitives. Promoting well being and reducing suffering is what most people can agree upon as a moral goal. On that basis we even agree to grant rights to non humans. Cruelty to animals is a crime in many countries.
Before the 20th week of pregnancy there is no nervous system and no brain that can register pain. Ending a pregnancy at that time there is no violation of the moral imperative, no conflict of interests.
It also happens to be the middle of a normal pregnancy and it happens to be at a time where a pregnant person had enough time to know that they are pregnant and arrange for an abortion. I think it is a valid argument for infringing on the right of bodily autonomy.
That is all for "normal" pregnancies and there have to be exceptions for special cases, especially when life or health of the expecting mother are in danger.

Do you think we can have a rational debate on these premises?

 

[Alien826]

But the point is that it is up to Ukraine to decide if they want to compromise. My opinion is not relevant, your opinion is not relevant, Joe Biden's opinion is not relevant. It is their choice.

The point was not who makes the decision to compromise, obviously it's the Ukrainians in this case. I was just trying to illustrate a case where the choice was to go on fighting to the last man in defense of a principle, or make a compromise that ends the bloodshed but neither side gets exactly what they want. I keep trying to talk about compromise and everyone persists in defending their own side instead.

And I would not be willing to compromise on whether or not Ukraine gets to make that decision for themselves.

That's interesting actually. There are more than two players in this, and sometimes a third party steps in to end a conflict where the participants won't do so. But this is nothing to do with the OP and let's not get sidetracked yet again.

 

[Alien826]

In the end abortion is not a thing that can be decided rationally, it is value call.

Yes! And that's why a compromise is at least in principle possible.

 

[Heyo]

Yes! And that's why a compromise is at least in principle possible.

I think the opposite is true. Axiomatic values are the hardest to compromise on.
I think compromise is possible when the irrational defenses for the agenda are removed and if common values emerge.
The abortion debate is full of irrational arguments that hide the true agenda.
And when the true agenda is "I'm a misogynist and I don't want women to have power over themselves" there is no compromise possible.
But it is possible, in a rational debate, to show the true agenda and show how arguments hide that and thus, maybe, get other people, who fell for the fallacious arguments but don't share the agenda, to rethink their position.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Two cells would just be a fertilized egg that has split once. Being human is an emergent property.

What species is it then?

No double standard. Where did you get that rather insane conclusion from? The standards are identical.

You believe that the mother who freely has sex has the choice to terminate her rights to take care of her child but the father does not. Why can't the father just say the child will cause a financial hardship or he is not ready to be a father etc., and terminate his rights to the child?

Both the father and mother have an obligation to take care of the resulting human after their free choice to have sex that created the human.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You are equivocating.

If CSI finds some hair, or blood at a crime scene and analyze it and the test comes back and finds that it is human. That does not mean it is a human.

Two cells are not a human. A zygote is not a human. An embryo is not a human.

Then what species is it?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This thing you are talking about has no say, because it cannot say. In that situation someone else must say for it. And person who is in the best situation is the mother.

But you don't respect the mother enough to allow that. You want politicians to have that say.

I respect mothers sheesh. Politician have say in a lot of things mothers can and cannot do, do you have a problem with that? Politicians say mothers cannot kill their 1 yo child. SO saying there is something wrong with politicians making laws is not relevant. Ending human life is something no mother should be allowed to do no matter what stage of life it is at.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well, you went from "pro-life people get to define what 'pro-life' means" to "ignore how those other pro-life people define what 'pro-life' means; *I* get to define it."

No, I get to define it for myself, I said talk to them about what they believe it means. That is not hypocritical.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

When someone says that they don't want anyone else to use their blood, tissues or organs, we honour this decision regardless of how many lives it costs and the relationship of those lives to the person. We continue to honour this even after death.

Sure, but you left out the obligation part based on the mother and fathers decision to have sex.

You're arguing that we shouldn't honour this decision when it's made by a pregnant person. You're arguing that we should deny a right we even grant to a corpse.

Because it is not the same situation as I have explained.

I haven't disregarded any arguments; I've addressed them directly and pointed out where they fail.

Then why do you continually not address the responsibility of the parents to take care of the human life they created through their free choices.

And if what you see offends you when someone holds up a metaphorical mirror and accurately describes what you're doing, perhaps you should reflect on what it is about your position that's causing the offense.

I am not offended. I simply disagree with you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I respect mothers sheesh. Politician have say in a lot of things mothers can and cannot do, do you have a problem with that? Politicians say mothers cannot kill their 1 yo child. SO saying there is something wrong with politicians making laws is not relevant. Ending human life is something no mother should be allowed to do no matter what stage of life it is at.

How about at age 46?

I'm sentient, capable of feeling pain, and can cleary express a desire to live.

If the situation ever arises where I will die without using my mother's body in some way, how do you think the law should restrict her rights?

As it stands now, she can't be legally compelled to provide a kidney, a pint of blood, or even a hair off her head to save my life.

 

[fantome profane]

The point was not who makes the decision to compromise,

It is the point. It is the point that you are missing. The point is who makes the decision to compromise. The Ukraine analogy is excellent.

Just as it is Ukraine’s decision whether or not they want to compromise, it is the mother’s decision whether or not they want to compromise. On the question of whether or not a pregnant person wants to compromise my opinion means nothing, your opinion means nothing, Lindsey Graham’s opinion means nothing.

That is the point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but you left out the obligation part based on the mother and fathers decision to have sex.

In the same way that deciding to drive a car isn't consent to being in a car crash, deciding to have sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

And even when someone consents to pregnancy, consent can be withdrawn.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And it is not a person.

I never said it was a person, I said it was human life.

I'm late to the discussion but I think I can clear some things up.

In the end abortion is not a thing that can be decided rationally, it is value call.
But there are a lot of irrational arguments used (mostly, but not exclusively, by the anti abortion side) which can be agreed upon by rational interlocutors.

The moniker "pro life" is the first irrational thing. It is an attempt at spinning the narrative. And for many "pro lifers" it is false advertising. I'm more pro life than them.

It is a label that accurately identifies a position taken by the prolife person. Just because you disagree with how the term is used does not matter. What if I called pro choice people pro murderers? Would you have a problem with that? Lets not argue about the labels but about whether abortion is right or wrong. How does telling a prolife person you are not prolife on this other issue that has nothing to do with abortion change their stance on abortion? Call me anti abortion or anti choice on the abortion issue that is ok. I could bring up the fact the a lot or pro choice people are not prochoice on other things such as guns, health care, masks, vaccines etc. How is that relevant to the abortion issue?

The next thing is to call an embryo or sometimes even a zygote a "baby". Trying to use emotional terms to steer away from a rational discussion.

I never did that.

Not wrong but still misleading is the argument "it is human and it is alive". True, but not a person and therefore not a rational argument for a "right to life".

This is not misleading. It is true and that human life has a right to life. That is the discussion. You are changing the discussion to personhood now.

One argument that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the reason I advocate a 20 week limit for abortions: suffering. It is one of the pillars of my and many others moral primitives. Promoting well being and reducing suffering is what most people can agree upon as a moral goal. On that basis we even agree to grant rights to non humans. Cruelty to animals is a crime in many countries.
Before the 20th week of pregnancy there is no nervous system and no brain that can register pain. Ending a pregnancy at that time there is no violation of the moral imperative, no conflict of interests.
It also happens to be the middle of a normal pregnancy and it happens to be at a time where a pregnant person had enough time to know that they are pregnant and arrange for an abortion. I think it is a valid argument for infringing on the right of bodily autonomy.
That is all for "normal" pregnancies and there have to be exceptions for special cases, especially when life or health of the expecting mother are in danger.

So ending human life is ok because the human life does not suffer? That seems like a bad basis for ending life. People can be murdered and not suffer. So non suffering is not a valid reason to end a human life in my opinion.

Do you think we can have a rational debate on these premises?

Sure, the problem is a lot of pro choice people here will and have said I am irrational and compare me to a white supremacist just because I am prolife (not you), that has nothing do do with my reason for being pro life. That does not help the discussion. I don't understand that. If they truly want to change people minds insulting them is not the way to do it. Unfortunately our society knows no different. There can be rational arguments on both sides and people can still disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is not misleading. It is true and that human life has a right to life. That is the discussion. You are changing the discussion to personhood now.


So ending human life is ok because the human life does not suffer? That seems like a bad basis for ending life. People can be murdered and not suffer. So non suffering is not a valid reason to end a human life in my opinion.


Sure, the problem is a lot of pro choice people here will and have said I am irrational and compare me to a white supremacist just because I am prolife (not you), that has nothing do do with my reason for being pro life.

I also compared you to a rapist... and justifiably so on both counts, IMO.

That aside, here's the thing: you say that you want to prevent abortions. There are lots of ways you can work toward that goal without touching the rights of pregnant people.

You could make a ton of progress toward that goal and even be helped by pro-choicers to achieve your objectives. Instead, you - and the anti-choice movement generally - have prioritized an approach where you'll get the most resistance.

If a rational person said to themselves "I have X dollars/hours/energy/whatever to expend to prevent abortions; how can I use and leverage that resource to prevent as many abortions as I can?" they wouldn't take the approach that you're taking.

There seems to be no interest from the anti-choice community to grab the "quick wins" that could proceed unopposed and put a meaningful dent in the abortion numbers. Why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A thought for the anti-choicers who are open to discussion and to see things from another point of view:

Have you ever thought about why some sort of "condoms for everyone!" strategy never gets put forward as a serious proposal by those seeking to reduce abortions?

I think we know the answer: even though it would be very effective at reducing abortions by reducing unplanned pregnancy, it crosses a moral or ethical line that the anti-choice community, by and large, isn't comfortable with crossing.

It's the same thing with the pro-choice community: while not all pro-choicers agree that reducing abortions should be a priority, all of them are fine with that outcome as long as it's a result of pregnant people's free, uncoerced choices. What pro-choicers aren't okay with is legal restrictions on that choice. That's the moral and ethical line that they aren't willing to cross.

... so on both sides, there's a matter of principle that limits how effective anti-abortion strategies could be. Anti-choicers seem eager to ask pro-choicers to discard their principles, but - at least to me as an outsider - aren't willing to reflect on their own principles that are getting in the way of their stated goal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also compared you to a rapist... and justifiably so on both counts, IMO.

That aside, here's the thing: you say that you want to prevent abortions. There are lots of ways you can work toward that goal without touching the rights of pregnant people.

You could make a ton of progress toward that goal and even be helped by pro-choicers to achieve your objectives. Instead, you - and the anti-choice movement generally - have prioritized an approach where you'll get the most resistance.

If a rational person said to themselves "I have X dollars/hours/energy/whatever to expend to prevent abortions; how can I use and leverage that resource to prevent as many abortions as I can?" they wouldn't take the approach that you're taking.

There seems to be no interest from the anti-choice community to grab the "quick wins" that could proceed unopposed and put a meaningful dent in the abortion numbers. Why?

@Clizby Wampuscat - to expand on this, here's one study of the reasons given for seeking an abortion in the US:

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for...

www.guttmacher.org

Let's just look at the two top reasons:

- having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents
- she could not afford a baby now

Why is the US anti-choice movement doing basically nothing on these two issues?

Why haven't there been any "pro-life" voices in, say, the Medicare for all debate saying "we support this! By making it easier to afford parenthood, we'll directly address a major root cause of abortion!"

Why aren't there any "pro-life" voices calling for meaningful job-protected maternity leave... or any other measure that would make it easier for a new parent to balance work or school with child care?

If the taxpayer money is the concern, can you at least point to a "pro-life" group that's trying to reduce the stigma around, say, teen pregnancy and motherhood?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes! And that's why a compromise is at least in principle possible.

In practice it won't solve anything but draw new lines in the sand to fight for, especially since one side is really out to weaponize compromise to shift the status quo in their direction. And it has created one of the most stilted, stagnant political environments the rest of the world rightly mocks.

Compromise is making it worse here, not better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said it was a person, I said it was human life.

What does that get you, though?

My arm is human life; my arm doesn't have rights separate from my rights.

 

[Alien826]

In practice it won't solve anything but draw new lines in the sand to fight for, especially since one side is really out to weaponize compromise to shift the status quo in their direction. And it has created one of the most stilted, stagnant political environments the rest of the world rightly mocks.

In that case it's not true compromise, which involves both sides agreeing to the decision in an honest way with the intention of abiding by the decisions made. As you say, "the rest of the world", that is many other countries, have compromised a long time ago and apart from the inevitable fringe elements no longer consider it something to argue about.

Compromise is making it worse here, not better.

Compromise has not happened here.