• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can we compromise on abortion?

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Do they really do that in Australia? I am extremely skeptical.

Are you telling me that where you live a woman can go into a hospital and just say, I am done with this pregnancy, I know it will cost the hospital thousands of dollars, and if you do this the infant has a 50% chance of living at best, and will have health problems for life, but I want you to do it anyway.

I don't believe that.
Oh I was using premature birth to mean specifically in a pregnancy where the water broke early. Not something that is optional.
Didn’t even occur to me that it was something that a person could ask to perform.

I guess there are scenarios where they intentionally try to break the water of a pregnancy. But I think that’s when the baby is overdue?
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Oh I was using premature birth to mean specifically in a pregnancy where the water broke early. Not something that is optional.
Didn’t even occur to me that it was something that a person could ask to perform.
That is what I meant when I said they offered this when it was an emergency.

I understand the confusion. I didn't occur to you that it was something a person could just ask for because it is not something someone can just ask for. Perhaps a day or two early, or perhaps it could be offered after the due date has passed, but certainly not at eight months (unless it is an emergency).

But that is why I think it is irrelevant.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
That is what I meant when I said they offered this when it was an emergency.

I understand the confusion. I didn't occur to you that it was something a person could just ask for because it is not something someone can just ask for. Perhaps a day or two early, or perhaps it could be offered after the due date has passed, but certainly not at eight months (unless it is an emergency).

But that is why I think it is irrelevant.
Oh I see.
Fair enough
I was a little confused
Blame the hang over lol
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
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 takes time for radical extremists to be proven wrong. Sometimes it can take 50 years.

Now that the Supreme Court has stopped legislating abortion from the bench, the states have returned to debate and passed legislation on the abortion issue. Rights not enumerated in the Constitution have been returned to the people. Absolutists and all those who have fallen prey to the false dichotomy of life versus choice have been disempowered and people of reason and moral character have been empowered.

I agree: this will not go on forever. What will happen is - it might take 5 years it might take 30 years - what will happen is that it will gradually become clear which states have passed the superior legislation and which states have passed the inferior legislation. It's at that point that the U.S. will have attained the maturity necessary to handle the abortion issue appropriately. They will look back on history and remark how uncivilized the generations of the past were.

The main important thing is that the issue is no longer being imposed on the people as a matter of unquestionable authority by radical extremists.

You argue that both sides of the debate must compromise, but what I think needs to happen is that radical extremists on both sides of the argument have to get out of the way and let rational, moral people clean up the mess they've made. In the end, there's going to be choice and there's going to be life. Perhaps the 50 years of infringement of the rights of people was necessary so that its evil could be recognized for what it was. We've been there; we've done that; and it was wrong. The path forward isn't compromise; the path forward is the death of extreme, radical tyranny.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Another avenue a compromise might be reached is that in order to become a board-certified OB/GYN, one must have residency training in abortion care. (Even if it is for the life-saving exceptions!) Where will residents training in states with abortion bans get this training necessary to become a board-certified OB/GYN?
:creative:

But too typical US for me. It is using a trick to avoid to deal with the real problem.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
OK... that is a start.... for your viewpoint.
What is your viewpoint/philosophy? You are not a Mother Theresa type Catholic, are you?
I would think you would know if you are pregnant way before 20 weeks.
When do you consider a baby.. a baby?
After birth. And that is not only my position, that is common definition. But that's also irrelevant. No matter how you call it, that facts keep the same.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
For you "If s=b then c=d" - strange math.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

I told you that I'm willing to even help you prevent abortions by any method that respects the pregnant person's right to choose, but I'm not willing to compromise on criminalizing abortion.

You responded by saying that this amounts to no compromise. The implication is that it's criminalization of abortion and not prevention of abortion that you care about, since I'm more than willing to compromise on prevention and expressed this clearly.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
:creative:

But too typical US for me. It is using a trick to avoid to deal with the real problem.
It does seem to explain the observed drop in OB/GYN residencies in states with abortion bans. They can't get certified there with the bans in place. You're gonna have to know how to do a D & C if someone comes in with an incomplete miscarriage in order to avoid sepsis from developing.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
What is your viewpoint/philosophy? You are not a Mother Theresa type Catholic, are you?

I'm XY not XX. :)

I'm a realist. Though I value life, I also understand that not everyone has my worldview. If people are going to take the life of another person, then let's minimize the potential (birth control?) as much as possible. Pain and suffering is another issue I would love to avoid so a limit on time would be important.

After birth. And that is not only my position, that is common definition. But that's also irrelevant. No matter how you call it, that facts keep the same.
It is quite relevant. some points.

It is not a common definition unless:
1) you are a doctor that has been trained to say it that way - as it is a relatively new definition
2) you don't believe it is a baby.

I have never once heard from a pregnant woman (whether they want the baby or not) say:

1) My zygote is growing
2) My fetus is kicking my side
3) My cells inside my uterus are morphing into a similitude of a humanoid being.

Even a child will say "it is a baby" unless you train the child to say otherwise. Sometime children are wiser.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

I told you that I'm willing to even help you prevent abortions by any method that respects the pregnant person's right to choose, but I'm not willing to compromise on criminalizing abortion.

You responded by saying that this amounts to no compromise. The implication is that it's criminalization of abortion and not prevention of abortion that you care about, since I'm more than willing to compromise on prevention and expressed this clearly.
My statement would be correct...

If a woman, pregnant with a baby, chooses to end the baby's life at 8 months and 15 days -- you are saying that they should have that right... as you said, "I'm not willing to compromise" means that you exemplify the reason why there is no compromise.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Abortion is only made possible because of science and business. If we took away the science and business variable; medical industries, anyone who wanted an abortion would be hard pressed to find where to get one. It is a manmade option created by the market place. It is not natural or organic.

A miscarriage is different in that the natural body decides. This requires no artificial additives and it occurs for free, without your choice or will. Abortion comes down to choice, based on the options created by man made goods and services in the market place. It is supply driven behavior pushed by the Left. If the man made supply did not exist, what would you do?

Transgender is a similar Lefty business model, in that you cannot change your sex, naturally, with only will power and choice. These choices are being made available in the market place for profit. The options for transgender used to be limited to fashion and cosmetics; dress up, but now the market place offers drugs and surgery. If the market place did not supply these options; supply driven, what would you do? In both cases, the Left is trying to money launder tax payers dollars in the market places. This is not even free market anymore but involves kickbacks.

The Left is strange in the sense they say they hate the free market, but they are the first to stand in line for unnatural goods and services as they become available. They claim they want to save the planet, stay natural, green and organic, but they fanatically seek artificially created options. Such a split brain may not be able to make sound choices.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm not sure how this lines up with official policy, but I know someone who was told that if she voted for Hilary she would go to hell. This was from lay person who was quoting what the Priest said from the pulpit. If that's true, it's not much of a choice you are offered.
If the priest did that, then he should be reprimanded by the bishop, which did happen in the area I live in. The following Sunday, he had to apologize per the bishop's order.

The Church has right to teach how it feels about various issues, but it does not have the right, both legally and by Church doctrine, to support specific candidates or parties.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The science definition of life encompasses the human unborn, since the unborn shows all the criteria of life. A single cell bacteria is considered alive. Each cell in the embryo is alive in that sense, while combined it also is alive. The political strategy is to ignore science, and then say the unborn is not a person until it is born, is pseudo-science. The Atheists, who claim to be on the side of science, need to step up.

In terms of the argument of personhood, if you compare the unborn during pregnancy, to a new born baby, the new born baby is much more dependent on the efforts of the mother, than it is the unborn The unborn is much more autonomous. It takes what it needs from the mother, with no conscious effort by the mother. Mothers can ignore the unborn for months and may not even know she is pregnant, since unborn is quietly self sufficient within the matrix of her body. Some women will even continue to burn the candle from both ends, while pregnant. The unborn adapts, often with little long term harm. The born baby, on the other hand, is very vulnerable. It is cut off from its unborn instincts, and now has many new dependencies. Lefties always think upside down and fool themselves.

Pregnancy is a well understood phenomena. Getting pregnant is not rocket science. The Political left pushes sex education in school, even for small children, they say to help avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy. There are many ways, taught in school, to avoid pregnancy, that even a first grader can recite. How about "adult" women learn to be applied and proactive, based on the sex education taught to them as small children in schools? This could help solve the problem. Adults who cannot apply, what is taught to children, may not be able to make good choices in other matters. Others may have to choose for them. This is what is happening.

Many people do not agree with abortion, while there are many others who do. One compromise, is to buffer those who do not want anything to do with abortion, by placing all the responsibilities, and all the expenses just on those who want abortion. If you wish to play, you need to pay. A woman's right to choose, stops at forcing others to pay; via common insurance and taxes. This overreach is creating the backlash, since rights stop when they deprive others of rights. You are expecting others to pay, even if abortion is against their conscience. This takes away their human and religious rights. The solution is for women to take care of their own business, like an adult. Spoiled dependent children are not the best judges for anything. If a parent has to supports a child, they have a say in what the child can and cannot do.

The Political Left has perfected a way to buy votes, using other people's money, including that of their political opponent. How many who want abortion will vote Left? And how many of these think everyone needs to pay? This robbery theme is common to all the Left's social engineering scams. It is also what is driving the national debt house of cards toward collapse. The Constitution only says to provide for the common defense; provide equals money. Promote the general welfare, can be done via volunteers and spokesmen. Promote is not the same as provide. Only one involves common tax money.

One starter solution is to separate tax revenue, by political party, with each party only able to use their tax revenues, from their voter base, for their own needs. Abortion, which is most favored by the Left, would be your own private concern paid for by the Left. But the Left would lose extra stolen money used to promote their candidates. The Left leadership does not wish to stop stealing, so those who seek abortion for are left in the middle, between conflicting needs and rights.

The idea of allowing the States to decide, ends up placing more responsibility on Left leaning states, to pay for their own freebies for votes. This is moving the bar in the proper direction. This makes abortion available where wanted, and isolates were not want. It also places all the expenses on the shoulders of those who use it to get votes and those who want it. However, the Left States will see more debt and will have to adjust, until abortion is legal in places but minimized; not over promoted with free money.
As usual with so many of your posts, the above is nothing short of nonsensical stereotyping.

Also, you may want the government to dictate what a woman must do with that which is inside her, so what are you willing to do next? tell her when she must have an operation? which meds she must take? Talk about "government overreach"! :rolleyes:
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
My statement would be correct...

If a woman, pregnant with a baby, chooses to end the baby's life at 8 months and 15 days -- you are saying that they should have that right... as you said, "I'm not willing to compromise" means that you exemplify the reason why there is no compromise.


I've said several times that near full term, a pregnant person's right to end the pregnancy could be achieved through inducing a live birth.

Regardless, you keep making it clear that the question of whether late-term abortions happen doesn't matter to you; the only issue you're interested in is whether they're illegal.

I've told you every way that I can think of that I would be happy to bring about a world where no late-term abortions happen, but that isn't what you want. You aren't interested in that world; you're only after a world where people who seek abortions and the people who help them are made to be criminals.
 
Top