Can we compromise on abortion?

[Heyo]

Yes.




Termination of pregnancy on demand at any time. Near full term, it would be a medical decision as to whether to terminate with an abortion or an induced live birth/cesarean.

So, you are an extremist just from the other side I have just argued with.
Are you aware that you are pretty alone, even on the pro choice side of the discussion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you are an extremist just from the other side I have just argued with.

If you say so.

Are you aware that you are pretty alone, even on the pro choice side of the discussion?

There are a few of us, but yes: there are lots of people willing to give pregnant people less than the full rights of personhood.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So, you are an extremist just from the other side I have just argued with.
Are you aware that you are pretty alone, even on the pro choice side of the discussion?

I'm one of those people, too. Anyone, at any time, should be able to end their pregnancy, including third trimester which is where a lot of women like me find out they are pregnant due to irregular hormones, weight fluctuation and metabolic issues masking pregnancy. But if past the point of viability, should be ended with induced birth or cesarian unless it poses risk to the mother or there's significant fetal health complications. But that should be left to the discretion of the doctors, not the legislators. As questions on fetal and mother health has lead to death by doctor negligence on several occasions. Doctors should not have legislators breathing down their neck determining when the abortion was 'medically necessary.'

 

[fantome profane]

So, you are an extremist just from the other side I have just argued with.
Are you aware that you are pretty alone, even on the pro choice side of the discussion?

I don't know what exactly you mean by "pretty alone". I agree with @9-10ths_Penguin on this point. And I think there is a decent percentage of people who would agree.

But it should not matter how many there are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And this is why "compromise" is impossible. You are a great example of it.

LOL! You simply cannot get it. You are as of yet unable to justify your stance. You try to claim that your stance is not based upon your religion. Perhaps you realize that the Bible does not support you. But you do not seem to have a reasonable argument based upon anything else. You need more than a mere belief that a fertilized egg is a "person" to be able to have a say about the lives of others.

And I gave you what should be a more than reasonable compromise. You don't have to have an abortion. You can avoid getting one. You can choose to partner with people with a similar mindset. But until you can make your case you do not get to impose slavery of any sort upon others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this is why "compromise" is impossible. You are a great example of it.

"I want to stop abortions from happening."

"Okay. We're down with you doing this by any method that respects pregnant people's rights."

"This is why compromise is impossible!"

 

[Ponder This]

What exactly do you mean "the 50 years of infringement of rights of people was necessary so that it's evil could be recognized for what it was?" I'm assuming you are referring to the 50 years under Roe v Wade. Which "rights of the people were being infringed?" I certainly saw evil--people bombing clinics and murdering doctors, and urging others to do the same. Setting up fake clinics and lying to vulnerable women.

Is this what you were referring to with the "infringement of the rights of people?"

It is something to consider that bad times often reveal the problems. In this case, Roe vs Wade was a bad ruling. Subsequent rulings on abortion by the Supreme Court demonstrate how the Roe vs Wade decision didn't hold up (Casey being significant in that regard). And eventually the Roe vs Wade decision collapsed under the weight of its own badness and so the Supreme Court reversed it.
Of course two wrongs don't make a right, bombing clinics is also bad. I appreciate your attempt to draw me into a polarizing debate, but I regard that polarization as unhelpful.

Well, that might be a way to achieve compromise (to get rid of the extremists) but I don't see that happening. Rational people can still compromise if they can ignore those extremists and get on with it.

I'm not sure how Roe v Wade infringed on anyone's rights, unless you see the ability to stop other people doing something as a right. It actually added the right to an abortion, previously absent.

Incidentally, I consider the idea of separate laws in separate States to be a bit silly. If we have States where abortion is illegal people will just travel to another State and I predict no decrease in abortions after things settle down. Imo State (and County and City) laws should apply to matters relevant to that constituency. Abortion is the same everywhere. And why do I have to get a new driver's license when I move to a new State? Nothing relevant changes. (Just another example).

The states are where the debate is taking place and where the abortion laws are being tested. You may think that's silly, but it is a lot less silly than the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. A federal law on abortion? ...maybe, eventually, after the states have had their say... You present one possible outcome: that abortion just becomes freely available, but that's not the only possible outcome, and I don't even think it's the most likely outcome.
Another outcome (that I consider to be more likely) is that a slow consensus is reached about the circumstances under which abortion is allowed. I suspect late trimester baby killing will go away eventually. I also suspect that abortion will remain a possibility in early trimester. I also suspect exceptions to remain such as danger to the life of the mother.
I'm not going to completely and utterly rule out the remote possibility of a total abortion ban; I just think that is very, very, very unlikely to happen. I think that abortion is a box that, once opened, never fully recloses. Abortion will always exist and the debate is about when the killing is criminal versus when the killing is protected. For example most people understand that homicide is wrong, but self-defense is justified. I think most people will realize that abortion is wrong, but abortion can (sometimes) be justified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm one of those people, too. Anyone, at any time, should be able to end their pregnancy, including third trimester which is where a lot of women like me find out they are pregnant due to irregular hormones, weight fluctuation and metabolic issues masking pregnancy. But if past the point of viability, should be ended with induced birth or cesarian unless it poses risk to the mother or there's significant fetal health complications. But that should be left to the discretion of the doctors, not the legislators. As questions on fetal and mother health has lead to death by doctor negligence on several occasions. Doctors should not have legislators breathing down their neck determining when the abortion was 'medically necessary.'

Which is why my compromise merely takes away payment by insurance at that point if the abortion was not medically necessary. Abortions often need to be done in a timely manner. One can try to figure out who pays for it and who gets paid after the fact. That sort of legislation will pretty much end the claimed countless "abortions on demand" of fetuses at that state of development. The fact is that we are talking about less than 1% of all pregnancies at that point and the vast majority of those are medically necessary. Allow the bill paying to be sorted out later. That can always wait.

It is extremely unreasonable, and is in fact outright insane, to try to ban all abortions based upon those that would be a fraction of a percent of all abortions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is something to consider that bad times often reveal the problems. In this case, Roe vs Wade was a bad ruling. Subsequent rulings on abortion by the Supreme Court demonstrate how the Roe vs Wade decision didn't hold up (Casey being significant in that regard). And eventually the Roe vs Wade decision collapsed under the weight of its own badness and so the Supreme Court reversed it.
Of course two wrongs don't make a right, bombing clinics is also bad. I appreciate your attempt to draw me into a polarizing debate, but I regard that polarization as unhelpful.


The states are where the debate is taking place and where the abortion laws are being tested. You may think that's silly, but it is a lot less silly than the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. A federal law on abortion? ...maybe, eventually, after the states have had their say... You present one possible outcome: that abortion just becomes freely available, but that's not the only possible outcome, and I don't even think it's the most likely outcome.
Another outcome (that I consider to be more likely) is that a slow consensus is reached about the circumstances under which abortion is allowed. I suspect late trimester baby killing will go away eventually. I also suspect that abortion will remain a possibility in early trimester. I also suspect exceptions to remain such as danger to the life of the mother.
I'm not going to completely and utterly rule out the remote possibility of a total abortion ban; I just think that is very, very, very unlikely to happen. I think that abortion is a box that, once opened, never fully recloses. Abortion will always exist and the debate is about when the killing is criminal versus when the killing is protected. For example most people understand that homicide is wrong, but self-defense is justified. I think most people will realize that abortion is wrong, but abortion can (sometimes) be justified.

And here is an example of the unreasonableness that I just mentioned. The percentage of third trimester abortions are extremely low. By the time that the fetus has even a reasonable chance of surviving the percentage of all abortions is less than 1%. And once again, most of those are medically necessary. The burden of proof should be upon those trying to interfere with the lives of others. But since they cannot meet that burden the try to argue that a complete ban is moral. That is far less moral than free abortions for anyone at any time in one's pregnancy.

By the way, Roe v Wade still allowed states to ban abortions after the time of viability. So how was the ruling "bad' in any sense at all? It was still a sound ruling that would be active today if certain judges had not lied during their interviews before Congress.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Which is why my compromise merely takes away payment by insurance at that point if the abortion was not medically necessary. Abortions often need to be done in a timely manner. One can try to figure out who pays for it and who gets paid after the fact. That sort of legislation will pretty much end the claimed countless "abortions on demand" of fetuses at that state of development. The fact is that we are talking about less than 1% of all pregnancies at that point and the vast majority of those are medically necessary. Allow the bill paying to be sorted out later. That can always wait.

It is extremely unreasonable, and is in fact outright insane, to try to ban all abortions based upon those that would be a fraction of a percent of all abortions.

**** insurances and them deciding what's 'medically necessary' tbh. They're worse than the legislators. My ideal would be that insurances don't exist at all and all abortion at all times would be covered under a socialized healthcare.

But I agree that worrying about third trimester abortions shouldn't be a big concern for most people. But a lot of us have health conditions that make it much more likely. Which is why I also am for maximally accessible birth control and other family planning tools.

 

[Kenny]

OK, you keep posting "compromise", but I haven't seen your compromise? Maybe I missed it?

We seem to be at 20 weeks.

 

[Kenny]

Bodily autonomy is part of the rights of personhood. This is the point where you need to decide whether a pregnant person should have all the rights of personhood.

Hopefully the answer is "yes," but if not, then you ought to be honest about your position.

Always honest....

I think the baby/fetus also has the rights of personhood.

But a parent would have the right to refuse the use of their body to feed their child. A parent would be entirely in their rights to feed their baby with formula because they refuse to breastfeed.

Or not feed them at all as a "right of personhood" by your definition.

 

[Kenny]

You try to claim that your stance is not based upon your religion. Perhaps you realize that the Bible does not support you. But you do not seem to have a reasonable argument based upon anything else. You need more than a mere belief that a fertilized egg is a "person" to be able to have a say about the lives of others.

I'm still wondering how you get "the Bible" in what we are talking about. Are you dealing with your conscience?

What differentiates a person from another, scientifically?

You can apply that same standard to a 131 day baby/fetus and realize they are exactly the same. Do you have a different viewpoint of what a person is?

 

[metis]

We seem to be at 20 weeks.

So, you will accept it at under 20 weeks? That's not what I'm picking up from you, but then again, I've not always been following this thread.

 

[crossfire]

It is something to consider that bad times often reveal the problems. In this case, Roe vs Wade was a bad ruling. Subsequent rulings on abortion by the Supreme Court demonstrate how the Roe vs Wade decision didn't hold up (Casey being significant in that regard). And eventually the Roe vs Wade decision collapsed under the weight of its own badness and so the Supreme Court reversed it.
Of course two wrongs don't make a right, bombing clinics is also bad. I appreciate your attempt to draw me into a polarizing debate, but I regard that polarization as unhelpful.

Will you just tell me whose rights were infringed by Roe v Wade?
Medical records are supposed to be private.

 

[Kenny]

"I want to stop abortions from happening."

"Okay. We're down with you doing this by any method that respects pregnant people's rights."

"This is why compromise is impossible!"

#781


that is why you are a great example of why compromise is impossible.

 

[Kenny]

So, you will accept it at under 20 weeks? That's not what I'm picking up from you, but then again, I've not always been following this thread.

My statement was as follows with Heyo:

"I wouldn't be happy at 20 week (to be honest as there would also be people that would be unhappy that it isn't 21+).... but stoping 21-39 week would still make me happy." with exception to the life of the mother at any point.

Something is better than nothing.

Ultimately, each state will decide and it seems to be going from heartbeat to 9 months and everything in between.

We are speaking hypothetically here, of course.

 

[crossfire]

My statement was as follows with Heyo:

"I wouldn't be happy at 20 week (to be honest as there would also be people that would be unhappy that it isn't 21+).... but stoping 21-39 week would still make me happy." with exception to the life of the mother at any point.

Something is better than nothing.

Ultimately, each state will decide and it seems to be going from heartbeat to 9 months and everything in between.

We are speaking hypothetically here, of course.

So why is legislation required when people naturally limit abortion after this point? It would only delay those needing medically necessary abortion at that point.

 

[metis]

#781


that is why you are a great example of why compromise is impossible.

Why am I an example as that post was with a discussion that I wasn't a participant in?

 

[metis]

"I wouldn't be happy at 20 week (to be honest as there would also be people that would be unhappy that it isn't 21+).... but stoping 21-39 week would still make me happy." with exception to the life of the mother at any point.

Something is better than nothing.

OK, but if you consider it a baby from conception on, then why would you compromise on that?

I believe it's a baby from conception, but I don't know if you know my position pro-life v pro-choice and why? I think so but am not sure.