Can we compromise on abortion?

[Subduction Zone]

Pregnancy is not an illness. There can be complications and there are negative aspects but abortion is still elective in normal cases. It doesn't require medical intervention.

Health care goes far beyond just mere illnesses. You know this. And to get an abortion done safely does require medical intervention.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not your typical pro-lifer. I'm arguing for a reasonable compromise. And "reasonable" includes for me that medical procedures will not be touched by this law. The most I would tolerate is the request that a second opinion is necessary (like it is when brain death is diagnosed).
The 20 week mark is somewhat arbitrary, I admit. But there are good rationalizations for it.
- it is on the safe side of viability and sentience (if the abortion is scheduled before 20 weeks and for whatever reason can't be done, there is still no objection if it's rescheduled for one or two weeks later)
- it leaves enough time for decision making and arranging (in normal cases)
- it is exactly in the middle of the human gestation period, i.e. it is a 50/50 compromise
Could you come around for such a compromise? Kenny could. He said he wouldn't be happy but that is the nature of compromises, both sides are not happy but they can live with the decision.

No offense to you, because this is something I've talked about multiple times in this thread already, but I loathe appeal to middles. Compromising on everything just because there is a division does not make it reasonable. Compromising just because you can isn't a virtue, and giving up some body autonomy to satisfy people who would rather take away all of it is not something I'm interested in.

I'm morally opposed to abortion of a viable fetus if no medical concerns are present. But I am *more* opposed to bans which will threaten women even if you stipulate that medical procedures do not apply, because of course that is too vague, and we've already seen women killed under such laws, even when they didnt die before a 'second opinion' could be found. And having repeatedly said how I'm not a normal case, I don't want normal cases to make the law of the land for me.

 

[Heyo]

No offense to you, because this is something I've talked about multiple times in this thread already, but I loathe appeal to middles. Compromising on everything just because there is a division does not make it reasonable. Compromising just because you can isn't a virtue, and giving up some body autonomy to satisfy people who would rather take away all of it is not something I'm interested in.

I'm morally opposed to abortion of a viable fetus if no medical concerns are present. But I am *more* opposed to bans which will threaten women even if you stipulate that medical procedures do not apply, because of course that is too vague, and we've already seen women killed under such laws, even when they didnt die before a 'second opinion' could be found. And having repeatedly said how I'm not a normal case, I don't want normal cases to make the law of the land for me.

I haven't expected this. At least in this circle it seems to be right that we can't compromise about abortion. @Alien826 was right. What I didn't expect is that it is the "pro-choice" side that isn't willing to compromise.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I haven't expected this. At least in this circle it seems to be right that we can't compromise about abortion. @Alien826 was right. What I didn't expect is that it is the "pro-choice" side that isn't willing to compromise.

I said as much in the first couple pages of the thread. I'll conprmise on things like business deals and pizza choices. I don't compromise on human rights. The notion that everything should be a compromise is why the US has a terrible track record on civil rights battles, and why the overton window skews so far right here.

 

[crossfire]

No offense to you, because this is something I've talked about multiple times in this thread already, but I loathe appeal to middles. Compromising on everything just because there is a division does not make it reasonable. Compromising just because you can isn't a virtue, and giving up some body autonomy to satisfy people who would rather take away all of it is not something I'm interested in.

I'm morally opposed to abortion of a viable fetus if no medical concerns are present. But I am *more* opposed to bans which will threaten women even if you stipulate that medical procedures do not apply, because of course that is too vague, and we've already seen women killed under such laws, even when they didnt die before a 'second opinion' could be found. And having repeatedly said how I'm not a normal case, I don't want normal cases to make the law of the land for me.

Like I wrote, handing over your healthcare decisions to politicians is like handing your car keys over to an unlicensed drunk driver. People are going to get hurt or killed if you let the unlicensed drunk driver take the wheel. Allowing them to drive just through the most dangerous part of the trip is not wise, no matter how much they may whine (or wine) "That's not fair!"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Like I wrote, handing over your healthcare decisions to politicians is like handing your car keys over to an unlicensed drunk driver. People are going to get hurt or killed if you let the unlicensed drunk driver take the wheel. Allowing them to drive just through the most dangerous part of the trip is not wise, no matter how much they may whine (or wine) "That's not fair!"

This is why Roe V Wade was so important. Not to enshrine abortion but to make healthcare none of the business of the courts. The court should *never* be in a position to dictate medical necessity. It simply isn't any of their business.

 

[SomeRandom]

I haven't expected this. At least in this circle it seems to be right that we can't compromise about abortion. @Alien826 was right. What I didn't expect is that it is the "pro-choice" side that isn't willing to compromise.

To be fair. You could argue that’s because the pro choice side has seen what happens when you do compromise. And it’s not always great.
RvW was repealed, was it not?
Give an inch, they take a mile.

Not saying that decision was backed by every pro life person, obviously. But it happened all the same.

 

[GardenLady]

in certain states, you can have an abortion all the way and including the third trimester.

My observation (which admittedly is limited) is that the majority of those who think abortion in the last trimester should be legal feel that way about circumstances of serious medical complication for the mother or a fetal abnormality not compatible with life. But I acknowledge that my perception may not accurately represent a majority.

 

[Ponder This]

The point was that third trimester abortions are not a real problem.

Abortion law post-viability has been around since before and after Roe vs Wade and Dobbs. Of course those abortions have, largely, not been a problem. That's the result we expect!

What we see instead is that immoral antiabortion jerks will try to make it harder for women that need an abortion to have one than is necessary.

I predict that this sort of position won't hold up; I predict that exceptions to abortion will prevail in the end.

One could probably even show that more women's lives would be saved than viable fetuses would be lost. That should satisfy anyone that is truly "prolife".

That's a good point, but I don't think it is sufficient to satisfy anyone who is "prolife". You're statistics would need to be tight in addition to looking good and some who are "prolife" won't be satisfied until the abortion question is settled for every stage of fetal development - not just post-viability. IMO, It makes sense that exceptions exist, even post-viability; it's not a question of statistics.

As to "what changed". Nothing changed. The statistics are just clearer now perhaps. We can see that abortions after viability are not problem. They probably never were.

Nothing changed? Then what reason to think that abortion law on post-viability needs to change? Post-viability abortion already had laws against it both before and after Roe vs Wade and Dobbs and you said Roe vs Wade was a "sound ruling". Are the statistics "clearer"? Or just "perhaps" clearer? In what way are they "clearer now perhaps"?

The third-trimester abortions that are performed are generally medically necessary. (Woman was in an accident, placenta detached, and woman is hemorrhaging; hydrocephalus fetus where you can't get the fetus out without dismembering mother or fetus, or other life-threatening scenarios.) There really isn't a demand for elective third-trimester abortions, so a law against them is not really necessary. If there was a demand for elective third-trimester abortions where a healthy fetus in a healthy woman is killed, then a law regarding it would be reasonable, IMV.

Since laws against elective third-trimester abortions existed to ban elective third-trimester abortion where a healthy fetus in a healthy woman is killed both before and after Roe vs Wade and Dobbs, it's not a simple thing to evaluate the demand for abortions of that sort. The evaluation of the data has to be good and it has to come from people that are trusted. The abortion issue has revealed that a surprising number of people can't be trusted on this issue. For example, you would think that people working with the U.S. Supreme Court are trustworthy. But, both the Supreme Court Roe vs Wade decision and the Supreme Court Dobbs decision were leaked! How can we trust someone who comes out and says he has the statistics on abortion when we know that people at the highest level (where trust must exist) violate that trust when it comes to the abortion issue?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you listen to a medical professional?
Elective abortion is not a healthcare issue. I think it should be covered by healthcare insurance but not because it is healthcare.
When the doctor says that you are just fine and the condition will resolve itself within nine month, is that a reason not to have an abortion?

You've never known a pregnant person, have you?

Elective abortion is most certainly a healthcare issue. Even a seemingly routine pregnancy still carries a significant risk of death and a virtual guarantee of lifelong chronic effects.

The US's maternal mortality rate is 20 per 100,000 live births. The worst state - Arkansas - is double that. IOW, in the US, the risk that a pregnancy will kill the pregnant person is 1 in 5,000 on average and 1 in 2,500 in the worst case.

The vast majority of these deaths wouldn't have been cases where an abortion was medically indicated; most would have been "routine" pregnancies where something went wrong during delivery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pregnancy is not an illness. There can be complications and there are negative aspects but abortion is still elective in normal cases. It doesn't require medical intervention.

Can you name any other condition with similar complications and risks to those of pregnancy where a doctor wouldn't agree that treatment to stop the condition is medically indicated?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abortion law post-viability has been around since before and after Roe vs Wade and Dobbs. Of course those abortions have, largely, not been a problem. That's the result we expect!

No, you have to be serious. The reason that they have never been a problem is that woman at that point almost always want to have a baby. Why is that so hard for the antiabortionists to understand? It has almost nothing to do with the legality of abortions

I predict that this sort of position won't hold up; I predict that exceptions to abortion will prevail in the end.

I am not so sure what you mean here.

That's a good point, but I don't think it is sufficient to satisfy anyone who is "prolife". You're statistics would need to be tight in addition to looking good and some who are "prolife" won't be satisfied until the abortion question is settled for every stage of fetal development - not just post-viability. IMO, It makes sense that exceptions exist, even post-viability; it's not a question of statistics.

I know, I am just looking for some common ground. The "prolife" people lose when it comes to their inconsistent views on bodily autonomy.

Nothing changed? Then what reason to think that abortion law on post-viability needs to change? Post-viability abortion already had laws against it both before and after Roe vs Wade and Dobbs and you said Roe vs Wade was a "sound ruling". Are the statistics "clearer"? Or just "perhaps" clearer? In what way are they "clearer now perhaps"?

You still do not seem to understand that post viability abortions were never a real problem. That is what has not changed.

Since laws against elective third-trimester abortions existed to ban elective third-trimester abortion where a healthy fetus in a healthy woman is killed both before and after Roe vs Wade and Dobbs, it's not a simple thing to evaluate the demand for abortions of that sort. The evaluation of the data has to be good and it has to come from people that are trusted. The abortion issue has revealed that a surprising number of people can't be trusted on this issue. For example, you would think that people working with the U.S. Supreme Court are trustworthy. But, both the Supreme Court Roe vs Wade decision and the Supreme Court Dobbs decision were leaked! How can we trust someone who comes out and says he has the statistics on abortion when we know that people at the highest level (where trust must exist) violate that trust when it comes to the abortion issue?

When it comes to those Supreme Court decisions you should be asking yourself who broke their word first. It was not the leakers. That argument works against you too. And you still do not understand why late term abortion laws were rather pointless. The odds are good that you never will.

 

[Heyo]

Can you name any other condition with similar complications and risks to those of pregnancy where a doctor wouldn't agree that treatment to stop the condition is medically indicated?

From the common cold to heart surgery there are many conditions where treatment is optional as it may have its own risks or costs that don't justify a recommendation. But the doctor will perform the treatment if it is elected and the insurance will pay (at least German insurances will, I've heard not so good things about US insurances).

 

[crossfire]

Since laws against elective third-trimester abortions existed to ban elective third-trimester abortion where a healthy fetus in a healthy woman is killed both before and after Roe vs Wade and Dobbs, it's not a simple thing to evaluate the demand for abortions of that sort. The evaluation of the data has to be good and it has to come from people that are trusted. The abortion issue has revealed that a surprising number of people can't be trusted on this issue. For example, you would think that people working with the U.S. Supreme Court are trustworthy. But, both the Supreme Court Roe vs Wade decision and the Supreme Court Dobbs decision were leaked! How can we trust someone who comes out and says he has the statistics on abortion when we know that people at the highest level (where trust must exist) violate that trust when it comes to the abortion issue?

If you are not willing to look at the data, then we can't really have a discussion about it, no?

One would think that in areas where it is illegal, there would be more impetus (fear of the law) to lie about the stats?

 

[SomeRandom]

From the common cold to heart surgery there are many conditions where treatment is optional as it may have its own risks or costs that don't justify a recommendation. But the doctor will perform the treatment if it is elected and the insurance will pay (at least German insurances will, I've heard not so good things about US insurances).

Ahh. I presume that’s because Germany has a sort of universal healthcare option?
If so then I can understand the somewhat flippant attitude towards treatment.
I think I have such an attitude as well. Australia also has a universal system as well as private.
So for us, I guess, when we seek medical treatment we’re not really thinking of costs or whether we have insurance or whatever.
I don’t think I’ve ever even thought of the doctor’s bill in my life. And I’ve gone private a fair few times. (Kind of by accident lol but still.)

Our US brethren are not so lucky. So for them the issues of healthcare and treatment and indeed what qualifies are a little more….strict. So to speak.

 

[Heyo]

Ahh. I presume that’s because Germany has a sort of universal healthcare option?
If so then I can understand the somewhat flippant attitude towards treatment.
I think I have such an attitude as well. Australia also has a universal system as well as private.
So for us, I guess, when we seek medical treatment we’re not really thinking of costs or whether we have insurance or whatever.
I don’t think I’ve ever even thought of the doctor’s bill in my life. And I’ve gone private a fair few times. (Kind of by accident lol but still.)

Our US brethren are not so lucky. So for them the issues of healthcare and treatment and indeed what qualifies are a little more….strict. So to speak.

Actually, Germany is a bit backwards when it comes to universal healthcare. We have something like mandatory insurance. And we have very strict regulations for the insurances when it comes to tariffs and what they have to pay for. I have never heard that any of them refused to pay for necessary health care or even most of elective health care.
What did happen though was that doctors were put on a budget of how many forms of care they could prescribe. Very convoluted system - but it works reasonably well.

 

[SomeRandom]

Actually, Germany is a bit backwards when it comes to universal healthcare. We have something like mandatory insurance. And we have very strict regulations for the insurances when it comes to tariffs and what they have to pay for. I have never heard that any of them refused to pay for necessary health care or even most of elective health care.
What did happen though was that doctors were put on a budget of how many forms of care they could prescribe. Very convoluted system - but it works reasonably well.

Ahh I see.
Informative frubal

Sounds somewhat similar to our system.
Though I suppose we have our own bugs to deal with lol

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the common cold to heart surgery there are many conditions where treatment is optional as it may have its own risks or costs that don't justify a recommendation. But the doctor will perform the treatment if it is elected and the insurance will pay (at least German insurances will, I've heard not so good things about US insurances).

All treatment is effectively optional: we don't force people to take medicine or have surgery without their consent.

But you dodged my question. The fact is that for any other condition with chronic effects as bad as those of "routine" pregnancy or the risk of death caused by pregnancy, doctors would recognize addressing the condition as medically indicated.

If someone freely chooses to subject themselves to these effects and risks because they want a baby, this is wonderful (though as a society, we should still work to make those risks as low as possible), but imposing them on someone who doesn't want them is monstrous.

Every freely-chosen abortion is a medically justified abortion.

 

[crossfire]

You've never known a pregnant person, have you?

Elective abortion is most certainly a healthcare issue. Even a seemingly routine pregnancy still carries a significant risk of death and a virtual guarantee of lifelong chronic effects.

The US's maternal mortality rate is 20 per 100,000 live births. The worst state - Arkansas - is double that. IOW, in the US, the risk that a pregnancy will kill the pregnant person is 1 in 5,000 on average and 1 in 2,500 in the worst case.

The vast majority of these deaths wouldn't have been cases where an abortion was medically indicated; most would have been "routine" pregnancies where something went wrong during delivery.

I fear that those rates will go up in areas where abortion is banned, because medical students in residency get can't get certified as OB/GYN without abortion care training, which will eventually mean fewer OB/GYNs in those areas. I've even heard of people looking to start families are moving out of those areas due to lack of available maternity care.

 

[Heyo]

All treatment is effectively optional: we don't force people to take medicine or have surgery without their consent.

But you dodged my question. The fact is that for any other condition with chronic effects as bad as those of "routine" pregnancy or the risk of death caused by pregnancy, doctors would recognize addressing the condition as medically indicated.

If someone freely chooses to subject themselves to these effects and risks because they want a baby, this is wonderful (though as a society, we should still work to make those risks as low as possible), but imposing them on someone who doesn't want them is monstrous.

Every freely-chosen abortion is a medically justified abortion.

There is a spectrum from (strongly) recommended to (strongly) objected when it comes to medical procedures, and only those abortions with at least a "recommended" are medically justified.
And I question your assertion that doctors would recommend treatment for every condition with the same risks as pregnancy. Got citation?