Can we compromise on abortion?

[Valjean]

Any restriction on abortion amounts to an infringement on the fundamental rights and value of pregnant people - or people who might become pregnant.

But the salient principle invoked on the right involves the fundamental right-to-life of the fœtus, as a person, not the mother. The left misconstrues the issue.
Appeals to the mothers' bodily integrity constructs a strawman.

IMO, no restriction on rights is acceptable. The proper place for compromise is on other measures: if alternatives to abortion are provided that are so attractive and available that everyone freely chooses non-abortive options, then both sides can be happy.

... or rather, they'd be happy if they're honest in their positions. As I've pointed out before, anti-choice positions often make no sense if we assume they're motivated by a concern for fetuses and embryos, but all make sense if we assume they're motivated by a desire to punish women for having sex they don't approve of.

If I'm right about the true motives of anti-choicers, they wouldn't be satisfied even with zero abortions if public policy made a bunch of pregnant people happier or better off.

Today's anti-abortion movement is led by the religious right. The right didn't always oppose abortion. They were largely OK with it for years.
Before Roe v Wade, in fact, the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (CCS) helped women with abortion access and care, and vetted providers.

The current movement is a political ploy; a red herring.

 

[tytlyf]

In America, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects the state from religion-inspired laws.
The pro-life movement is a religious movement,
We have a separation of Mosque and State in the US. Which is guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the salient principle invoked on the right involves the fundamental right-to-life of the fœtus, as a person, not the mother. The left misconstrues the issue.
Appeals to the mothers' bodily integrity constructs a strawman.

It's not a strawman. Does a child who needs a kidney or a bone marrow transplant not have a right to life?

We uphold as a general principle that our right to bodily autonomy trumps someone else's right to life.

Today's anti-abortion movement is led by the religious right. The right didn't always oppose abortion. They were largely OK with it for years.
Before Roe v Wade, in fact, the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (CCS) helped women with abortion access and care, and vetted providers.

The current movement is a political ploy; a red herring.

Oh, I know.

 

[King Phenomenon]

In America, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects the state from religion-inspired laws.
The pro-life movement is a religious movement,
We have a separation of Mosque and State in the US. Which is guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers.

Eh, not so sure. Had religions never existed we more than likely would still have split views. A father might simply want his child to live. No religion necessary, who knows. FYI I’m pro choice.

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

I would first ask, what are the restrictions you had in mind.
But I’m not American so

 

[tytlyf]

Eh, not so sure. Had religions never existed we more than likely would still have split views. A father might simply want his child to live. No religion necessary, who knows. FYI I’m pro choice.

America is a secular nation. No religious law.

 

[Valjean]

It's not a strawman. Does a child who needs a kidney or a bone marrow transplant not have a right to life?

Viable children aren't being aborted.

We uphold as a general principle that our right to bodily autonomy trumps someone else's right to life.

Is a fœtus a "someone," or a something?

 

[King Phenomenon]

America is a secular nation. No religious law.

Split abortion views doesn’t stem from religion.

 

[tytlyf]

Split abortion views doesn’t stem from religion.

The pro-life movement is a religious movement

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Viable children aren't being aborted.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Is a fœtus a "someone," or a something?

I would say that a fetus is a "something," but my point was that even we accept the anti-choicers' position for argument's sake, the conclusion would be the same: a pregnant person should have the right to end their pregnancy at all points during the pregnancy.

 

[King Phenomenon]

The pro-life movement is a religious movement

Religion is their justification but is their self really the driving force? Who knows at this point. Had religions never existed we’d still be split. What would we blame then? Looks like it’s a ‘self’ problem. Of course one will jump on the pro choice wagon now a days.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's see:

I insist on dangerously and unilaterally meddling in you life.​

​

No?​

​

OK, let's compromise ...​

 

[Koldo]

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?

There is room for compromise, but people just don't want to. So Nope.... It is not gonna happen.

 

[Callisto]

Suggestion. All males must receive vasectomies, which will be reversed at when they get married.

At which point, abortion would become the law of the land so fast that heads would spin.

 

[Shaul]

Instead of compromising, how about if we all work together to make abortion obsolete and irrelevant instead? All that is needed is to eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

 

[We Never Know]

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?

"Pro-life people must allow some abortions and pro-choice people must accept some restrictions."

That would be great... But won't ever happen IMO

 

[Shaul]

10 to 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. The only treatment is abortion. There are also ectopic pregnancies, which will kill the mother, and the fetus isn't viable and can't be "transplanted" to the womb. The only treatment is abortion.

The draconian abortion laws make doctors afraid to provide these women with life-saving health care. The anti-abortion fanatics need to understand this.

By legal definition (note legal definition) terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. Ergo your statement is incorrect.

 

[fantome profane]

By legal definition (note legal definition) terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. Ergo your statement is incorrect.

Citation needed.

 

[Alien826]

In America, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects the state from religion-inspired laws.
The pro-life movement is a religious movement,
We have a separation of Mosque and State in the US. Which is guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers.

Tell that to the Supreme Court, with six out of nine justices Catholic!

 

[Alien826]

I would first ask, what are the restrictions you had in mind.
But I’m not American so

That would be thrashed out between the two sides. My personal answer is not relevant.