Can we compromise on abortion?

[Alien826]

That compromise was obviously not acceptable to pro-birthers.

I didn't say it was. I was just setting out what I would like.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is my view. Compromise isn't a virtue. Especially when one side is using compromise to further their own interests on a thing (body autonomy) that should never have been compromised on at *any* level. Just like 'some slavery' isn't a reasonable position between no slavery and a lot of slavery, some removal of body autonomy isn't either.

This, I think, is the correct take.
My friends and I have seen what happens when you allow compromise. Granted mostly in the context of American politics which is admittedly a bit “harsher” than our own country’s
But still.
Apparently all the happens is that your “opponent” uses that willingness to give them an inch to take a mile, as it were.

Screw that, I say.
Compromise was tried and it ultimately failed, to the detriment of everyone. And is extremely unpopular to boot.
In a country boasting to uphold freedoms, I’m seeing nothing but restrictions in the news right now.
Not saying we’re any better. But since we have to vote, we at least have some say in our laws

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree...

But in today's societal makeup - less would still be better. Heartbeat bills could be viewed as a compromise.

Hardly. That does not deal with the problem of bodily autonomy. You cannot solve this problem with special rights for fetuses and embryos. I gave a reasonable compromise, what was wrong with it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree...

But in today's societal makeup - less would still be better. Heartbeat bills could be viewed as a compromise.

Not the way they're being legislated, they're not. Most (Republican?) politicians seem to think that the sound you hear on the ultrasound machine at around 6 weeks is a heartbeat, when it isn't. The heart isn't even developed enough to be detectable on ultrasound until around 17-20 weeks.

Having said that, my father had a heartbeat even though he was brain dead (i.e. dead). He just had a machine pumping his heart for him. So I'm not entirely sure that's the best metric either.

 

[Alien826]

This, I think, is the correct take.
My friends and I have seen what happens when you allow compromise. Granted mostly in the context of American politics which is admittedly a bit “harsher” than our own country’s
But still.
Apparently all the happens is that your “opponent” uses that willingness to give them an inch to take a mile, as it were.

Screw that, I say.
Compromise was tried and it ultimately failed, to the detriment of everyone. And is extremely unpopular to boot.
In a country boasting to uphold freedoms, I’m seeing nothing but restrictions in the news right now.
Not saying we’re any better. But since we have to vote, we at least have some say in our laws

Once again ... compromise is not appeasement. Compromise is not continuing to fight for what you want after you have agreed to a settlement. If those things occur, it's a red flag that no compromise exits.

 

[Alien826]

Not the way they're being legislated, they're not. Most (Republican?) politicians seem to think that the sound you hear on the ultrasound machine at around 6 weeks is a heartbeat, when it isn't. The heart isn't even developed enough to be detectable on ultrasound until around 17-20 weeks.

That's true. Maybe all these "heartbeat" bills can be changed to specify an actual heart?

 

[SomeRandom]

Once again ... compromise is not appeasement. Compromise is not continuing to fight for what you want after you have agreed to a settlement. If those things occur, it's a red flag that no compromise exits.

Well my compromise has always been, legal safe abortion up to maybe 20 weeks. I could maybe go down to 15.
After that if it’s medically necessary then it should be a decision made by the doctor and patient.
But it’s been made clear to me watching the US that the pro life side (not all, mind you) are not satisfied by this compromise. They continue to try to pass restriction upon restriction. Even looking at penalising miscarriages apparently.
Again not all. Some have been pushing back against unreasonable restrictions. But still.

So I guess there’s no compromise then

 

[Kenny]

Where did that strange non sequitur come from?

you brought up test-tubes... so it must have come from you?

 

[Kenny]

The human gestation period is about 40 weeks. The middle is 20 weeks. I consider that a compromise. And it is also, with a short period of safety, the moment we can assume that the fetus can suffer. As reducing suffering and promoting well being is one of my (and also widely accepted) pillars of morality, I can argue for curtailing the woman's right to bodily autonomy with a better reason than a heartbeat. Furthermore it is practical as there is enough time for the woman to know that she is pregnant and arrange to end the pregnancy.

OK... that is a start.... for your viewpoint. I would think you would know if you are pregnant way before 20 weeks.
When do you consider a baby.. a baby?

 

[crossfire]

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?

 

[Kenny]

Well, I think there are other issues that should be high priority: combatting climate change, the housing crisis, unemployment, etc.

If you had some plan to voluntarily convince people not to have abortions and this plan needed funding, I would be open to discussions about how much money should be diverted from programs to address those other important issues to your plan.



You see preventing abortions as "an issue that isn't an issue"?

What I see as the ideal scenario on this issue would be:

1. at every point during pregnancy, pregnant people have access to safe, legal and free methods to end their pregnancy.

2. abortion care services would be part of the bundle of services required for licensure of a general hospital.

3. medical professionals - including pharmacists - whose duties include medical or surgical abortion-related services but refused to perform their duties would be in breach of their professional code of ethics and subject to discipline.

4. the voluntary choice not to abort would be made as easy as possible with long job-protected paid pregnancy leave, free medical care for pregnant people and children, and other programs.


I am willing to compromise on point 2 and point 3, and as I mentioned, I'm willing to consider any program or policy that reduces abortion rates by giving pregnant people more attractive options that they freely choose.

which explains why people can't compromise. You are a great example.

 

[The Hammer]

OK... that is a start.... for your viewpoint. I would think you would know if you are pregnant way before 20 weeks.
When do you consider a baby.. a baby?

A baby is not a "baby" until it is viable without medical intervention.

 

[The Hammer]

When do you consider a baby.. a baby?

After it is born and can breathe on its own.

 

[SomeRandom]

A baby is not a "baby" until it is viable without medical intervention.

I suppose to play Devil’s Advocate somewhat, there are premature births that require the born fetus to be sustained through the usage of medical intervention. Even breathing for it.
Do you consider that to be an exception or a kind of “grey area.”

Because I agree with your definition. I just think there’s also a little bit of leeway as well, just because medical science can intervene in many scenarios that make a non viable fetus into a viable one.

 

[fantome profane]

Because I agree with your definition. I just think there’s also a little bit of leeway as well, just because medical science can intervene in many scenarios that make a non viable fetus into a viable one.

"can intervene" or "does intervene". If this medical intervention you are referring to is 100% theoretical and not actually offered, then it is irrelevant.

 

[SomeRandom]

"can intervene" or "does intervene". If this medical intervention you are referring to is 100% theoretical and not actually offered, then it is irrelevant.

Do American hospitals not intervene in the cases of premature births?

 

[fantome profane]

Do American hospitals not intervene in the cases of premature births?

Perhaps in emergencies. But they don't do so on demand. A women who is eight months pregnant can't go to a hospital and ask for a "premature birth" to be preformed. There for it is not really viable.

 

[SomeRandom]

Perhaps in emergencies. But they don't do so on demand. A women who is eight months pregnant can't go to a hospital and ask for a "premature birth" to be preformed. There for it is not really viable.

I didn’t know that!!
I don’t think it’s legal for a hospital to deny such a treatment for any reason here
Unless of course the doctors deem it not necessary I suppose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

which explains why people can't compromise. You are a great example.

So you really don't care about preventing abortion. Good to know.

 

[fantome profane]

I didn’t know that!!
I don’t think it’s legal for a hospital to deny such a treatment for any reason here
Unless of course the doctors deem it not necessary I suppose.

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.