Can we compromise on abortion?

[Subduction Zone]

So I rest my case on @Subduction Zone and @9-10ths_Penguin as good examples of why compromise becomes impossible by virtue of all their responses. @Heyo is a good example on how dialogue and compromise can move things forward even though we have differences of viewpoints.

What are you talking about? I offered a more than reasonable compromise. You failed to show that it was not reasonable at all. It is folks like you that are making a reasonable compromise impossible.

Please note the key word "reasonable". Your opposition to abortions is unreasonable. You cannot come up with a cogent argument as to why abortions should be illegal without being hypocritical yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently, you have a need to understand sentence structure. When is a woman "inviting" in a rape? Either you have a comprehension problem or it is you that needs to consider on how it reflects on your character.

Oh my! There goes another irony meter.

 

[crossfire]

It does look like the trend includes banning third trimester abortions (with exceptions for things like danger to the mother), but I don't understand your argument yet. Are you arguing that third trimester abortions specifically shouldn't be banned because they are only 1% of abortions or are you using 1% of abortions to argue that no abortions should be banned in any trimester? Both arguments seem a bit shakey. Also, you talk about a burden of proof. What is the statement that you are claiming necessitates a proof?


As you can probably see, there is a debate about abortions before the time of viability as well as after the time of viability. Roe vs Wade was bad because it was legislation from the bench and because it was the wrong outcome. The scope of Roe vs Wade has had to be continually narrowed again and again by subsequent rulings until, finally, it had to be overturned. Even Ginsburg said the Roe vs Wade ruling was bad. I don't know what your argument is about judges lying before Congress - a google search indicates that AoC accused judges of lying before Congress, but it seems to be political theatre on her part. I would prefer to hear arguments about the reasonableness/unreasonableness of abortion legislation rather than engaging in pointless polarization. What would a reasonable, moral abortion law look like?

So far it looks like you think that third trimester abortion bans are unreasonable and yet third trimester abortion bans were already common both before and after Roe vs Wade, which you declared to be a "sound ruling". What's changed in the wake of the Dobbs decision that leads you to argue against third trimester abortion bans?

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Exactly. I am generally against laws based upon a false narrative. If we made all abortions legal at all time there would be no big rush by women that are very well along in their pregnancies rushing to get an abortion. By the 22nd week the intents of the pregnant woman are very clear. Late term abortion bans only cause problems for those that need abortions for medical reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Apparently, you have a need to understand sentence structure. When is a woman "inviting" in a rape?

At no point. This is what you seem to have trouble with:

- consent to go on a date isn't consent to go home with her
- consent to go home with her isn't consent to sex
- consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy
- consent to becoming pregnant isn't consent to remaining pregnant

Your whole "consent to sex is consent to a baby" thing is the same mentality as a rapist's "she said yes to coming upstairs; she can't say no to sex now."

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How many women like you are there? For the average woman it should be no problem to make a decision and arrange for an abortion between the time they know they are pregnant and the 20th week.

Enough that they made a whole TV show about us. With many not knowing they were pregnant until contractions. There's a pretty wide variety of hormone disorders and nerve disabilities that block normal menstral and pregnancy symptoms, and not getting prenatal care can make the fetus too weak to be detected. The result is usually a high risk case for both automatically but best practice wouldn't force anyone to wait until being imperiled to stop the pregnancy. I certainly wouldn't.

Whatever the average is, if a minority gets put in significant danger, then exclusive measures should not be implemented so they don't get left behind.

 

[metis]

I think one of the considerations people should have is that when abortion is banned in one state, most will want to go to another state for an abortion. If the entire country were to ban abortions, then some will go to Canada or another country to get one. But what's also important about this is that women coming from middle to upper-income families can afford to go elsewhere for the procedures but women in lower-income families may not be able to do as such. Thus, in the long run, what does that do to our demographics?

 

[fantome profane]

I think one of the considerations people should have is that when abortion is banned in one state, most will want to go to another state for an abortion. If the entire country were to ban abortions, then some will go to Canada or another country to get one. But what's also important about this is that women coming from middle to upper-income families can afford to go elsewhere for the procedures but women in lower-income families may not be able to do as such. Thus, in the long run, what does that do to our demographics?

I don’t know about “demographics”, but I do know it is unjust and hypocritical. So many things that place a server burden on lower income people are barely an inconvenience to the wealthy. And how many rich and powerful who may support abortion bans will make arrangements for their daughters if they get in trouble?

 

[Heyo]

Enough that they made a whole TV show about us. With many not knowing they were pregnant until contractions. There's a pretty wide variety of hormone disorders and nerve disabilities that block normal menstral and pregnancy symptoms, and not getting prenatal care can make the fetus too weak to be detected. The result is usually a high risk case for both automatically but best practice wouldn't force anyone to wait until being imperiled to stop the pregnancy. I certainly wouldn't.

Whatever the average is, if a minority gets put in significant danger, then exclusive measures should not be implemented so they don't get left behind.

I may not have said it explicitly but I'm only against elective abortions after 20 weeks. Abortions for medical reasons should always be allowed and what constitutes a medical reason should be decided by medical professionals, not by lawmakers and lawyers.
And if you had followed my debate with Kenny, you'd know that I'm not sure what to do with hardship cases (e.g. a woman not knowing to be pregnant or otherwise hindered to schedule an abortion before week 20). There should be hardship rules or case-by-case decisions.
Given that, what are your objection against a 20th week elective abortion ban for average cases?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I may not have said it explicitly but I'm only against elective abortions after 20 weeks. Abortions for medical reasons should always be allowed and what constitutes a medical reason should be decided by medical professionals, not by lawmakers and lawyers.
And if you had followed my debate with Kenny, you'd know that I'm not sure what to do with hardship cases (e.g. a woman not knowing to be pregnant or otherwise hindered to schedule an abortion before week 20). There should be hardship rules or case-by-case decisions.
Given that, what are your objection against a 20th week elective abortion ban for average cases?

Moral/ethical or legal objections? Because I think that anyone with a viable fetus should try to birth, induced or cesarian, unless there's medical reasons to not.

Legal objections? I don't trust legislative effort to determine when 'medical reasons' is significant enough to not be grounds for penalty for mother or doctor. Women can and do die because doctors dither out of fear of 'is this severe enough,' such as the aforementioned case of Savita Halappanavar. I also don't think women should have to wait until complications are life threatening, which can on its own have devastating physical, emotional and financial repercussions.

This is especially so as doctors, especially in the US, have a long history of not understanding and underestimating women's healthcare concerns. And thereby US having one of the highest maternal deaths rates. (coupled with US expensive and inaccessible healthcare concerns in general.)

Tl,dr, while I'm morally and ethically opposed to elective abortions post viability (which is more around 24 weeks), I am more opposed to shaky legal precedents for 'medical necessity'.

 

[crossfire]

Moral/ethical or legal objections? Because I think that anyone with a viable fetus should try to birth, induced or cesarian, unless there's medical reasons to not.

Legal objections? I don't trust legislative effort to determine when 'medical reasons' is significant enough to not be grounds for penalty for mother or doctor. Women can and do die because doctors dither out of fear of 'is this severe enough,' such as the aforementioned case of Savita Halappanavar. I also don't think women should have to wait until complications are life threatening, which can on its own have devastating physical, emotional and financial repercussions.

This is especially so as doctors, especially in the US, have a long history of not understanding and underestimating women's healthcare concerns. And thereby US having one of the highest maternal deaths rates. (coupled with US expensive and inaccessible healthcare concerns in general.)

Tl,dr, while I'm morally and ethically opposed to elective abortions post viability (which is more around 24 weeks), I am more opposed to shaky legal precedents for 'medical necessity'.

Well said. This expresses my view as well.

 

[Heyo]

Moral/ethical or legal objections? Because I think that anyone with a viable fetus should try to birth, induced or cesarian, unless there's medical reasons to not.

Legal objections? I don't trust legislative effort to determine when 'medical reasons' is significant enough to not be grounds for penalty for mother or doctor. Women can and do die because doctors dither out of fear of 'is this severe enough,' such as the aforementioned case of Savita Halappanavar. I also don't think women should have to wait until complications are life threatening, which can on its own have devastating physical, emotional and financial repercussions.

This is especially so as doctors, especially in the US, have a long history of not understanding and underestimating women's healthcare concerns. And thereby US having one of the highest maternal deaths rates. (coupled with US expensive and inaccessible healthcare concerns in general.)

Tl,dr, while I'm morally and ethically opposed to elective abortions post viability (which is more around 24 weeks), I am more opposed to shaky legal precedents for 'medical necessity'.

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.

 

[crossfire]

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.

Do you want your employer dictating what kind of healthcare you can or cannot get? Do you want Joe-Blow off the street dictating your health care? Are either of these healthcare specialists? Are politicians healthcare specialists? I wouldn't trust my healthcare decisions to politicians just as I wouldn't trust a drunk driver to drive me anywhere. Compromising on any of these things would put my life and well-being in peril!

 

[Heyo]

Do you want your employer dictating what kind of healthcare you can or cannot get? Do you want Joe-Blow off the street dictating your health care? Are either of these healthcare specialists? Are politicians healthcare specialists? I wouldn't trust my healthcare decisions to politicians just as I wouldn't trust a drunk driver to drive me anywhere. Compromising on any of these things would put my life and well-being in peril!

What has that to do with the topic?

 

[crossfire]

What has that to do with the topic?

It has everything to do with the topic! Handing over my healthcare decisions to politicians is like handing my car keys over to an unlicensed drunk driver. This is not something on a wise person can compromise on.

 

[Heyo]

It has everything to do with the topic!

How has it to do with the topic?

 

[crossfire]

How has it to do with the topic?

See my edit.

 

[Heyo]

It has everything to do with the topic! Handing over my healthcare decisions to politicians is like handing my car keys over to an unlicensed drunk driver. This is not something on a wise person can compromise on.

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

i would have to disagree with you on that. It is a healthcare issue. Do you need proof? See if a woman can get Mifepristone without a prescription from a medical doctor. It is part of a woman's overall healthcare. There are very negative health aspects of going through a pregnancy for a woman. The ability to get an abortion if needed is part of a woman's overall health options.

 

[Heyo]

i would have to disagree with you on that. It is a healthcare issue. Do you need proof? See if a woman can get Mifepristone without a prescription from a medical doctor. It is part of a woman's overall healthcare. There are very negative health aspects of going through a pregnancy for a woman. The ability to get an abortion if needed is part of a woman's overall health options.

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.