Would you compromise on abortion?

[TV and credit cards]

There is no legitimate compromise to be made on either side.

If you believe that deciding for yourself how your body is to be used is a fundamental human right, there is no compromising on that point. There is only surrendering your human rights.

If you believe that human life begins at conception and that human life is sacred, there is no compromising on that point, either. There is only an immoral bargaining away of other people's lives.

If it were possible to forge a compromise between those two fundamentally different views, it would have happened 40 years ago.

If you can come to the realization that your not getting what you want now, you might look to the Netherlands. Seems like the best route for all concerned.

But I don't have a dog in this fight. Let the womenfolk hash it out.

 

[Rhea]

That is not a compromise. But, no, I wouldn't compromise on civil rights. That's how we got 100 more years of slavery and the civil war.

 

[Underseer]

[...]

But I don't have a dog in this fight. Let the womenfolk hash it out.

That's the problem right there. The womenfolk aren't hashing it out. On one side, we have men dictating to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies, and they're using the government to do it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why would it be better to have women tell other women what to do with their bodies then to have men tell them what to do with their bodies?

Isn't the bad thing that someone who's not them is telling them what to do and the gender is completely irrelevant? Having women hash it out solves nothing about the problem.

 

[whichphilosophy]

[...]

But I don't have a dog in this fight. Let the womenfolk hash it out.

That's the problem right there. The womenfolk aren't hashing it out. On one side, we have men dictating to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies, and they're using the government to do it.

If abortion is legal up to fetal viability which is 24 weeks (fetal viability) then that is hardly telling a woman what to do...

 

[Medicine Man]

[...]

But I don't have a dog in this fight. Let the womenfolk hash it out.

That's the problem right there. The womenfolk aren't hashing it out. On one side, we have men dictating to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies, and they're using the government to do it.

Everything is temporary.....​

Republican WOMEN Tell Patriarchy To
"PACK IT!!!!!!"
January 22, 2015

*​

"Republican leaders in the U.S. House, facing a revolt from female Republicans in the chamber, dropped plans last night for a vote on a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to media reports.

The measure, which the White House had threatened to veto, allowed exceptions in cases of rape in which the victims had reported the crime to authorities."

​

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But I don't have a dog in this fight. Let the womenfolk hash it out.

That right there exposes that you have taken a side. If you saw the unborn as a person to care about, and the equal of other human beings, you would have as much of a dog in this fight as you would have in any other question about killing innocent human beings. That you don't feel it is your issue, shows that you see the unborn as something less.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's the problem right there. The womenfolk aren't hashing it out. On one side, we have men dictating to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies, and they're using the government to do it.

If abortion is legal up to fetal viability which is 24 weeks (fetal viability) then that is hardly telling a woman what to do...

It's telling them what to do after 24 weeks, isn't it?

 

[Bronzeage]

Why not just offer all of those AND abortion.

Read the title. 50% of Americans are pro life. Would you compromise with them?

This statistic would have some meaning if there were only one definition of "pro life." Most of us are anti-death, but are willing to make exceptions for some people.

The problem with compromises on abortion is that it's a compromise. If abortion is a bad thing, what is it about rape or incest which eliminates the bad? If abortion is a bad thing, why do people who oppose abortion, tend to oppose birth control? It would seem less unwanted pregnancies would mean less abortions.

There are only two defensible positions on abortion. The first is abortion is bad and it should not be allowed for any reason. The second is abortion is neither good or bad, and the reason is irrelevant.

Anything in between is just a compromise.

 

[fast]

Make it illegal except for death of mother, rape, incest, etc. In exchange for mandatory secular safe sex education that covers birth control. And 100% free birth control for anyone anytime. Parent's could not prevent their daughters from obtaining birth control.

Free? Paid for by those against abortion?

 

[Bronzeage]

Make it illegal except for death of mother, rape, incest, etc. In exchange for mandatory secular safe sex education that covers birth control. And 100% free birth control for anyone anytime. Parent's could not prevent their daughters from obtaining birth control.

Free? Paid for by those against abortion?

Are those people against abortion and protected sex? Is this a contradictory stance?

 

[NobleSavage]

Make it illegal except for death of mother, rape, incest, etc. In exchange for mandatory secular safe sex education that covers birth control. And 100% free birth control for anyone anytime. Parent's could not prevent their daughters from obtaining birth control.

Free? Paid for by those against abortion?

Yes. I don't see why someone who is against abortion should have problems paying for birth control when it prevents abortions. It seem that side is more against non-marital sex than killing babies. Sorry, fetuses. Some of them are against it even if they are not paying for it. On this side the right of a woman to control her body is more important than preventing unwanted pregnancies. The issue will never be resolved and it's not changing as more people lose their religion.

 

[Bronzeage]

Free? Paid for by those against abortion?

Yes. I don't see why someone who is against abortion should have problems paying for birth control when it prevents abortions. It seem that side is more against non-marital sex than killing babies. Sorry, fetuses. Some of them are against it even if they are not paying for it. On this side the right of a woman to control her body is more important than preventing unwanted pregnancies. The issue will never be resolved and it's not changing as more people lose their religion.

You've just hit on the moral stumbling block of the abortion issue. Pro-life people are no so much pro-life, as they are "pro-lifestyle." They not only oppose abortion, they oppose a whole list of personal choices, even if these choices mean an abortion is less likely.

 

[Underseer]

Free? Paid for by those against abortion?

Yes. I don't see why someone who is against abortion should have problems paying for birth control when it prevents abortions. It seem that side is more against non-marital sex than killing babies. Sorry, fetuses. Some of them are against it even if they are not paying for it. On this side the right of a woman to control her body is more important than preventing unwanted pregnancies. The issue will never be resolved and it's not changing as more people lose their religion.

The fact that they are against things that would reduce abortions (e.g. birth control) proves that despite their protests to the contrary, their goal is not to "save babies."

We can speculate on what their real motives are. Personally, I think it's all about their hatred of women.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes. I don't see why someone who is against abortion should have problems paying for birth control when it prevents abortions. It seem that side is more against non-marital sex than killing babies. Sorry, fetuses. Some of them are against it even if they are not paying for it. On this side the right of a woman to control her body is more important than preventing unwanted pregnancies. The issue will never be resolved and it's not changing as more people lose their religion.

The fact that they are against things that would reduce abortions (e.g. birth control) proves that despite their protests to the contrary, their goal is not to "save babies."

We can speculate on what their real motives are. Personally, I think it's all about their hatred of women.

Hatred, fear, six of one, half dozen of the other.

 

[fast]

Free? Paid for by those against abortion?

Yes. I don't see why someone who is against abortion should have problems paying for birth control when it prevents abortions. It seem that side is more against non-marital sex than killing babies. Sorry, fetuses. Some of them are against it even if they are not paying for it. On this side the right of a woman to control her body is more important than preventing unwanted pregnancies. The issue will never be resolved and it's not changing as more people lose their religion.

It wasn't so much the abortion issue that got me. It was the no money needed, pull out your wallet image that came to mind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If abortion is a bad thing, what is it about rape or incest which eliminates the bad? If abortion is a bad thing, why do people who oppose abortion, tend to oppose birth control? It would seem less unwanted pregnancies would mean less abortions.

Yeah, the "pro-life" people are for the most part major hypocrites. There are a *FEW* true pro-lifers--in 3 decades of on-line discussions I've encountered a couple.)

There are only two defensible positions on abortion. The first is abortion is bad and it should not be allowed for any reason. The second is abortion is neither good or bad, and the reason is irrelevant.

Anything in between is just a compromise.

No. Even if abortion is bad self defense is a valid reason. The pro-lifers would prefer the fetus take the woman with it rather than permit an abortion, I can't see how this can be justified even if the fetus is a person.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Read the title. 50% of Americans are pro life. Would you compromise with them?

This statistic would have some meaning if there were only one definition of "pro life." Most of us are anti-death, but are willing to make exceptions for some people.

The problem with compromises on abortion is that it's a compromise. If abortion is a bad thing, what is it about rape or incest which eliminates the bad? If abortion is a bad thing, why do people who oppose abortion, tend to oppose birth control? It would seem less unwanted pregnancies would mean less abortions.

There are only two defensible positions on abortion. The first is abortion is bad and it should not be allowed for any reason. The second is abortion is neither good or bad, and the reason is irrelevant.

Anything in between is just a compromise.

I think you've just hit the nail right on the head and found for me the part of the debate that has always bugged me. It's the reason I never quite bought the pro-life argument. If they really meant it, they shouldn't make that exception, because they are saying the child can be punished for the identity of its parents.

Like most libertarians, I am pro-choice, but I'm not happy with either position really.

 

[PyramidHead]

A third defensible position is pro-abortion: abortion is good because it prevents any suffering the child would have endured, as well as that of its progeny. It also deprives the child of any positive experiences, but the child won't care about that since she doesn't exist. This could be called an anti-life stance.

 

[Bronzeage]

This statistic would have some meaning if there were only one definition of "pro life." Most of us are anti-death, but are willing to make exceptions for some people.

The problem with compromises on abortion is that it's a compromise. If abortion is a bad thing, what is it about rape or incest which eliminates the bad? If abortion is a bad thing, why do people who oppose abortion, tend to oppose birth control? It would seem less unwanted pregnancies would mean less abortions.

There are only two defensible positions on abortion. The first is abortion is bad and it should not be allowed for any reason. The second is abortion is neither good or bad, and the reason is irrelevant.

Anything in between is just a compromise.

I think you've just hit the nail right on the head and found for me the part of the debate that has always bugged me. It's the reason I never quite bought the pro-life argument. If they really meant it, they shouldn't make that exception, because they are saying the child can be punished for the identity of its parents.

Like most libertarians, I am pro-choice, but I'm not happy with either position really.

There is a principle which applies here and it is titled, "The Trouble Rule."

The Trouble Rule is invoked to justify any socially sanctioned killing of a human being. In it's simplest form, the Trouble Rule states, "If you cause enough trouble, we will kill you." The person in question doesn't have to be the actual cause of the trouble. It may be their existence which causes the trouble, but that doesn't really make a difference.

An unborn child is certainly not responsible for the trouble they cause, but we will kill them, because of the trouble their existence causes. This applies to capital punishment and casualties of war, as well.

The definition of trouble is elastic and completely subjective to the situation. The death of Michael Brown was good example of the Trouble Rule. The several thousand Iraqi civilians who have died in US air strikes are another example. While these deaths are regrettable, society accepts them as the cost of doing social business.

When the trouble rule is applied to abortion, we see it most prominently in the "rape and incest" exclusion. What the fuck has that got to do with life? Not much, but it has plenty to do with trouble. The rape and incest exclusion are really the middle class safety valve. Who actually has a reason to get an abortion, in the plainest sense of the word? It's a woman who has other plans. "Other plans" means, she has a future and a baby at this point will interfere with those plans. Poor women on welfare don't tend to have those plans. The rape and incest exclusion was not written for them. The R&I exclusion is tailored for Suzie Coed, who needs to graduate with her class. This is why the R&I exclusion is so solidly entrenched in the argument. The great middle class, which actually decides these questions, will not let this be eroded.

Trouble comes in all forms.