Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm posting in Great Debates because of the higher standards required for discussion here, compared to POC.
Obviously abortion is a hot topic, moreso than usual the past couple of weeks. I completely understand that it's a complicated issue, with immense passion on both sides. My stance has changed through the years, from being staunchly pro-life, to fairly pro-choice, and now I call myself reluctantly and conservatively pro-choice. I have stated in other threads that I support abortion in the first trimester, but in actuality, I could accept an even earlier cutoff date (based mostly on the emotional reaction I have when looking at images of 12 week gestational embryos.) My point is that I am definitely open to compromise.
My main concerns regarding limitations on abortion are when the embryo/fetus feels pain, and other factors that determine when this entity, which clearly starts out as a clump of cells, becomes equivalent to a living, breathing, born human being, deserving full protection.
For the purpose of this discussion, is there anyone who is pro-life who would be willing to respectfully and open-mindedly debate the possibility of accepting abortion up to 8 weeks? I'm wondering if this could be a starting point to finding a tolerable compromise. (I'm not even talking about what may or may not become law; I'm just wondering if anyone who is currently opposed to abortion in general would be willing to discuss an 8 week limit, in a manner consistent with actual principles of debating.)
I'm willing to listen and try to understand your position, and I ask that you do the same for me. Thank you.
I clarified my position on this after nearly pursuing an abortion myself (a miscarriage prevented the need to do so) and reading many liberal perspectives on the subject. Including an oft shared viral post by Pete Buttigieg, where he explained that "late term abortions" are tragic situations representing less than 1% of cases, where almost as a rule (according to him) it is because of some tragic medical need, usually threatening the mother's life, or involving a fetus that is already dead or not viable for more than moments after its birth.
What I learned from my near-need for one, was that clinics will give you a "medical" abortion (involving the two pills, mifepristone and misoprostal) from 5 1/2 weeks gestation, to 12 weeks gestation. They will not do ANYTHING before 5 1/2 weeks. After 12 weeks, it is the surgical procedure.
So first of all, this makes me think that the easiest compromise to actually enact legally and practically would be to allow the procedure of using the pills/induced miscarriage method, available for whatever reason. Ya got 12 weeks to figure it out. After that? No. Let's get liberal voices to put their money (legislation) where their mouth is, if the only reasons that women are supposedly getting these later abortions are medical emergencies that threaten the mother's life...then we should be fine making a law that codifies that. So after 12 weeks, the ONLY reason that one is done, in a hospital, surgical setting and not some clinic...is a medical emergency that threatens the life of the mother. And if, in those instances, it is possible to save the lives of the child and/or the mother, then every attempt to do so should be made.
For me, this is the common sense approach. I do not like the "bans except for rape and incest" stuff because the way that we handle rape cases is too nebulous. What standard of proof would be required? I think we all know that a woman's claim won't be enough. Marking it off by procedure eliminates any kind of contention about whether the reasoning is valid or not valid and who has to shoulder the burden of proving that.
6 weeks is not enough time. It's not even just that at 6 weeks many women don't know that they are pregnant yet, although many do not, it's that you cannot even get an abortion before 5 1/2 weeks. So a 6 week ban, leaves a window of just a few days maybe, to get scheduled, get in, get it done. That might as well be a total ban. It is not a compromise.
And I don't personally believe that "I looked at a photo and had an emotional feeling" is really sound basis for the passage of laws here or anywhere. I respect that you, and others, have these feelings. You are entitled to them. But I have known rape victims. I've known plenty of them. I knew one who shared her feelings about an assault when she was a teen, on a little local Mom blog, and because her attacker was a slightly famous (in a very underground way) rock singer, she got doxxed, she and her family got death and rape threats...and she didn't even try to take him to court. She didn't even have to stand there while a defense attorney held up her underwear so that a jury could determine if she was asking for it by wearing sexy, lacy undergarments (no, that was another friend of mine who was actually held captive and repeatedly raped by a stranger for 3 days...he was found not guilty, because she's clearly "that kind of girl.")... And thinking about all of this possibly being followed by such a woman having to carry a pregnancy to term, and hey maybe she resigns herself to it and decides to try and be a mother. OK. Then maybe her rapist decides, because it would be awesome to keep on distressing her for the rest of her life, to sue for visitation. Or even custody.
I have FEELINGS about that. All of it.
I also have feelings about a lot of other scenarios involving vulnerable women. I have feelings about the notion that a woman who is already a loving mother to kids she's got, possibly facing a medical situation that will kill her and because her state is one of the most absolute in terms of bans and criminalizing all sorts of abortion, she just gets to die, then. Big feelings about that! I have feelings about the possibility of women facing criminal investigation because of a miscarriage, and women dying because they are scared to seek medical help for one, out of fear that they might be put in jail.
When I discussed this with my mother, who is very pro life, her stance came down in the end to a similar position... She looked at pictures and she's got very maternal feelings about babies, all sorts, human babies and animal babies. All the babies. Well, a lot of us have feelings about the lives of women. And I think that in some instances (my mom) the "but babies!" stuff is like...she is 100% the person who will adopt a cute puppy but tie it out in the yard to die horribly once it inconveniently becomes a dog. And frankly...some of the extremes of pro life do strike me this way.
But I definitely appreciate the concept of compromise. Because I really don't think that people throwing our feelings at one another is gonna get us anywhere! We can all do that 'till the cows come home, it's just gonna raise our blood pressure!
There are 15 week bans out there based on the old notion of "quickening" (fetal movement.) I still say 12 is just right. That way it's by procedure. What you can get, what you can not. Simple. After 12 weeks the pill version isn't done because it's unsafe and likelihood goes up that it won't even work.
You never know what's going on in another person's life. If abortion is a sin, then leave to to God to judge in the hereafter.
I think that the problem you're going to run into with that one, is that folks don't just think it's a sin, they think that it's a MURDER. And we do criminalize murder, as we should, because if we didn't then society might fly apart at the seams into some kind of "might makes right" Mad Max dystopia.
So like, I get the logic. It's driven the personhood focus of this debate for generations. At what point does a human embryo, fetus, what have you, become deserving of the protections that we afford to human beings in general society under the law?
Lots of people point to religion to answer this, but we do not live in a theocracy and if anything, America is supposed to protect religious FREEDOM, which means freedom for all of us to live within the principles and philosophies of our various religions, not freedom to force them on others who do not share one's faith. I have Jewish friends who have pointed out that their religion has established life to begin at a baby's first breath after birth, and the safety and life of the mother including her emotional safety and wellbeing to be paramount before that point. They feel that bans violate their religious freedom.
But even the Bible is not consistent with its message on this subject. One can find and cherry pick passages to support either position. I've seen it done. So much like our various feelings about it, I don't think that religious arguments are going to be a good solution here, either.
That's why I keep coming back to "legislate by procedure." It draws a line in the sand based on science and fact and an easy built in 12-week cap to compromise with.
Unfortunately though, I think that a ton of people would hate that. For some it will be too much of a ban, for others not enough of one, and for certain people, settling the issue is seriously counterproductive, because they mostly just want to keep heating up the fight over it.
You are trying to put logical solutions to an emotional issue.
One side wants abortion on demand at any time for any or no reason.
The other side sees abortion as the ending of a human life.
How is there a compromise when any abortion results in death? Do you allow abortion if it's only a partial death? To my way of thinking, abortion should never be an option with the exception of the life of the mother because there are so many options for birth control available. No contraception is completely reliable, so double up. Birth control pills and condoms used at the same time.
A child should never have to pay the ultimate price for the negligence or questionable behavior of the egg and sperm suppliers.
If you don't want kids, or more kids, get spayed or neutered.
My position comes in part from a long term relationship where the female was allegedly using birth control, but wasn't, aborted the child without consulting the father, and just thought it shouldn't have any impact emotionally on the father and was completely dumbstruck when the relationship ended because of her actions.
I clarified my position on this after nearly pursuing an abortion myself (a miscarriage prevented the need to do so) and reading many liberal perspectives on the subject. Including an oft shared viral post by Pete Buttigieg, where he explained that "late term abortions" are tragic situations representing less than 1% of cases, where almost as a rule (according to him) it is because of some tragic medical need, usually threatening the mother's life, or involving a fetus that is already dead or not viable for more than moments after its birth.
What I learned from my near-need for one, was that clinics will give you a "medical" abortion (involving the two pills, mifepristone and misoprostal) from 5 1/2 weeks gestation, to 12 weeks gestation. They will not do ANYTHING before 5 1/2 weeks. After 12 weeks, it is the surgical procedure.
So first of all, this makes me think that the easiest compromise to actually enact legally and practically would be to allow the procedure of using the pills/induced miscarriage method, available for whatever reason. Ya got 12 weeks to figure it out. After that? No. Let's get liberal voices to put their money (legislation) where their mouth is, if the only reasons that women are supposedly getting these later abortions are medical emergencies that threaten the mother's life...then we should be fine making a law that codifies that. So after 12 weeks, the ONLY reason that one is done, in a hospital, surgical setting and not some clinic...is a medical emergency that threatens the life of the mother. And if, in those instances, it is possible to save the lives of the child and/or the mother, then every attempt to do so should be made.
For me, this is the common sense approach. I do not like the "bans except for rape and incest" stuff because the way that we handle rape cases is too nebulous. What standard of proof would be required? I think we all know that a woman's claim won't be enough. Marking it off by procedure eliminates any kind of contention about whether the reasoning is valid or not valid and who has to shoulder the burden of proving that.
6 weeks is not enough time. It's not even just that at 6 weeks many women don't know that they are pregnant yet, although many do not, it's that you cannot even get an abortion before 5 1/2 weeks. So a 6 week ban, leaves a window of just a few days maybe, to get scheduled, get in, get it done. That might as well be a total ban. It is not a compromise.
And I don't personally believe that "I looked at a photo and had an emotional feeling" is really sound basis for the passage of laws here or anywhere. I respect that you, and others, have these feelings. You are entitled to them. But I have known rape victims. I've known plenty of them. I knew one who shared her feelings about an assault when she was a teen, on a little local Mom blog, and because her attacker was a slightly famous (in a very underground way) rock singer, she got doxxed, she and her family got death and rape threats...and she didn't even try to take him to court. She didn't even have to stand there while a defense attorney held up her underwear so that a jury could determine if she was asking for it by wearing sexy, lacy undergarments (no, that was another friend of mine who was actually held captive and repeatedly raped by a stranger for 3 days...he was found not guilty, because she's clearly "that kind of girl.")... And thinking about all of this possibly being followed by such a woman having to carry a pregnancy to term, and hey maybe she resigns herself to it and decides to try and be a mother. OK. Then maybe her rapist decides, because it would be awesome to keep on distressing her for the rest of her life, to sue for visitation. Or even custody.
I have FEELINGS about that. All of it.
I also have feelings about a lot of other scenarios involving vulnerable women. I have feelings about the notion that a woman who is already a loving mother to kids she's got, possibly facing a medical situation that will kill her and because her state is one of the most absolute in terms of bans and criminalizing all sorts of abortion, she just gets to die, then. Big feelings about that! I have feelings about the possibility of women facing criminal investigation because of a miscarriage, and women dying because they are scared to seek medical help for one, out of fear that they might be put in jail.
When I discussed this with my mother, who is very pro life, her stance came down in the end to a similar position... She looked at pictures and she's got very maternal feelings about babies, all sorts, human babies and animal babies. All the babies. Well, a lot of us have feelings about the lives of women. And I think that in some instances (my mom) the "but babies!" stuff is like...she is 100% the person who will adopt a cute puppy but tie it out in the yard to die horribly once it inconveniently becomes a dog. And frankly...some of the extremes of pro life do strike me this way.
But I definitely appreciate the concept of compromise. Because I really don't think that people throwing our feelings at one another is gonna get us anywhere! We can all do that 'till the cows come home, it's just gonna raise our blood pressure!
There are 15 week bans out there based on the old notion of "quickening" (fetal movement.) I still say 12 is just right. That way it's by procedure. What you can get, what you can not. Simple. After 12 weeks the pill version isn't done because it's unsafe and likelihood goes up that it won't even work.
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate your sincerity.
I completely agree with the first two things I bolded. Regarding late term, I don't personally know anyone who is fine with late abortions "just because." It's quite disingenuous when prolifers say that prochoicers are fine with abortion "up to the moment of birth." I wish they would see that this is a point on which almost everyone completely agrees. Some prochoicers don't think a law is needed to cover "mother's health" exception, but I'm with you on this, Sonic.
I also agree with you on your points about rape. I mean, I would rather see abortions for rape allowed over a complete and total ban, but I think a "rape exception" would lead to false accusations, burden of proof on the woman, etc.
Regarding my comment about an "emotional feeling" when I see a photo of a 12 week embryo.....I didn't explain that very well. Today, when I was deciding what I wanted to say in my original post, and what photo I wanted to use, I realized that if *I* can see the "form of a baby" in an image of a 12 week embryo, then a staunch pro-lifer would almost certainly consider it a baby at that point (even though it weighs only half an ounce). In attempting to find common ground with a prolifer, I hoped that this image of an 8 week embryo, that looks like a bean, would be a good place to start.
When comparing a teenage female, or any full-grown woman, to this little "bean-like entity," I can't imagine anyone seeing them as fully equal. But that is precisely what I wanted to hear from pro-lifers about, to help me understand that perspective.
And when I said I could accept a ban after 8 weeks, I consider that a compromise that is much better than a total ban, if that's the only way to keep abortions legal in some states. I'm just curious if this is a point at which two sides could meet in the middle (strictly as an academic exercise here). Both sides would be moving further than they prefer.
You are trying to put logical solutions to an emotional issue.
One side wants abortion on demand at any time for any or no reason.
The other side sees abortion as the ending of a human life.
How is there a compromise when any abortion results in death? Do you allow abortion if it's only a partial death? To my way of thinking, abortion should never be an option with the exception of the life of the mother because there are so many options for birth control available. No contraception is completely reliable, so double up. Birth control pills and condoms used at the same time.
A child should never have to pay the ultimate price for the negligence or questionable behavior of the egg and sperm suppliers.
If you don't want kids, or more kids, get spayed or neutered.
My position comes in part from a long term relationship where the female was allegedly using birth control, but wasn't, aborted the child without consulting the father, and just thought it shouldn't have any impact emotionally on the father and was completely dumbstruck when the relationship ended because of her actions.
I've got a number of anecdotal stories that make the opposite point. So again...this is stuff that we could sling pointlessly back and forth until the end of time.
But in a world where it is possible for a man to forcibly impregnate a woman against her will, it is my opinion that completely taking away that one final option...you might as well declare women livestock. 12 weeks ought to be enough to cover what can be covered of rape, incest, failure of birth control, and any other "oh crap, oh no" situations.
Also, you do not appear to be aware of the fact that it's very difficult, especially if you are a white woman in America, to get "spayed." (It can be difficult for women of color also, but there are docs out there who have actually sterilized women of color against their wishes, so that is a whole other story.) But if you are a white woman, especially if you have never had kids, you will have an uphill battle against doctors and insurance companies who believe that you exist for the purpose of making babies. Even though I was 36 when I wanted my tubal ligation, and fighting my way out of a disaster of an abusive marriage to a man who had gone psycho on us, and I already had 2 teenage kids, my doctor was reluctant (but thankfully willing in the end) to give me a tubal ligation. She argued with me at least half a dozen times. "The most common side effect is regret" she said. And when I was literally on the gurney with an IV in, "But what if you meet a man, and he wants kids...?"
But since plenty of folks are eager to tell women not to have sex if we don't want to have a baby, perhaps a man should consider and discuss with a potential partner, what would happen if she conceives, before he um...makes his contribution to the situation. I am not going to prioritize a man's feelings over a woman's body, health, and possibly life (and I've carried and birthed twice, so I know what some of the effects and risks are...) but in your story, he certainly had every right to break up with her. I'd say that lying about birth control is a pretty major deal breaker.
But also, though? If a man is super squeamish about the idea of an embryo or fetus dying, he should really try to avoid possibly fertilizing any eggs. Since about 60-70% of conceptions actually miscarry by week 6 anyways. Death is a significant possibility right up front. Not to mention an INEVITABILITY for every one of us in the long run.
Thanks for you thorough reply. I appreciate your sincerity.
I completely agree with the first two things I bolded. Regarding late term, I don't personally know anyone who is fine with late abortions "just because." It's quite disingenuous when prolifers say that prochoicers are fine with abortion "up to the moment of birth." I wish they would see that this is a point on which almost everyone completely agrees. Some prochoicers don't think a law is needed to cover "mother's health" exception, but I'm with you on this, Sonic.
I also agree with you on your points about rape. I mean, I would rather see abortions for rape allowed over a complete and total ban, but I think a "rape exception" would lead to false accusations, burden of proof on the woman, etc.
Regarding my comment about an "emotional feeling" when I see a photo of a 12 week embryo.....I didn't explain that very well. Today, when I was deciding what I wanted to say in my original post, and what photo I wanted to use, I realized that if *I* can see the "form of a baby" in an image of a 12 week embryo, then a staunch pro-lifer would almost certainly consider it a baby at that point (even though it weighs only half an ounce). In attempting to find common ground with a prolifer, I hoped that this image of an 8 week embryo, that looks like a bean, would be a good place to start.
When comparing a teenage female, or any full-grown woman, to this little "bean-like entity," I can't imagine anyone seeing them as fully equal. But that is precisely what I wanted to hear from pro-lifers about, to help me understand that perspective.
And when I said I could accept a ban after 8 weeks, I consider that a compromise that is much better than a total ban, if that's the only way to keep abortions legal in some states. I'm just curious if this is a point at which two sides could meet in the middle (strictly as an academic exercise here). Both sides would be moving further than they prefer.
*nods*
Part of why I made my point about that (and why I've given this much thought lately) was the argument I had with my Mom.
The way I've put it, which is probably going to be incredibly off-putting to pro lifers, but...it's where I stand...is that I cannot prioritize something (or even, "someone") that in the moment has less sentience than fishbait, over the needs of a girl or woman of reproductive age. I just can't.
Worth noting though. Colorado increased access to free and low cost IUDs and other birth control and almost right away the abortion rate there dropped by 40%. Teen pregnancies plummeted as well.
That's the other thing that is so irritating to many of the choice crowd. We do not feel that the lawmakers in red states are primarily driven by a desire to actually prevent abortion. It really seems that the primary motivation is to punish women who dare to have sex for a reason other than trying to make a baby. Because they have a marked lack of interest in offering better access to sex ed and birth control, which is proven to actually reduce the demand for abortion.
This issue should be decided at the state level. People/politicians should not make rules for people who live in distant places that they have never seen.
Abortion should never be a substitute for responsible birth control especially at public expense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/IMG]
