A Slightly DIFFERENT Abortion Question

[Trinopus]

I DO NOT WANT this to be an abortion debate. Anyone entering into that is highjacking and threadshitting and trolling and has bad breath.

You know how, in the Same Sex Marriage discussion, a lot of people have said that government should simply bow out of the marriage issue entirely?

Well...today, a friend suggested the same thing for abortion. He said that the government should not make it illegal, or difficult, to get an abortion...but also should not subsidize it or in any way make it easier either.

Then -- and this is the part that interests me -- he said, "But both sides would utterly reject this."

Would they? As I see it, this would be an immense victory for the pro-choice side, and that they would accept it, perhaps with reservations, but pretty enthusiastically. The government has already pretty much eliminated any funding for abortions, so, if it were to remove itself from placing any obstacles to the procedure, that would be very acceptable to the pro-choice side. I told him that I, at least, would accept it in a heartbeat.

But he was insistent that it would be every bit as odious to NOW and NARAL and ACLU and others as it would be to the churches and other pro-life organizations.

So... Who's right? Would it be instantly rejected by everyone (his thought) or would the pro-choice side take it as a huge victory (my thought)?

[Anaamika]

Genuine question: How is the gov't subsidizing or making abortion easier right now? I really can't think of anything.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

Genuine question: How is the gov't subsidizing or making abortion easier right now?

The federal government prevents states from regulating abortion. The pro-choicers would go crazy if the several states outlawed abortion, and the feds let them do it.

That certainly makes for easier abortion.

Regards,
Shodan

[ladyfoxfyre]

It absolutely does not prevent states from regulating abortion. It prevents states from prohibiting abortion, but plenty of states have enacted very restrictive abortion legislation.

[ASanders]

If by "the government" you are including state governments as well, this is a very interesting idea. Would private insurers cover elective termination of pregnancy if the states didn't require them to (where this is so)? And if they didn't, elective termination might be out of range for many, many people.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

He said that the government should not make it illegal, or difficult, to get an abortion...but also should not subsidize it or in any way make it easier either.

Then -- and this is the part that interests me -- he said, "But both sides would utterly reject this."

Would they? As I see it, this would be an immense victory for the pro-choice side, and that they would accept it, perhaps with reservations, but pretty enthusiastically. The government has already pretty much eliminated any funding for abortions, so, if it were to remove itself from placing any obstacles to the procedure, that would be very acceptable to the pro-choice side. I told him that I, at least, would accept it in a heartbeat.

But he was insistent that it would be every bit as odious to NOW and NARAL and ACLU and others as it would be to the churches and other pro-life organizations.

So... Who's right? Would it be instantly rejected by everyone (his thought) or would the pro-choice side take it as a huge victory (my thought)?

I think that the anti-choice side would take it as a huge victory and it would be; you are essentially talking about imposing the Mexico City Policy on American hospitals, and we know from the history of the Policy what that means. You'll end up with large numbers of dead and injured women since any hospital with any government funding will be forced to deny pregnant women any form of medical care, out of fear of being accused of engaging in abortion and losing their funding if she miscarries. They'll sacrifice her to save their other patients. Plus of course any doctor who is supported in any way by the government will be forced to give pregnant women bad medical advice; to not tell her she needs an abortion even if not getting one will kill her, and to lie about the effects of abortion since not lying about it to make it look evil and dangerous would be "supporting abortion".

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

Genuine question: How is the gov't subsidizing or making abortion easier right now? I really can't think of anything.

Medicaid covers it in my state. And then aren't there laws preventing protesters from blocking entrances to clinics or something?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

And then aren't there laws preventing protesters from blocking entrances to clinics or something?

That's a good point. Protestors would be able to form human walls, and the police would be forbidden to intervene.

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by ASanders

If by "the government" you are including state governments as well, this is a very interesting idea. Would private insurers cover elective termination of pregnancy if the states didn't require them to (where this is so)? And if they didn't, elective termination might be out of range for many, many people.

First trimester abortions are frequently chemical, not surgical, and are therefore much cheaper. I'm sure that it would make it harder for extremely poor women to get abortions, but I don't think that it would prevent THAT many abortions.

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by appleciders

First trimester abortions are frequently chemical, not surgical, and are therefore much cheaper.

You'd think so, but they actually cost about the same, at least in the U.S. I could be wrong, but I don't think the cost of an abortion is really that much of a barrier for most women. Some places (such as Planned Parenthood) have a sliding fee scale.

[Max the Immortal]

Originally Posted by ASanders

If by "the government" you are including state governments as well, this is a very interesting idea. Would private insurers cover elective termination of pregnancy if the states didn't require them to (where this is so)? And if they didn't, elective termination might be out of range for many, many people.

Is it cheaper to pay for an abortion than to pay for a delivery and perinatal care? If so, insurance companies may stop just short of encouraging abortions (crossing that line may drive away customers).

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Is it cheaper to pay for an abortion than to pay for a delivery and perinatal care? If so, insurance companies may stop just short of encouraging abortions (crossing that line may drive away customers).

I can picture an insurance company using a series of artful euphemisms, concealing abortion under the umbrella of general gynecological care, especially if they figure the abortion is cheaper for them than the pregnancy, delivery, and follow-up pediatric care and such.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by ladyfoxfyre

It absolutely does not prevent states from regulating abortion. It prevents states from prohibiting abortion, but plenty of states have enacted very restrictive abortion legislation.

Well, this, I think, violates the spirit of my question, if not the letter.

The point would be that no government body, at any level -- municipal, state, federal, whatever -- would bar or ban abortion, or enact such regulations as would be excessively burdensome. Sure, obviously, some regulation would be necessary. It has to be done safely, according to medical standards, etc. But the premise is that government cannot either ban it or prevent it in a sneaky fashion (as in, for instance, charging a million dollar fee for the disposal of fetal medical wastes, etc.)

Originally Posted by ASanders

If by "the government" you are including state governments as well, this is a very interesting idea. Would private insurers cover elective termination of pregnancy if the states didn't require them to (where this is so)? And if they didn't, elective termination might be out of range for many, many people.

My guess is that some private insurers would cover it, others wouldn't. Also, some private organizations would solicit funds to help impoverished women obtain abortions. Per the premise of this thought-experiment, no laws would be enacted making any of this either easier or harder.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I think that the anti-choice side would take it as a huge victory and it would be; you are essentially talking about imposing the Mexico City Policy on American hospitals . . .

Huh? NO! This absolutely contradicts the point of my thought experiment. Again, government wouldn't act to make it harder or easier. You're adding weird terms to the original idea.

(The original idea, obviously, is fantastic to begin with. But I'm asking, politely, that people address it on its face, without changing it so far as to be beyond recognition.)

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I can picture an insurance company using a series of artful euphemisms, concealing abortion under the umbrella of general gynecological care, especially if they figure the abortion is cheaper for them than the pregnancy, delivery, and follow-up pediatric care and such.

Possibly... But, for the moment, it isn't relevant to the question... The same could be true for auto-repair insurance, today! If auto shops artfully disguised repairs, they could evade some kinds of billing... But...

Some of you are over-thinking this! My question is: would government non-involvement be rejected by the pro-choice side? Or would they take it as a good thing, perhaps with some reservations. I'm not interested in ways to get around the premise; that's not playing the same game any more!

(In the same way, I think advocates of same sex marriage would take it as a good thing if government got entirely out of the marriage business. If there were no "government" marriage licenses, and if governments didn't use the power of the law to define the term "marriage," wouldn't same sex marriage be pretty much an accomplished fact?)

[Mosier]

It would be another way for insurance companies to deny coverage for a procedure. I expect abortions would become impossible to get through their insurance, and as a result would end up becoming very difficult for an average person to afford. I'd oppose that change.

ETA: I am reluctantly pro-choice. I personally don't like abortions, and I wish people wouldn't get them, but I do not want to make them illegal or difficult to have done safely. I guess I count as a pro choice person who would reject the proposal in the OP.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

(In the same way, I think advocates of same sex marriage would take it as a good thing if government got entirely out of the marriage business. If there were no "government" marriage licenses, and if governments didn't use the power of the law to define the term "marriage," wouldn't same sex marriage be pretty much an accomplished fact?)

But in the act of doing so, marriage ceases to exist as a legal concept, rendering moot (I assume) all the useful rights and privileges that have accumulated over the years.

How this is a desirable end for anyone (well, except people who think the end of legal marriage will spare them alimony payments to ex-spouses) escapes me.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Mosier

It would be another way for insurance companies to deny coverage for a procedure. I expect abortions would become impossible to get through their insurance, and as a result would end up becoming very difficult for an average person to afford. I'd oppose that change.

Well, hmmm... Can I extend my premise to say that government forbids others from making abortion easier or harder also?

(I don't mean to be snippy, but I'm not talking about TOTAL government non-involvement; I'm talking about NEUTRALITY. i.e., if someone goes out shooting doctors who perform abortion, my scenario does not mean that government wouldn't prosecute the shooters!)

ETA: I am reluctantly pro-choice. I personally don't like abortions, and I wish people wouldn't get them, but I do not want to make them illegal or difficult to have done safely. I guess I count as a pro choice person who would reject the proposal in the OP.

Why? I simply do not see it. Sure, as a pro-choicer myself, I'd prefer that government pay for abortions for the very needy, exactly as they pay for appendicitis treatment for the very needy. But if I knew that abortion rights would be guaranteed, I could make that sacrifice, especially since government funding for abortion is already next to nil because of things like the Hyde Amendment.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

But in the act of doing so, marriage ceases to exist as a legal concept, rendering moot (I assume) all the useful rights and privileges that have accumulated over the years.

How this is a desirable end for anyone (well, except people who think the end of legal marriage will spare them alimony payments to ex-spouses) escapes me.

It would allow the most important benefits to be assigned by contract law. People would make a lot more pre-nuptual agreements, and rely less on legislation. And, yeah, married couples would lose the tax benefits of filing jointly...or perhaps not! The IRS might simply say "Any two persons may file jointly." Either way, it would be sex-neutral, and wouldn't that be a gain of sorts? If it came along with a guarantee of the right to co-habit, to adopt, to assign inheritance and survival rights, etc., it would seem a small price to pay.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

It would allow the most important benefits to be assigned by contract law.

Contract law can create privileged communications?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

I think that the anti-choice side would take it as a huge victory and it would be; you are essentially talking about imposing the Mexico City Policy on American hospitals, and we know from the history of the Policy what that means. You'll end up with large numbers of dead and injured women since any hospital with any government funding will be forced to deny pregnant women any form of medical care, out of fear of being accused of engaging in abortion and losing their funding if she miscarries.They'll sacrifice her to save their other patients. Plus of course any doctor who is supported in any way by the government will be forced to give pregnant women bad medical advice; to not tell her she needs an abortion even if not getting one will kill her, and to lie about the effects of abortion since not lying about it to make it look evil and dangerous would be "supporting abortion".

You do realize first of all most pro-lifers support abortion if the mother's life is threatened? And the idea that hospitals would refuse to treaty any pregnant women (if I'm reading this correctly here) is just WTF-worthy.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

You do realize first of all most pro-lifers support abortion if the mother's life is threatened?

That's just a position they typically officially take to make themselves look less evil. Given a chance, most of them would condemn those women to death, and gloat over their suffering. "Every woman who dies is a victory for morality", to quote Randall Terry, former head of Operation Rescue.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

And the idea that hospitals would refuse to treaty any pregnant women (if I'm reading this correctly here) is just WTF-worthy.

Not it isn't; it happens. They don't dare because if she miscarries we can and would accuse them of abortion and cut off all their funding.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

That's just a position they typically officially take to make themselves look less evil. Given a chance, most of them would condemn those women to death, and gloat over their suffering. "Every woman who dies is a victory for morality", to quote Randall Terry, former head of Operation Rescue.

You do realize Randall Terry is not a mainstream pro-lifer? It would be like me quoting Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Marquis de Sade as a mainstream atheist.

Not it isn't; it happens. They don't dare because if she miscarries we can and would accuse them of abortion and cut off all their funding.

You don't think, I don't know, the millions of people who are pregnant or are their family members who launch a massive political shitstorm?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Contract law can create privileged communications?

I don't know! But, if not, and if this is lost in the privatization of marriage, is it enough of a loss to offset the gain of a guarantee of the right of same sex marriage? You raise a good question, very much in the spirit of the kind of question I'm trying to ask. If the government got out of the marriage business entirely, so that same sex marriage became legal, safe, free, and a matter of choice...would that be worth the cost in terms of the loss of various legislated benefits? If no two people could file income tax jointly -- or if any two people could file income tax jointly -- would the gain in equality that this entails be worth more than the monetary costs, one way or the other? Who might favor it? Who might oppose it?

That's my real question: if government promised never to interfere with abortion rights, but at the cost of also not assisting abortion rights in any way...would that be emphatically rejected -- to the degree of being totally unacceptable -- by the pro-choice side?

To me, it would seem to be such a step forward as to be worth the small sacrifice. My friend seemed to think that it would be instantly rejected by any pro-choicer. I think my friend is wrong...but that's why I asked.

I really beg all y'all not to play "The Genie Twists the Wish" games. That won't help me understand.

[Blackberry]

Are you saying it would be completely unregulated by the government to the point where the abortion provider wouldn't even have to be licensed like all other types of doctors are?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

You don't think, I don't know, the millions of people who are pregnant or are their family members who launch a massive political shitstorm?

The OP's hypothetical implicitly presumes that such obstacles have already been overcome.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

Are you saying it would be completely unregulated by the government to the point where the abortion provider wouldn't even have to be licensed like all other types of doctors are?

No... Only that it wouldn't be restrictively regulated in a way to ban it de facto. Nor would it be regulated so lightly as to favor it over other medical procedures. Some regulation would obviously be necessary, but extreme waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound scans, etc. would violate the premise of my question.

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The OP's hypothetical implicitly presumes that such obstacles have already been overcome.

'Zactly. And I do realize that it's a question that cannot be fully defined. In part, that's why I'm asking for opinions.

It just struck me, when my friend held forth his opinion, that I, at least, would be incredibly happy to accept the proposition, because, as I see it, the gains far more than offset the costs.

I guess another meta-reason to reject it is that it implies a kind of "foundational law" that can't be amended, and we should all be wary of accepting any kind of deal, no matter how good, that we can't get out of, ever. But, again, this isn't really the kind of reasoning I wanted...

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

No... Only that it wouldn't be restrictively regulated in a way to ban it de facto. Nor would it be regulated so lightly as to favor it over other medical procedures. Some regulation would obviously be necessary, but extreme waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound scans, etc. would violate the premise of my question.

Okay, but you said the government also doesn't do anything to make getting an abortion easier. Enforcing safety standards and that kind of thing definitely makes it easier.

[Trinopus]

Um... I don't think I agree... Regulations can be "access-neutral." In this case, regulations would make abortion safer, which might, I suppose, be taken by some to imply that they would be more common... Then again, regulations could increase the cost, which would make them a little less common...

In any case, for the purposes of my premise, assume a kind of "benign neutrality."

(My friend is a libertarian...but I'm not sure if that is involved in his premise or not.)

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

You do realize Randall Terry is not a mainstream pro-lifer? It would be like me quoting Madalyn Murray O'Hair or Marquis de Sade as a mainstream atheist.

I'd have no objection - if you were solely discussing their atheism and not trying to discredit atheism by linking it to irrelevant personal obnoxiousness or something. Heck, those two can't possibly be more atheistic than me.... at most we're all tied at zero belief.

As a side note, I was not aware anyone considered de Sade an atheist, or at least not unusually so.

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I don't know!

In all honesty, I'm not sure of it myself - if it is possible for two people (presumably on equal legal standing) to enter into a contract where communications between them are confidential and a court of law cannot compel testimony. I know it is possible to enter into a contract for services with an attorney, but it's not the wording of the contract that will matter, but the recognized (and asymmetrical) attorney/client relationship. I gather it is also possible to form a contract for services with a doctor and, I would guess, a religious adviser, but again - the contract itself is not what establishes the privilege.

In any case, marital privilege is indeed a big deal, not something to be casually shrugged off with a slapdash "get government out of the marriage business" proposal. And the privilege is just what came to mind first when I thought about where a contract-law effort at replicating legal marriage would hit a major hurdle.

But, if not, and if this is lost in the privatization of marriage, is it enough of a loss to offset the gain of a guarantee of the right of same sex marriage?

I figure all that is accomplished by the "privatization of marriage" is that marriage ceases to exist in any meaningful way. Sure, two people could get the clergyperson of their choice to preside over an extensive and elaborate ritual, but it's legally meaningless - as empty as two teenagers who write "we're married now" on a three-by-five index card which gets immediately torn up and discarded. Is the first marriage real, and the second one not? How would you prove it?

What you're proposing is not a necessary or even desirable step to get same-sex marriage - rather it just makes marriage moot, destroying it out of spite rather than allowing it to be expanded. Even if you or anyone sincerely believes that the end result is a guarantee of the right of same sex marriage, it will be a right that has become completely useless.

You raise a good question, very much in the spirit of the kind of question I'm trying to ask. If the government got out of the marriage business entirely, so that same sex marriage became legal, safe, free, and a matter of choice...would that be worth the cost in terms of the loss of various legislated benefits?

I don't even know how to argue this - it's like developing a strategy to ensure everyone has the right of free speech, but the process of doing so renders everyone mute.

If no two people could file income tax jointly -- or if any two people could file income tax jointly -- would the gain in equality that this entails be worth more than the monetary costs, one way or the other? Who might favor it? Who might oppose it?

That's my real question: if government promised never to interfere with abortion rights, but at the cost of also not assisting abortion rights in any way...would that be emphatically rejected -- to the degree of being totally unacceptable -- by the pro-choice side?

I wouldn't reject it out of hand, myself. I'd need details on what this "non-assistance" entails. Medicaid won't cover it? A pregnant woman in the military can't get a military doctor to perform it? People who block access to (or vandalize) abortion clinics won't be prosecuted? How extensive a hands-off did you have in mind?

In the mildest form - let's say Medicaid and all other government funded health care won't pay for the procedure, and no government-employed medical personnel (including all military personnel) can perform the procedure while on duty - I'd guess that might be acceptable for the trade-off of there no regulations or prohibitions from any level of government specific to abortion (I would assume - indeed, hope - that the generic medical regulations about sanitation and training and malpractice that would apply to medical professionals in any setting would continue to apply here, i.e. an incompetent doctor doesn't get a pass because he clumsily killed a woman during an abortion, just as if he was performing any other medical procedure).

If someone sets up a charity to fund abortions for poor women who want them, can this charity be legally formed and registered with the the U.S. government under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3), or other sections as may apply?


The example of Canada shows that this is not a necessary trade-off, for abortion rights or gay marriage. We have no abortion laws (and we didn't need government to become officially indifferent to abortion) and we have gay marriage (and we didn't need to "privatize" marriage in the process).

To me, it would seem to be such a step forward as to be worth the small sacrifice. My friend seemed to think that it would be instantly rejected by any pro-choicer. I think my friend is wrong...but that's why I asked.

Well, I guess I'd probably reject it (pending details of exactly how it would work) because it strikes me as overkill, like resolving the designated-hitter controversy by banning baseball. Sure, it would resolve the controversy, but at a preposterous price. Privatizing marriage is absurd. A governmental hands-off policy about abortion might be workable. Neither suggestion strikes me as the best way, or even a particularly good way, and (for marriage definitely, and abortion probably) not a small way to handle the respective issues.

I really beg all y'all not to play "The Genie Twists the Wish" games. That won't help me understand.

I'm not trying to trap you or come up with some off-the-wall objection - marital privileged communication (as well as all other marital rights and benefits) is not something that should be or even need be thrown away just to extend it to homosexuals. The proposed stance on abortion is (probably) less extreme, but that doesn't make it necessary or useful.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The OP's hypothetical implicitly presumes that such obstacles have already been overcome.

Only about objections to any sort of (remotely-related) government support or backing of abortion, not something what some people might do tangentally related to it.

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Um... I don't think I agree... Regulations can be "access-neutral." In this case, regulations would make abortion safer, which might, I suppose, be taken by some to imply that they would be more common... Then again, regulations could increase the cost, which would make them a little less common...

In any case, for the purposes of my premise, assume a kind of "benign neutrality."

(My friend is a libertarian...but I'm not sure if that is involved in his premise or not.)

Well, yeah, it can cut both ways. But it seems like you're mostly just trying to take away the regulations that make it harder like waiting periods, and leave the generally helpful ones like safety standards. In that case, sure prochoice people would approve. Your Libertarian friend probably wants the government completely out of it though, which would be a dangerous mess that most prochoice people would oppose just like most people would oppose disbanding the FDA.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

. . . People who block access to (or vandalize) abortion clinics won't be prosecuted? . . .

No; that would contradict the premise. I said, earlier, that this would not allow people to shoot doctors without penalty, and the same would apply to illegal blockade of access. The benign neglect would make abortion no easier, and no harder. Allowing blockades to close clinics would make abortion much harder.

In the mildest form - let's say Medicaid and all other government funded health care won't pay for the procedure, and no government-employed medical personnel (including all military personnel) can perform the procedure while on duty - I'd guess that might be acceptable for the trade-off of there no regulations or prohibitions from any level of government specific to abortion (I would assume - indeed, hope - that the generic medical regulations about sanitation and training and malpractice that would apply to medical professionals in any setting would continue to apply here, i.e. an incompetent doctor doesn't get a pass because he clumsily killed a woman during an abortion, just as if he was performing any other medical procedure).

This is pretty much the way I see the hypothetical question. Again, people here have been looking for the loopholes in the question -- and I agree, they are easy to find -- but you're the first, so far -- and thank you! -- to address the question in the way I wanted to ask it, by massaging the premise to make it fit the spirit of the question.

If someone sets up a charity to fund abortions for poor women who want them, can this charity be legally formed and registered with the the U.S. government under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3), or other sections as may apply?

Alas, as I see the premise of the question, no, it wouldn't be given non-profit-status protection, any more than a charity to buy me a new car because I need one. This would count against accepting the premise...although, are such charities eligible for non-profit-status now? If pro-life legislators have already blocked this, then it isn't an obstacle to acceptance, is it?

The example of Canada shows that this is not a necessary trade-off, for abortion rights or gay marriage. We have no abortion laws (and we didn't need government to become officially indifferent to abortion) and we have gay marriage (and we didn't need to "privatize" marriage in the process).

Agreed; but that isn't relevant to the hypothetical. I certainly would prefer to "win it all." I look forward to the eventual repeal of the Hyde Amendment, etc. (But, of course, "They" look forward to the repeat of the Affordable Health Care Act."

The hypothetical is in the realm of "Let's just stop fighting about it, okay?" Obviously, it won't happen. But if someone made the offer, would it even be a little attractive? I thought so.

The responses, so far, in this thread, aren't helping me. Everybody's poking holes in the premise -- and, yes, of course, it's a fantasy premise, so obviously it can't withstand critical scrutiny. Still, arguing about how the Genie can twist the phrasing of the wish isn't relevant to the question, "If a Genie offered you two million dollars for two years of your life, would you take it?"

You could hire a hundred lawyers to translate that wish into a thousand pages of titanium-clad legalese, and it still would be subject to a clever or ironic twist. But that doesn't really answer the question.

Well, I guess I'd probably reject it (pending details of exactly how it would work) because it strikes me as overkill, like resolving the designated-hitter controversy by banning baseball. Sure, it would resolve the controversy, but at a preposterous price. Privatizing marriage is absurd. A governmental hands-off policy about abortion might be workable. Neither suggestion strikes me as the best way, or even a particularly good way, and (for marriage definitely, and abortion probably) not a small way to handle the respective issues.

I respect this answer. I'm concerned that it is kind of a meta-answer, but it is an answer. It rather rejects the compromise on the basis of its shaky antecedents: we don't know how it was negotiated, or who negotiated it, or how the parties were selected -- elections? Self-appointed nabobs? What, who, and how? It's a little like saying that you would reject the Genie's offer because you don't know who created the Genie. In some ways, that could be very important! (Damned important, under some theological models!)

I'm not trying to trap you or come up with some off-the-wall objection - marital privileged communication (as well as all other marital rights and benefits) is not something that should be or even need be thrown away just to extend it to homosexuals. The proposed stance on abortion is (probably) less extreme, but that doesn't make it necessary or useful.

So far, you're the only one who has even come close to playing the game I wanted to play, and to answering the question I wanted to ask. Everybody else has been telling me how the question is to be re-phrased.

I've learned something important here... Dopers love to drill way down into the minutiae!

(Hm... Ending the designated hitter rule by banning baseball... Hm... [Jack Benny voice]: I'm thinking, I'm thinking!)

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

Well, yeah, it can cut both ways. But it seems like you're mostly just trying to take away the regulations that make it harder like waiting periods, and leave the generally helpful ones like safety standards. In that case, sure prochoice people would approve. Your Libertarian friend probably wants the government completely out of it though, which would be a dangerous mess that most prochoice people would oppose just like most people would oppose disbanding the FDA.

Well, again, my intent was that the result by access-neutral. You say that I'm trying to take away regulations that make it harder, but leaving the regulations that make it easier. This is absolutely contrary to my intent, which was to create a "what if" scenario in which it isn't made easier or harder, especially by government regulation.

Possibly one problem in all of this is that "Reality has a liberal bias." Perhaps the very concept of the question involves unvoiced assumptions that lean one way or the other.

Maybe no one can answer the question.

Still, everyone except Bryan Ekers has been altering the question, and then saying that they can't answer it because of the alterations. I am not convinced that this is the right way to do philosophy; perhaps long experience here on these discussion boards has led people to be worried that I, myself, have been laying a great big "AHA!" trap for them.

(Someone says, "Yeah, I think that'd be great," and I instantly spring the trap. "You fool! You overlooked the issue of restrictive regulations! Ha ha! I've just proven that you're actually pro-life when you thought you were pro-choice! Sayonara, sucker!")

Is it helpful if I promise that I do not play those kinds of games, and hate it when others do?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Alas, as I see the premise of the question, no, it wouldn't be given non-profit-status protection, any more than a charity to buy me a new car because I need one. This would count against accepting the premise...although, are such charities eligible for non-profit-status now? If pro-life legislators have already blocked this, then it isn't an obstacle to acceptance, is it?

I don't understand the "Alas, no". Aren't there currently charitable organizations that provide the poor with useful goods like clothes and houses (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) and, I can imagine though I don't know offhand of an example, cars? Perhaps 501(c)(3) doesn't apply (I've no idea how Habitat for Humanity is legally structured in the U.S.) but numerous nonprofit organizations exist to provide goods and services to the poor. Are you proposing an abortion-specific exception to this?

If so, I guess a non-profit organization (if it can still be called that) could nevertheless carry on, even without the legal advantages of registering under Section 501(c), which I guess means they'd have to pay taxes on their donation income, or something. Can such an organization advertise its existence on television and radio or does that mean the FCC is somehow offering tacit support? It wouldn't surprise me at all if pro-lifers (and politicians seeking the votes of pro-lifers) pursued such arguments.

Heck, I can picture someone saying "the government does not support abortion, therefore it cannot license people to perform abortions, therefore a medical licence does not legally entitle someone to perform abortions. After all, if someone gets a medical license, it doesn't mean he also gets a license to fly planes, does it?"

[Blackberry]

I'm not trying to find loopholes, I just really didn't understand what it was supposed to entail. If the main changes would just be no government-funded abortions in exchange for no laws requiring waiting periods and parental permission and things like that, then yes, I think a lot of prochoice people would consider that a good tradeoff. The government doesn't usually fund abortions anyway, so why not.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I don't understand the "Alas, no". Aren't there currently charitable organizations that provide the poor with useful goods like clothes and houses (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) and, I can imagine though I don't know offhand of an example, cars? Perhaps 501(c)(3) doesn't apply (I've no idea how Habitat for Humanity is legally structured in the U.S.) but numerous nonprofit organizations exist to provide goods and services to the poor. Are you proposing an abortion-specific exception to this?

That's why I said alas: in terms of the hypothetical question, yes, there would have to be an abortion-specific exception. Otherwise, a government action -- tax subsidies -- would be granted to abortion facilitators, making it easier to get one.

I say alas, because I think such charities should exist, and should get non-profit tax-exempt status, and that this is one of the costs that makes the offer in my OP more difficult to accept.

But I also don't know if existing laws have already been enacted by pro-life legislators to exclude abortion facilitators from tax exempt status. If they already are, then it isn't as big an obstacle to acceptance of the original hypothetical offer.

(It's always easier to "give up" something that has already been taken away from you!)

. . . Can such an organization advertise its existence on television and radio or does that mean the FCC is somehow offering tacit support?

Please! "Access neutral." If the FCC banned such advertisements, it would be a huge obstacle to access, and thus contradict the hypothesis.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if pro-lifers (and politicians seeking the votes of pro-lifers) pursued such arguments.

I suppose they would...but this contradicts the hypothesis. In the hypothesis, none of this happens any more.

Heck, I can picture someone saying "the government does not support abortion, therefore it cannot license people to perform abortions, therefore a medical licence does not legally entitle someone to perform abortions. After all, if someone gets a medical license, it doesn't mean he also gets a license to fly planes, does it?"

I don't know whether to cry, throw up, or get drunk. This would contradict the hypothesis.

I agree the hypothesis isn't realistic. It's clearly a fantasy with loopholes. My only question is, why would pro-choice activists reject it? My friend said that they would shoot it down without a moment's thought, and I don't see why.

You-all keep changing it, but, so far, you're the only one who has actually answered it without changing it.

Originally Posted by Blackberry

I'm not trying to find loopholes, I just really didn't understand what it was supposed to entail. If the main changes would just be no government-funded abortions in exchange for no laws requiring waiting periods and parental permission and things like that, then yes, I think a lot of prochoice people would consider that a good tradeoff. The government doesn't usually fund abortions anyway, so why not.

That's what I was asking! Yes! Thank you; I apologize for making it a difficult question, when my intent was really an examination of a fairly simple one. You're the second person who has answered it in that spirit.

My reasoning was pretty much the same as yours; legislation has already taken away almost any government function facilitating abortion, and so, if they stopped making it more difficult with restrictive regulations -- waiting periods, additional required medical tests, etc. -- it would seem to be a net gain for the pro-choice side.

I asked, because I was hoping someone would say no in such a way as to give me insight into my friend's objection. I really don't see any clear "down side," except at the meta-level, and, of course, that I still have hope of winning the issue outright, without any major sacrifice! (But that's also irrelevant!)

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I agree the hypothesis isn't realistic. It's clearly a fantasy with loopholes. My only question is, why would pro-choice activists reject it? My friend said that they would shoot it down without a moment's thought, and I don't see why.

Well, on that note, I guess I'm done. There's not really much future in debating the finer points of a vague magic-dependent fantasy, nor does rejecting it outright or rejecting it after thoughtful consideration say anything in particular about the person rejecting it, except maybe that the latter shows one has too much time on his hands.




Guilty, by the way.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I agree the hypothesis isn't realistic. It's clearly a fantasy with loopholes. My only question is, why would pro-choice activists reject it? My friend said that they would shoot it down without a moment's thought, and I don't see why.
<snip>

I asked, because I was hoping someone would say no in such a way as to give me insight into my friend's objection. I really don't see any clear "down side," except at the meta-level, and, of course, that I still have hope of winning the issue outright, without any major sacrifice! (But that's also irrelevant!)

Well, I'm partly rejecting it because I don't understand it as a proposal.

But I'm mostly rejecting it because, as a pro-choice person, I believe that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor or midwife. If a federal or state program provides funds for treating cancer or providing a knee replacement, then I think it should provide funds for an abortion. It's a medical procedure without a whole lot in the way of risks and it's very effective at treating the medical condition its meant to treat. The only reasons not to cover it at clinics receiving federal money that provide OB/GYN services or for women on state run health care plans (like Medicaid) are anti-choice reasons. So if you say that the government won't pay for an abortion for a women whose medical care they otherwise pay for (if I'm reading your proposal correctly), then no, I won't support that. That's the anti-choice people "winning." That's them taking the choice of medical care away from a woman and her doctor.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, on that note, I guess I'm done. . . .

Well, FWIW, you did a better job of working with the premise than anyone else (ETA: up until WhyNot) so, thank you!

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Well, I'm partly rejecting it because I don't understand it as a proposal.

This definitely does seem to be my fault; I apologize.

But I'm mostly rejecting it because, as a pro-choice person, I believe that abortion should be between a woman and her doctor or midwife. If a federal or state program provides funds for treating cancer or providing a knee replacement, then I think it should provide funds for an abortion. . . .

Cool! That's exactly what I was hoping for (and wishing against!) i.e., you validate my friend's view, and, while I wasn't expecting it, I'm glad of it. I can go back to my friend and say to him, "You seem to be right," and that was why I opened the thread to find out!

So if you say that the government won't pay for an abortion for a women whose medical care they otherwise pay for (if I'm reading your proposal correctly), then no, I won't support that. That's the anti-choice people "winning." That's them taking the choice of medical care away from a woman and her doctor.

I didn't see it that way, but I do not disagree with it either. To me, this is a kind of ideal, best-of-all-possible-worlds, daydream, "Come the Jubilee" sort of scenario. I very much wish it were the case, but the ugliness of realpolitik seems to make it unobtainable.

However, my very willingness to compromise may be part of why it is unobtainable, and perhaps I should be working harder for the ideal.

Anyway...you understood my question, and answered it, and I am very thankful to you for this.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

To me, this is a kind of ideal, best-of-all-possible-worlds, daydream, "Come the Jubilee" sort of scenario.

It isn't the best of all possible worlds, it's a surrender to the misogynists.

Originally Posted by Trinopus

However, my very willingness to compromise may be part of why it is unobtainable, and perhaps I should be working harder for the ideal.

The anti-abortionists are not people who should be compromised with. You might as well be compromising with the KKK or any other hate group.

[Miller]

I don't see how this could be seen as anything other than a massive blow to the pro-choice movement. Right now, abortion rights are federally protected. You want to take that protection away, and replace it with some sort of government neutrality. Except the abortion debate doesn't go away - so long as there are any legal abortions being performed in the country, the pro-life movement is going to keep fighting to have it outlawed. So, you've just shifted the needle from "protected" to "neutral," which is one step closer to "outlawed." Meanwhile, you still can't get an abortion in Alabama, because the number of doctors who are willing to put up with the harassment and physical danger of being an abortion doctor in a deeply red state hasn't changed.

What would be the point of this, exactly, from a pro-choice point of view?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It isn't the best of all possible worlds, it's a surrender to the misogynists. . . .

Context: I was talking about WhyNot's ideal that government pay for abortions. That is the "ideal" that I would admire to live under.

Originally Posted by Miller

I don't see how this could be seen as anything other than a massive blow to the pro-choice movement. Right now, abortion rights are federally protected. You want to take that protection away, and replace it with some sort of government neutrality. Except the abortion debate doesn't go away - so long as there are any legal abortions being performed in the country, the pro-life movement is going to keep fighting to have it outlawed. So, you've just shifted the needle from "protected" to "neutral," which is one step closer to "outlawed." Meanwhile, you still can't get an abortion in Alabama, because the number of doctors who are willing to put up with the harassment and physical danger of being an abortion doctor in a deeply red state hasn't changed.

What would be the point of this, exactly, from a pro-choice point of view?

I'll score two more votes against my viewpoint, and in favor of my friend's viewpoint; he's looking more and more correct by the moment.

The advantage I saw was that the issue itself would be supposed to simply go away; that the compromise ended the matter. The debate, as a debate, fades into the past, along with 54-40 or fight, or the Missouri compromise. I think it would be (and maybe some day will be) wonderful when that happens. It's a "Why can't we all just get along" idea. If it could happen, it would be nice, and I'd give up a little -- but not a lot -- to make it happen. But I'm seeing that my thought appears to be in the minority...and this is why I asked.

[Blackberry]

Originally Posted by Miller

What would be the point of this, exactly, from a pro-choice point of view?

Even though in reality it couldn't happen, the hypothetical seems to be that the government officials would somehow all agree NOT to keep trying to limit/ban abortion, not that the government would just stop protecting it and then the prolife side could just keep trying to push it further. If that was really the case then I think it would be a net benefit to the prochoice side.

Philosophically the government should fund abortion to whatever extent they do with other medical procedures, but in and of itself I don't think it's really that big of a deal in practice.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

It isn't the best of all possible worlds, it's a surrender to the misogynists.

The anti-abortionists are not people who should be compromised with. You might as well be compromising with the KKK or any other hate group.

Dang, dude. You need a healthy dose of reality.

[Mosier]

I'm revisiting this thread because I thought of a better way to explain my position.

"Getting the government out" of civil rights issues has a proven track record of miserable failure. The government must be able to guarantee and enforce rights, and that means getting the government (and sometimes even the national guard) involved to prevent people from taking those rights away.

I don't want social conservatives to legally have the power to influence whether a woman is allowed to get an abortion. Unless the government guarantees this right, social conservatives are able to exert financial pressure on institutions that perform abortions. We saw it happen with contraception when conservatives lobbied to "get the government out of it," when their obvious goal was to limit access to contraceptives.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

The advantage I saw was that the issue itself would be supposed to simply go away; that the compromise ended the matter.

What on Earth makes you think this would make the issue go away? The pro-life movement view abortion as literal murder. How does this idea placate them in anyway? Why would this "compromise" stop them from continuing to try to make abortion completely illegal through out the US?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Miller

What on Earth makes you think this would make the issue go away? The pro-life movement view abortion as literal murder. How does this idea placate them in anyway? Why would this "compromise" stop them from continuing to try to make abortion completely illegal through out the US?

Indeed. The OP said:

Then -- and this is the part that interests me -- [my friend] said, "But both sides would utterly reject this."

So far, though, only why the pro-choice side might reject the idea has been significantly discussed.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Blackberry

Even though in reality it couldn't happen, the hypothetical seems to be that the government officials would somehow all agree NOT to keep trying to limit/ban abortion, not that the government would just stop protecting it and then the prolife side could just keep trying to push it further. If that was really the case then I think it would be a net benefit to the prochoice side. . . .

That was my reasoning. Indeed, it seemed so obvious that I was surprised when my friend predicted that the pro-choice side would reject it, and that was what brought me here to seek a wider perspective.

Originally Posted by Mosier

. . . "Getting the government out" of civil rights issues has a proven track record of miserable failure. The government must be able to guarantee and enforce rights, and that means getting the government (and sometimes even the national guard) involved to prevent people from taking those rights away. . . .

As Blackberry notes, the hypothetical would bypass this problem. But, yes, I do agree with you in practice. In the real world, rights have to be fought for, won, and re-won, over and over again.

Originally Posted by Miller

What on Earth makes you think this would make the issue go away? The pro-life movement view abortion as literal murder. How does this idea placate them in anyway? Why would this "compromise" stop them from continuing to try to make abortion completely illegal through out the US?

It's the premise of the question. Like, "If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened..." Saying, "But it did happen," while totally valid, isn't addressing the hypothetical. If the issue were to go away, how much of a sacrifice would either side make? How far short of our ideals would we retreat, if it would guarantee the rest of our position?

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

. . . So far, though, only why the pro-choice side might reject the idea has been significantly discussed.

Well, both my friend and I agreed, from the outset, that the pro-life side would reject the idea, at the outset, without a moment's hesitation. The premise was that abortion rights were assured, at least to the degree they are now, and probably more. No waiting periods, no additional medical tests, no burdensome regulations. The premise isn't ideal for the pro-choice side, but for the pro-life side, it's a blatant defeat, and I can't imagine anyone on that side would entertain the notion for a millisecond.

[Bryan Ekers]

You know, I have an idea that will rid the world of nuclear weapons forever...

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

It's the premise of the question. Like, "If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened..." Saying, "But it did happen," while totally valid, isn't addressing the hypothetical. If the issue were to go away, how much of a sacrifice would either side make? How far short of our ideals would we retreat, if it would guarantee the rest of our position?

I didn't realize "And the pro-life side just gives up," was part of your hypothetical. Of course, if the utter abandonment of their values is a necessary part of you hypothetical, I'm not sure why we're bothering with this "no government involvement" stuff in the first place. If the capitulation of the pro-life movement is a necessary component of the hypothetical, then your proposal becomes moot, because we've already won the debate on our own terms, and we don't have to worry about falling short of our ideals at all.

[Measure for Measure]

Well for the purposes of the thought experiment, I would say "It depends". Roughly speaking, I would trade zeroing out governmental funding of all abortions for an end to the debate and permanent legalization of abortions through the third trimester. I'm not sure why anti choicers would credibly agree to that, but hey it's a thought experiment.

I figure that private donations could pick up the slack and that furthermore we could establish more abortion clinics in places where they aren't now. After all, we're waving our magic wand and making anti-abortion protests go away.

I don't see this thought experiment as especially interesting or relevant.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

Genuine question: How is the gov't subsidizing or making abortion easier right now? I really can't think of anything.

But does the Federal government or any state or local government actually fund abortions, e.g. through welfare benefits like Medicaid? I don't see many moms with kids moaning about how they didn't want to be a parent but they couldn't afford an abortion and thus had to take the kid to term.