# A Compromise on Abortion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677 "2003-05-07T15:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/1 "2003-05-07T15:40:13Z")
For \*\* Pro-Life Advocates\*\*, could you ever concede that abortion should be allowed/legalized/condoned up until a specified age of the embryo/fetus? What age would you agree on? Likewise for \*\* Pro-Choice Advocates\*\*, is there a specified age that you would agree a fetus becomes “alive” and after which abortion could be declared absolutely illegal. I’d weigh in with somewhere around 8-12 weeks. There is a point after 7 months where a pre-mature infant can survive outside of the mother, and abortion at this point seems a bit unnecessary. On the other side, I don’t recognize a zygote as human, but at least four weeks are needed to have suspicions. Challenge Question: Is it an abortion if you don’t know you’re pregnant? ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/2 "2003-05-07T15:45:47Z")
Most Pro-Choice advocates, AFAIK, do agree on a standard, also the current legal standard: fetal viability. After a fetus reaches viability, a state may prohibit abortion except to preserve the life and health of the mother. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/3 "2003-05-07T15:47:19Z")
This is the whole deal that everyone is always talking about. There are large numbers on the extremes of both sides who will never agree to your recomendations. Most people, I believe, already accept this as being reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/4 "2003-05-07T16:04:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > …prohibit abortion \*\*except \*\*to preserve the life and health of the mother. But that’s sort of my point. A law forbidding abortion is moot if it has a generalized statement like the one above. And hence we’re back to the start. If the fetus is considered human, the life/health of the mother would be irrelevant. What I’d like to sort out is some sort of compromise on the pro-choice stance that you mentioned above where no abortion means no abortion **ever**. Would you agree that there is an age where the doctors should be looking at the life and health of the invant over that of the mother’s? ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/5 "2003-05-07T16:15:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by emacknight \* > **for \*\* Pro-Choice Advocates** , is there a specified age that you would agree a fetus becomes “alive” and after which abortion could be declared absolutely illegal._\* Fetus is alive at conception, abortion should remain legal until birth. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/6 "2003-05-07T16:18:06Z")
I’m hysterically pro-abortion rights, and I don’t have any objection to limiting abortions to pre-viability (with exceptions for life/health). Julie ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/7 "2003-05-07T16:23:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emacknight \* > \*\*What I’d like to sort out is some sort of compromise on the pro-choice stance that you mentioned above where no abortion means no abortion **ever**. Would you agree that there is an age where the doctors should be looking at the life and health of the invant over that of the mother’s? \*\* Absolutely, positively, 100% no. Why would the mother ever become irrelevant? She should sacrifice her life for the sake of a fetus? If she wants to, that’s fine. If she doesn’t want to, what sort of law would force her to? Julie ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/8 "2003-05-07T16:38:11Z")
Compromise? Somewhere around 22-24 weeks unless there are exceptional circumstances. [Not really a compromise on my part, since it’s been my position all along.] ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/9 "2003-05-07T17:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by candida \* > \*\*Compromise? > > Somewhere around 22-24 weeks unless there are exceptional circumstances. > \*\* Yes, compromise. The issue as I see it is that Pro-Life says no abortion ever, and Pro-choice say abortion for any reason until birth. So I want a compromise, a point up until which we can say yes abortion for any reason, and after which we can say no abortion for any reason. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > \*\*Absolutely, positively, 100% no. Why would the mother ever become irrelevant? She should sacrifice her life for the sake of a fetus? > > Julie \*\* But should the fetus sacrifice its life for the mother’s? Which life is more important? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zwaldd \* > \*\*Fetus is alive at conception, abortion should remain legal until birth. \*\* Okay, **Zwaldd** says 9months is the cut off. But this is too easy to argue against and hence ruins the credibility of the Pro-choice camp. Why does a woman need to say at 8.5 months “I refuse to give birth kill this thing inside of me NOW,” what was she doing for the past 8.5 months? I am very pro-abortion but this I refuse to agree with. Under what cercumstances should this fetus not be born (either naturally or by C-section)? Would you not agree that if the fetus could survive outside of the mother, it should be allowed to? The mother doesn’t have to keep it, but at least finish the deed. ---
**Author:** ![candida](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@candida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/candida)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/10 "2003-05-07T17:23:00Z")
I doubt that you’d even get most anti-choicers to demand ‘no abortion’ if the life of the mother is threatened, so your request is unrealistic. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/11 "2003-05-07T17:28:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emacknight \* > \*\*But should the fetus sacrifice its life for the mother’s? Which life is more important? > \*\* If the fetus’s life is suddenly more important, why would you allow abortions at any point for any reason? To my thinking, that fetus is never more important than the woman carrying it. She was there first. Saying that at some point the fetus becomes more important is just bizarre to me. Julie ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/12 "2003-05-07T17:57:02Z")
Julie and Candida, I’ve always gotten the impression that the “mother’s life is in danger” argument has been over played. By this I mean, its too easy for a woman (or her doctor) to just declare, “my life is in danger.” I believe that there is a point where medical ethics have to say, “the fetus’ life is also in danger and something should be done.” My point here is that after 7months, the fetus can survive outside of the mother. I could be naïve, but my view is that modern medicine can save them both. Am I unreasonable to request that if the fetus could survive it should? The pro-choice side seems to neglect this issue. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/13 "2003-05-07T18:11:48Z")
> [@](#): > > But should the fetus sacrifice its life for the mother’s? Which life is more important? Most pro life folks (at least the ones that I’ve interacted with) make an exception for the life of the mother, so I don’t really think that scenario is a strong debate. YMMV. > [@](#): > > For Pro-Life Advocates, could you ever concede that abortion should be allowed/legalized/condoned up until a specified age of the embryo/fetus? What age would you agree on? > > Likewise for Pro-Choice Advocates, is there a specified age that you would agree a fetus becomes “alive” and after which abortion could be declared absolutely illegal. The vast majority of pro choice folks already draw a line somewhere for elective abortions (at viability, sentience, yadda yadda) so this ain’t exactly a “compromise”. I’m interested in how a fetus somehow becomes “alive” though…what exactly was happening in the x # of weeks of growth and development of the zygote/embryo/fetus…it wasn’t “alive”? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/14 "2003-05-07T18:13:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Why does a woman need to say at 8.5 months “I refuse to give birth kill this thing inside of me NOW,” what was she doing for the past 8.5 months? If that actually happened (especially the _very_ realistic “kill this thing inside me NOW;” way to give a balanced argument), you’d have a case there. I know there are threads about this, but does anyone actually think this takes place? A woman ready to give birth (‘due’ dates are variable 2 weeks either way, so at 8.5 months birth can happen at any time) and says ‘eh, changed my mind?’ I don’t see the need to outlaw something like that. So few abortions happen post-viability that I’m inclined to think a law banning abortion after it would just be a smokescreen. > [@](#): > > I’ve always gotten the impression that the “mother’s life is in danger” argument has been over played. Based on? > [@](#): > > By this I mean, its too easy for a woman (or her doctor) to just declare, “my life is in danger.” At the present, that’s unnecessary, so I’m not sure what you’re basing it on. I would presume that under a law like this, the doctor would have to make the decision and give a compelling medical reason. (You tell me, it’s your idea.) Of course, then you get into complications like “whom should decide if the mother’s life is in danger?” You don’t seem to trust her doctor to do it, so whom? > [@](#): > > I could be naïve, but my view is that modern medicine can save them both. I don’t know that you’re naive, but I’d say you’re overgeneralizing. There are women whose health will not support giving birth. > [@](#): > > My point here is that after 7months, the fetus can survive outside of the mother. I’m worried about the fuzziness here: the 7 months isn’t a precise date, and you can’t give an exact date of the age of a fetus either. I feel like eventually, it’d turn into the same argument with different numbers: ‘why does a woman at 6.5 months need to have an abortion, there’s little difference between 6.5 months and 7…’ So no, I can’t say I’d support this law. There’s little reason to ban something that happens so rarely, I think, and I still don’t approve of the government getting that involved in a private decision. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/15 "2003-05-07T18:21:07Z")
> [@](#): > > I’d weigh in with somewhere around 8-12 weeks. There is a point after 7 months where a pre-mature infant can survive outside of the mother, and abortion at this point seems a bit unnecessary. There’s a long gap between 12 weeks and 7 months. Why 8-12 weeks? > [@](#): > > Challenge Question: Is it an abortion if you don’t know you’re pregnant? How would you have an abortion if you didn’t know you were pregnant??? > [@](#): > > I’m interested in how a fetus somehow becomes “alive” though…what exactly was happening in the x # of weeks of growth and development of the zygote/embryo/fetus…it wasn’t “alive”? That’s cellular division. I think there’s a distinction being drawn between that and the kind of life you mention, i.e. sentience and things. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/16 "2003-05-07T18:23:08Z")
> [@](#): > > For Pro-Life Advocates, could you ever concede that abortion should be allowed/legalized/condoned up until a specified age of the embryo/fetus? What age would you agree on? I’m not trying to speak for “the other side,” but here’s the problem with that idea: most abortions happen early on, not later. Wouldn’t really solve the pro-life dilemma with abortion, I don’t think. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/17 "2003-05-07T18:28:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by beagledave \* > \*\*I’m interested in how a fetus somehow becomes “alive” though…what exactly was happening in the x # of weeks of growth and development of the zygote/embryo/fetus…it wasn’t “alive”? \*\* It was about as alive as your appendix. In my strange little world, I say, “no heartbeat and no brain function means you’re dead.” The zygote and embryo lack these components. I think if you can hear a heartbeat, it’s getting closer to being “alive.” ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/18 "2003-05-07T18:30:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\* > That’s cellular division. I think there’s a distinction being drawn between that and the kind of life you mention, i.e. sentience and things. \*\* 1. There’s a lot more than cellular division happening in the embryos that are aborted (most have a beating heart, for example) 2. The phrase used was “alive”. I would hope that folks posting on the Straight Dope would know the difference between something that is “alive” and something that isn’t “alive”. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/19 "2003-05-07T18:35:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emacknight \* > \*\*It was about as alive as your appendix. In my strange little world, I say, “no heartbeat and no brain function means you’re dead.” The zygote and embryo lack these components. I think if you can hear a heartbeat, it’s getting closer to being “alive.” \*\* Your strange little world is not based in biology. 1. zygotes are never aborted via elective abortion. 2. The vast majority of embryos **do** have a beating heart at the time of abortion. Non pro life [cite](http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/) ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677/20 "2003-05-07T18:39:26Z")
As a matter of fact, I’d like to take this opportunity (once again, I’ve requested it in other threads where the same “not alive” claim has been made) to request a standard medical cite that stipulates that a zygote/embryo/fetus is **not** alive until a beating heart or brain function is present. Remember, the key word is alive, since that is the claim. I eagerly await that cite. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-compromise-on-abortion/173677.md?page=2)