Can the abortion issue ever be finally resolved?

Great Debates
1

I’ve seen pro-lifers with buttons that say, “Slavery and abortion are wrong.” Leaving aside the question of moral equivalence, I see an obvious difference between slavery and abortion: It was possible for American slavery to be abolished once and for all. Once the slaves were freed, there was no serious possibility that they would ever be re-enslaved, nor that the slavery issue, as such, would ever again trouble American political life. Same with a lot of issues that have divided us: Once women got the vote, there was no possibility they would ever again lose it. Once segregation was gone, it was gone for good. Once the Philippines got their indepedence, there was no chance the U.S. would ever re-annex them.

Abortion, on the other hand, seems to be an issue that can never be finally resolved. So long as it remains legal, pro-lifers will campaign to ban it. If it ever is banned, pro-choicers will campaign to re-legalize it. This could go on for generations. Our grandchildren might be fighting these same battles, or voting in elections where the abortion issue complicates everything else.

Can any of you see a way out?

2

The development of a method by which a fetus can be removed from the conceiving mother’s womb and reimplanted into another woman or sustained in a synthetic womb until gestation is complete.

Quite seriously, though, even that won’t solve things because there will be people who wouldn’t want their fetus transferred because they couldn’t bear the idea of it being “somewhere out there” just as there are currently those who have abortions because giving a child up for adoption would be too “weird.”

This is why realistic pro-life advocates are no longer all about outlawing abortion, but increasing access to contraceptives and education about sexual health and options.

3

Give it a generation. Mifepristone (aka RU-486) will become commonplace and those opposed to its use on religious grounds will become more and more quaint and out of touch.

4

Longer than that. The religious right has yet to enter the 20th century, let alone the 21st. I can see the issue defusing somewhat if Roe v Wade is partially overturned to permit the banning of abortions after the first trimester. However. even if abortions were limited to the embryonic rather than fetal stage, the hard core anti-abortion crowd that believes that you are a full person with a soul at conception is not going to go along with it. This is for now the great unsolvable political issue.

5

We are already living in the solution: pro-lifers don’t have abortions, and pro-choicers may or may not have abortions. Simple.

6

Well, that’s arguably a difference, but not one which is relevant to the statement which they’re making (i.e. “Slavery and abortion are wrong”).

7

Well then, an equivalent “solution” existed prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Abolitionists didn’t have slaves, and non-abolitionists could choose to have slaves or not.

Do you honestly think that was an adequate “solution”?

8

Well, no. I’ve read, heard, and experienced for myself the fact that even pro-life believers suddenly think that THIS PARTICULAR abortion is OK, when they or their family members need it. I used to work as an escort for a women’s health clinic, which offered a variety of services, including abortion. I heard a LOT of patients who said “I don’t believe in abortion, but I need one.” Not necessarily those exact words, but that’s what they meant. We even had some pro-life repeat customers.

On the other hand, there are some pro-choice people who would never ever get an abortion themselves, they just believe that the choice should be available to those who want or need it.

Cite.

9

No. But then, I don’t think slavery is a good comparison to abortion.

Lynn, that’s quite true, at least from my personal experience… well, on the pro-choice side, anyway. I’ve never known any wishy-washy pro-lifers, but I’ve known plenty of pro-choicers who think very little of people who have abortions, but wouldn’t dream of removing the right to have one. I respect such people for their democratic commitment to compromise, even if I would disagree with their choice in judgment. But I’m pro-choice like that. :wink:

That is a really interesting read.

10

I’ve felt for a long time that the main thing that’s perpetuating the issue is the fact that the two groups were arguing opposite sides of different arguments: pro-choice people were saying they had the right to do what they wanted with their bodies, and pro-life people were saying that abortion is murder. Now that the pro-life people are changing their tactics, they’re closer to a resolution.

11

I dunno. You may be right, and if so great. But I get a hinky feeling when tactics change. I don’t think that the final goal has changed at all, just the way to get to it.

Like Lynn, I worked at a PP clinic some time back. While I don’t recall any pro-life custommers, repeat or not (o’course, I got one o’ them “Y” chromosome thingies, so maybe nobody was comfortable talking to me. After all, my kind had gotten them as far as the front door), what I do remember is chatting with the other escorts while we smoked and watched the circus taking place on the sidewalk. One of the others pointed to to pro-lifers and asked, "Who would want to be involved with that? “That” being shrieking at women trying to get in, lying on the sidewalk to prevent access (it never worked) and chaining oneself to the doors once monthly.

Now that new tactics are being pursued, I find myself being even more vigilant.

12

This reminds me of an arguement I had with my mother once. I’m pro-choice, she’s anti-abortion. At least in theory. The issue had come up for the first and only time, and she was aghast that I was pro-choice.

I asked her “What would you do if A. (my then-13 year old niece) came home pregant one day? Do you really think it would be the right thing for her to have a baby at age 13?”

She said “Well, I wouldn’t get her an abortion!”

“So you’d let her have the baby?”

Mom: “No, I’d go to the doctor and get her a D&C, and she wouldn’t be pregnant anymore!”

Me: :smack:

FYI: A D&C is a medical procedure used to treat a variety of conditions. You don’t do it on a pregnant woman if you want the baby to be born. You can read about it here.

13

TeaElle

Yeah, that plus better birth control (reversible, reliable, doesn’t pump the body full of problematic substances, no nasty side effects, a version available for both sexes).

That plus over-the-counter “morning after” pills that anyone can have in their medicine cabinet.

14

Except for high tech solutions that might help women control their reproduction totally I too don’t see a end to this squabbling. Religions will always exist and even though reproductive rights are ever advancing… expect to always see anti-abortionists.

Eventually women will have so many more choices to control reproduction that only teen pregnancy will be an issue ? Will sexual education still be left to parents only ? These will determine the need for abortion. If these don’t get better expect to see illegal or legal abortions no matter what.

15

Abortions for some, tiny American flags for the rest!

I believe the others have adequately covered the “bad” part behind this concept, but I’d like to add that this solution is not acceptable for the pro-lifers. Remember, they view abortion as murder. They won’t accept a situation where people are allowed to commit murder. They won’t stop campaiging until it is outlawed and, in some cases, criminalized.

I don’t think a solution is in sight. Many pro-lifers don’t even accept the “morning after pill” as a legitimate form of birth control, saying that (IIRC) it kills the zygote, which is the beginnings of a person, and thus is a form of abortion (their reasoning, not mine). Many of the more religious types also don’t seem to understand that educating kids on the use of birth control methods prevents pregnancy.

16

Yeah, Zagadka, it is a problem in the standard moral pickle sense, no question. But moral pickles are named so because they don’t have anything other than a briney solution (how much of this can I make up on the spot?)–not a good one, but one that parties can live with and still get to keep their right to judge and bitch. That seems to make democracies happy.

Yes, they view it as murder. In religious cases, I can even see why they’d view it as murder. But, to my knowledge, the New Testament does not command a Christian state, so you’d think they’d be prepared for a little S&G around them in their daily lives. If Lynn’s link tells us anything, it is that some are forgetting the judge not lest ye be judged, and seeking an authoritarian solution to a secular and democratic problem should be repulsive to most Americans on its face.

Frankly, it is not “obviously” murder to a lot of us, and we live in a society of laws, and a society that, ostensibly anyway, prides itself on freedom and democracy. The solution is as I give it, as unpalatable as that is, because all the other solutions are vomitous. First, no one is forced to have an abortion, this is important to everyone. Second, people of all stripes are free to practice their beliefs without directly harming other people’s beliefs (whether or not a fetus is a person, it surely doesn’t have any beliefs, so I think my statement is strictly true). I don’t see how anything else could be said to be a “solution”.

And, since we seem to be heading down Analogy Lane today, I think it is fair to say that this solution is precisely the same as tolerating pagans, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, LaVey-styled Satan-atheists, atheists, Unitarians, Catholics, gnostic and mystery school occultists, new agers and Eris knows what else. Oh, right, Discordians. These people, to some, are wrong, and condemning themselves to hell… but we value freedom of religion, because people are free to damn themselves to hell. Most of the time, we punish such behavior, but sometimes, we just have to tolerate a difference of belief, no matter how strong, because it is the only way we can live together in relative peace.

My solution remains unchanged, then.

17

Oh, I agree, erislover. Personally, I consider myself neutral on the subject of abortion, in that I don’t have anything to add to either sides’ argumens. I like to think that I couldn’t personally make the decision to have an abortion, but then, I’m a man, so that likely won’t come up any time soon. OTOH, partly because of that, I don’t feel qualified telling anyone else what to do, since I don’t view it as “murder” until later in the development process.

Unfortunately, you are also right in that this is, in fact, a democracy, and the vast majority of people are Christian. A smaller majority also believe in freedom - freedom for the unborn fetus.

I’d say, leave it up to states’ rights and call it a day… but I’m not a SC Justice, so…

18

Technical nitpick… these things are all “possibilities”, however unlikely we may see them in the immediate future. :wink:

19

I believe that once you can firmly establish beyond doubt when a fetus is officially “human” you will then see an end to the argument. The fact is right now nobody can say with any weight at what point a sperm and egg become human. We all have our own opinions on it but no one can produce scientific evidence showing it is one way or the other. Until that day we guess…was that a human being you just aborted or a cluster of cells no more signifigant than your fingernail? Some would argue the absence of knowing in this case would make it wrong to just go ahead and abort since you can’t say for sure what you just did. Maybe you killed another human being, maybe not. After years of consideration I stand unsure myself.

20

Good question, OP, and one that I’ve often wondered: whether society will ever reach a near-universal consensus on the controversial issues of today (specifically abortion) the way it has with slavery. Back when slavery was an open issue in the U.S. it was justified by the belief that “the negroes” were fundamentally different from (and inferior to) whites, in ways that made them “fit” to be slaves and/or unfit to be free. (This is perhaps an oversimplification: we could argue what people actually believed vs. the rationalizations they used to justify what they wanted to do; and not all abolitionists believed that blacks were the equal of whites, just that they were equal in their claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I maintain that the reason slavery is a non-issue today is directly tied to the consensus that all “races” are equally full-fledged members of the human race.)

I think the abortion issue could be likewise resolved if we could similarly come to a consensus about when a person becomes a person in the sense that it would be murder to end their life. We do have a pretty clear consensus that that line comes no later than birth, so that infanticide is pretty universally frowned upon in our society, even though this hasn’t always been the case throughout history. The problem is that we can’t agree how much (if any) earlier than birth the line should be drawn. As to whether we ever will agree, and if so what would cause such agreement, and what we would agree on—that I don’t know. (So, I guess I’m agreeing with Bongmaster.)