# Compromising on abortion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2008, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610 "2008-09-14T22:03:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/201 "2008-09-17T22:18:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The problem here is that when a nervous system has developed it makes the pro-choice argument that the fetus is not a human being a bit more difficult. So any abortion that comes after that is the killing of a human being. The blastocyst argument has a short shelf-life. Not really. The early nervous system is simple, and much of it doesn’t even survive until birth; it’s essentially just scaffolding and caretaker systems. > [@mswas](#): > > Allowing Doctor’s and Pharmacists to not treat people who are in the process of getting an abortion is a good first step toward some kind of compromise. No. If they do that, they should be permanently banned from any aspect of the medical profession, and if their victim dies imprisoned for murder. It’s their job to DO THEIR JOB, not play little tin god with other people’s lives. > [@mswas](#): > > Because then at least we aren’t making people’s ability to aid the sick contingent upon whether or not they are willing to be complicit in what they consider to be murder. And by considering abortion murder, they demonstrate such poor judgement that they shouldn’t be allowed the kind of responsibility involved in providing medical care. It’s a small step from refusing care to “murderers” to deliberately providing bad care, or even killing their patients. > [@mswas](#): > > The pro-life side of the argument should accept birth control as a viable option. They won’t, since the whole point is to torment and subjugate women. ---
**Author:** ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/202 "2008-09-17T22:34:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s a small step from refusing care to “murderers” to deliberately providing bad care, or even killing their patients. I want to elaborate on this. Because I agree. Let’s say that the person in question is a fervent supporter of the death penalty (and ignore the inherent wtf of supporting that and being anti-choice). They see that the state is not going to take action against the person having the abortion. They decide to take the matter into their own hands. I can see that happening, in fact I’d be somewhat surprised if it hadn’t already. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/203 "2008-09-18T06:17:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The problem here is that when a nervous system has developed it makes the pro-choice argument that the fetus is not a human being a bit more difficult. So any abortion that comes after that is the killing of a human being. It’s still the killing of a human _fetus_. This is a distinction that pro-lifers simply refuse to make, but it makes all the difference in the world to pro-choicers. You can define a human fetus as a human being if you want, but that doesn’t automatically give it the moral equivalence of a human being after birth. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/204 "2008-09-18T10:37:01Z")
Perhaps if all people who are anti abortion for any reason would sign up as such on their tax forms or have it deducted from their wages, then the cost of raising all the unwanted babies would be supported. If possible then maybe the women, or (men who have daughters) and wives would have the zygote implanted in their womb. The need for abortion would no longer be a problem for them because the life would be spared. It would save the woman from going through the time of pregnancy and both sides would be satisfied? Monavis ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/205 "2008-09-18T12:30:23Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Perhaps if all people who are anti abortion for any reason would sign up as such on their tax forms or have it deducted from their wages, then the cost of raising all the unwanted babies would be supported. Interesting idea. And perhaps those who oppose infanticide and child abandonment should be forced to sign up as such on their tax forms as well so that those unwanted offspring should be supported as well. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/206 "2008-09-18T12:31:29Z")
> [@XaMcQ](#): > > So you would only kill a fetal puppy? If anybody stuck a fetal puppy in my womb, you bet your sweet ass I would abort it. And I bet you would too. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/207 "2008-09-18T13:10:25Z")
> [@XaMcQ](#): > > I’m finding it somewhat depressing how much hate I’m seeing from the pro-choicers, especially when they are accusing the pro-lifers of being the haters. Do you guys not realize how you are coming across? I wouldn’t hand you a puppy to hold for five minutes for fear you might hurl it into oncoming traffic if it peed on your clothes. > > Pro-life people, do you really think just trying to make abortions illegal is going to work? It’s been a smashing failure for drug use and it was a smashing failure for alcohol. What is so frustrating about this from a (my) pro-choice attitude is that it is a total refusal to recognize that _Roe v Wade_, or more importantly _Casey v Planned Parenthood_, **IS** a huge compromise already for most pro-choice people. And the fact that we are now expected to compromise more shows the salami tactics of the anti-choice movement at work. _Roe_ was a compromise of what we wanted, though it was better than the prior situation (in a results sense, I don’t want to get into whether it was good law or not). _Casey_ marked a compromise of the rights secured under _Roe_. Case after case since has compromised those rights. And when we say that it can’t go any further, that the anti-choice movement has never shown any willingness to compromise, that all they seek, time and time again, is a reduction of what we view as a fundamental right, we are showing hate, and we are the unreasonable ones. Well, tough. There’s no more room for compromise. Not with people who think I am a murderer, or a supporter of murder, who lead to a dear friend of mine having a breakdown and dropping out of college, and who have a wing who think saving clumps of cells justifies bombing clinics and shooting doctors. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/208 "2008-09-18T13:40:43Z")
[del] Pro-life[/del]Anti-abortion people do not want to compromise. As I said above they think it is “reasonable” to expect a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy, then give the child up for adoption if she doesn’t want to be a single mother. They flatly refuse to see anything good about abortion or bad about adoption. I love whaqt Andy Rooney said on the subject: I don’t know if I’m pro-choice or pro-life. But I like pro-choice people better than pro-life people. ---
**Author:** ![ratatoskK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ratatoskk/32/2987_2.png) [@ratatoskK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ratatoskK)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/209 "2008-09-18T14:27:57Z")
Speaking as a pro-choice person, what would be the goal of “compromising” given the current situation? As previously mentioned, the situation is already a compromise. What good can come of promoting further government interference in this decision-making process? ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/210 "2008-09-18T15:04:15Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > [del] Pro-life[/del]Anti-abortion people do not want to compromise. As I said above they think it is “reasonable” to expect a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy, then give the child up for adoption if she doesn’t want to be a single mother. They flatly refuse to see anything good about abortion or bad about adoption. Is that all anti-abortion people? Every single last one of them? > [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > I love whaqt Andy Rooney said on the subject: I don’t know if I’m pro-choice or pro-life. But I like pro-choice people better than pro-life people. What a stupid thing to say. Who gives a shit what kind of persons someone called Andy Rooney likes or dislikes? I don’t know if I’m Republican or Democrat, but Palin has got the biggest tits. > [@ruadh](#): > > Why does liberal Europe need to restrict women’s rights to such a degree, when the Canadian/parts of US experience clearly shows that _allowing_ late-term abortions doesn’t actually result in significant numbers of women _having_ late-term abortions? Perhaps because it exactly is not considered very or unreasonable restrictive and with a few exceptions abortion (pro & anti) hasn’t been turned into an ideology in Western Europe like it has in the USA. So you are able to reach a mid point where most people feel comfortable and perhaps get on to other things. Instead seen from the outside, what you have in the US seems to be extremely polarized nearly hysterical debate. From both sides. Either you are a misogynist Nazi bastard or a baby killer that will burn in hell. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/211 "2008-09-18T15:10:36Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Perhaps because it exactly is not considered very or unreasonable restrictive and with a few exceptions abortion (pro & anti) hasn’t been turned into an ideology in Western Europe like it has in the USA. So you are able to reach a mid point where most people feel comfortable and perhaps get on to other things. Instead seen from the outside, what you have in the US seems to be extremely polarized nearly hysterical debate. From both sides. Either you are a misogynist Nazi bastard or a baby killer that will burn in hell. Also, when you have easily available, government funded early abortion available, as well as better access to birth control and sex education, and less of an important political power block that seeks to criminalize all abortions, you are likely to have fewer people complaining about restrictions on later term abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/212 "2008-09-18T15:47:50Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Is that all anti-abortion people? Every single last one of them? Everyone I’ve talked to and all the literature I’ve read. They believe that if a woman gets pregnant, she should be forced to carry to term. Isn’t that the very definition of anti-abortion? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/213 "2008-09-18T16:22:02Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Is that all anti-abortion people? Every single last one of them? Well, shatter the stereotype - be a pro-life person willing to discuss the idea of a legal compromise to the issue using specifics and details. ---
**Author:** ![Pazu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pazu/32/15522_2.png) [@Pazu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pazu)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/214 "2008-09-18T16:32:58Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Nonsense. Only if there is good reason to believe that the miscarriage was the result of some sort of malfeasance. A) Who would make this determination? B) Who would be responsible for bringing it to the attention of the appropriate authorities? C) Who would be the appropriate investigating authority? ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/215 "2008-09-18T16:33:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, shatter the stereotype - be a pro-life person willing to discuss the idea of a legal compromise to the issue using specifics and details. I can’t. I’m not anti-abortion according to Anni’s definition. Come to think of it, I have never met such a person. What you call “pro-life” / “pro-choice” in the USA don’t exist around here except on the extreme fringes. Personally I think the law as it is in Denmark and Norway is an acceptable compromise. Free abortion till 12th week and restricted abortion till 24th week. Children to have their parents’ permission except for when there are reasonable reasons not to inform them. ---
**Author:** ![A\_shameful\_cracka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@A\_shameful\_cracka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_shameful_cracka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/216 "2008-09-18T16:45:41Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > [del] Pro-life[/del]Anti-abortion people do not want to compromise. I don’t think you should use the term “anti-abortion”. There are many pro-choice people who are against abortion but feel that it is a woman’s right to have one if she so chooses. The correct term is “anti-choice”. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/217 "2008-09-18T16:51:04Z")
> [@A\_shameful\_cracka](#): > > I don’t think you should use the term “anti-abortion”. There are many pro-choice people who are against abortion but feel that it is a woman’s right to have one if she so chooses. The correct term is “anti-choice”. The anti-abortion crew argue that they are not anti-choice. A woman can choose not to have sex or choose the use birth control. Once she is pregnant, she can choose to keep the child or choose to give it up for adoption. She just can’t choose to have an abortion. I use the term anti-abortion because they are against abortion in any way, choice or form. And they use the incorrect term pro-abortion to describe people who are for legal abortion. ---
**Author:** ![A\_shameful\_cracka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@A\_shameful\_cracka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_shameful_cracka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/218 "2008-09-18T17:36:53Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > The anti-abortion crew argue that they are not anti-choice. A woman can choose not to have sex or choose the use birth control. Once she is pregnant, she can choose to keep the child or choose to give it up for adoption. She just can’t choose to have an abortion. > > I use the term anti-abortion because they are against abortion in any way, choice or form. And they use the incorrect term pro-abortion to describe people who are for legal abortion. By allowing them to define “Choice” in this debate as the choice as to whether or not to reproduce, they are shifting the bounds of the debate, and they are making some of their own members (those against birth control) into a different, non-included, group. This is an abortion debate. Not a birth control debate, or premarital sex debate. The debate is not on whether abortion is bad, or if fetuses are alive, it’s on whether or not a woman should have the choice to have an abortion. There is pro-choice, and anti-choice. That seems pretty straightforward to me. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/219 "2008-09-18T17:51:35Z")
> [@A\_shameful\_cracka](#): > > By allowing them to define “Choice” in this debate as the choice as to whether or not to reproduce, they are shifting the bounds of the debate, and they are making some of their own members (those against birth control) into a different, non-included, group. > > This is an abortion debate. Not a birth control debate, or premarital sex debate. The debate is not on whether abortion is bad, or if fetuses are alive, it’s on whether or not a woman should have the choice to have an abortion. There is pro-choice, and anti-choice. That seems pretty straightforward to me. I don’t see a difference between anti-(having-available-the-)choice(-of-having-an-abortion), and anti-abortion. If anything “anti-abortion” seems more succinct. (The term “pro-life” is, of course, over-exaggerated hyperbole as terms go, since it speaks to many other things besides the abortion issue which certainly don’t apply to the entire anti-abortion side.) Contrariwise, the position of _pro-_(having-available-the-)choice(-of-having-an-abortion) is _not_ well described by the term “pro-abortion”, as the latter implies a preference for abortions over other options. “Pro-abortion-legalization” may be more explicitly precise than “pro-choice”, but it and terms like it have the problem that they are cumbersome. If we’re going to argue terminology, and all. ---
**Author:** ![A\_shameful\_cracka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@A\_shameful\_cracka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_shameful_cracka)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/220 "2008-09-18T17:57:03Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I don’t see a difference between anti-(having-available-the-)choice(-of-having-an-abortion), and anti-abortion. If anything “anti-abortion” seems more succinct. (The term “pro-life” is, of course, over-exaggerated hyperbole as terms go, since it speaks to many other things besides the abortion issue which certainly don’t apply to the entire anti-abortion side.) > > Contrariwise, the position of _pro-_(having-available-the-)choice(-of-having-an-abortion) is _not_ well described by the term “pro-abortion”, as the latter implies a preference for abortions over other options. “Pro-abortion-legalization” may be more explicitly precise than “pro-choice”, but it and terms like it have the problem that they are cumbersome. > > If we’re going to argue terminology, and all. But there are many people (like my wife) who could very easily be described as anti-abortion - she thinks it’s wrong morally, an evil act according to her religion, and she looks down on women who have them for any reason other than preservation of their own life. She also believes that a woman should still have the right to choose to end a pregnancy, so she is pro-chioce. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=12)