# 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:** 5
**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 15, 2008, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/81 "2008-09-15T22:23:11Z")
> [@XaMcQ](#): > > This thread is meant to get people thinking about concessions and compromises, people. At the very least, try to show a little respect for the opposition’s ideas. Why ? If this was about “compromising” with racists or homophobes, agreeing to **some** race or gender preference based restrictions of people’s rights, how would you expect people to react ? It’s the same principle, except that more people on this forum are willing to openly demand control over women’s bodies than are willing to openly call for racial or sexuality based oppression. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/82 "2008-09-15T23:05:27Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Pretty much the whole civilized world – and also France – has a limit on how far into the pregnancy abortion is allowed. Why is it USA alone thinks abortion it is an all or nothing issue and thinks it is fine to abort into the 9th month? Cite? (This being that the USA thinks 3rd trimester is fine or even that there are more 3rd trimester abortions here than abroad.) As I mentioned above, 3rd trimester abortions are fraction of 1% of all abortions. A [Centers for Disease Control study](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm) stated that 88% of all abortions were first trimester (most of those occurring in the first half of the first trimester) with most of the remaining 12% performed very early in the 2nd trimester. Third trimester abortions generally require extenuating circumstances such as endangerment of the mother’s life or, in the most “light” of circumstances, a severe birth defect. Anecdotal only, but a friend who was a therapist at an abortion clinic- one of the leading ones in Alabama [offices in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Columbus GA] knew of only one case in which the doctor (later shot and killed by a pro-Lifer ironically [more ironic: the doctor’s name was Gunn]) peformed a late term abortion. The child had anencephaly (i.e. no brain) and would never have been able to live without machines and even then would have had no quality of life. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/83 "2008-09-16T00:01:42Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > 1. USA doesn’t “think it is fine to abort into the 9th month”. The right to an abortion does not exist, according to the Supreme Court, once the third trimester has been reached. Meaning US states can pass some restrictions on third trimester abortions (\>26 weeks – still considerable beyond all European nations) if they chose to do so. How many states have actually done so? I remember a case of some states which tried at some point, but were overruled by the supreme court. > [@ruadh](#): > > 1. If the USA did think so, it wouldn’t be “alone”. Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion at any time during pregnancy. Yes. And as I said, China too. > [@Sampiro](#): > > As I mentioned above, 3rd trimester abortions are fraction of 1% of all abortions. Yes few (1.4% says Wiki) and a large majority of Americans support making 3rd trimester abortions illegal so that should be an uncontroversial rule to pass. Supporting pro-choice would be so much easier if it wasn’t so absolutist. But 26 weeks is also pushing it. Britain I think has the most liberal European abortion law. They have legal abortion till 24 week. Sweden has till 18 week. But most countries have a cut off at 12-14 weeks. Why does the USA need such extremely liberal – compared to liberal Europe – abortion laws? ---
**Author:** ![XaMcQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f9ae1b/32.png) [@XaMcQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XaMcQ)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/84 "2008-09-16T00:49:22Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why ? If this was about “compromising” with racists or homophobes, agreeing to **some** race or gender preference based restrictions of people’s rights, how would you expect people to react ? It’s the same principle, except that more people on this forum are willing to openly demand control over women’s bodies than are willing to openly call for racial or sexuality based oppression. **Der Tris** , I’m not going to argue with you. I don’t think anyone should argue with you, to be honest. Your views are always so wildly radical and unreasonable that I nearly always skip them without reading them. I can’t make you leave this thread, but I wish you would. ---
**Author:** ![XaMcQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f9ae1b/32.png) [@XaMcQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XaMcQ)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/85 "2008-09-16T01:01:52Z")
> [@winterhawk11](#): > > If any of that was directed at me, I do apologize. I was trying to be respectful (I do respect the pro-life position, and people who feel strongly about it–I just also feel that it’s one of those issues where it’s difficult to compromise because it’s a clash of two very fundamental belief systems). > > I was serious, though, about my questions regarding what (if anything) the mother should be required to do to care for the unborn child if she doesn’t want it, and to what extent she should be compelled to do so. I think this is an important component, and a logical consequence, of any kind of pro-choice/pro-life discussion. What is the pro-life stance on this? Don’t get me wrong, **winterhawk** , I completely understand your feeling that a woman shouldn’t have to be a mother if she is unwilling, but I also feel that if she can’t get her act together and make up her mind before that clump of cells turns into something that anybody looking at it would say was pretty much a human, maybe she should tough it out. I’ve had birth control fail, and I’ve had an abortion. It was always my choice not to have children, and I am thankful for that choice. I would not want to give it up, but if someone handed me an infant and said I had to care for it for a few months or smother it, even if it totally screwed up my life, I wouldn’t be smothering it. That’s just my feeling on the subject. ---
**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 16, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/86 "2008-09-16T01:04:18Z")
What, nobody likes my “illegal but toothless” compromise? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/87 "2008-09-16T01:11:42Z")
> [@XaMcQ](#): > > **Der Tris** , I’m not going to argue with you. I don’t think anyone should argue with you, to be honest. Your views are always so wildly radical and unreasonable that I nearly always skip them without reading them. I can’t make you leave this thread, but I wish you would. Shrill as he can be. He does have a point this time. ---
**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 16, 2008, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/88 "2008-09-16T01:16:05Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Why does the USA need such extremely liberal – compared to liberal Europe – abortion laws? I dunno; something about being the land of the free? ---
**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 16, 2008, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/89 "2008-09-16T01:17:44Z")
> [@XaMcQ](#): > > **Der Tris** , I’m not going to argue with you. I don’t think anyone should argue with you, to be honest. Your views are always so wildly radical and unreasonable that I nearly always skip them without reading them. I can’t make you leave this thread, but I wish you would. In other words, you simply want to ignore my point. Why compromise with woman haters ? Why is it acceptable to compromise with these people and not the KKK, for example ? Some viewpoints are simply evil, and should not be compromised with. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/90 "2008-09-16T01:30:16Z")
> [@XaMcQ](#): > > Compromise means you give up something you don’t want to give up, or do something you don’t want to do, in order to get your opponent to also give up something they don’t want to give up, or do something they don’t want to do. Yes, I know what compromise means. Nevermind, we seem to have our wires crossed – your statement that sex ed wasn’t a compromise to the pro-lifers read to me as though it wasn’t something they wouldn’t want to give up, whereas, and I stress my earlier wording carefully (noting **JThunder** ’s comments), **freely available contraception** and **comprehensive sex education** is something the pro-lifers should be willing to compromise on (but don’t appear to be), assuming of course that their actual goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies (and further assuming we can all agree that, with rare exceptions, it’s the unwanted ones that end up getting aborted). > [@](#): > > You seem to be suggesting something the other side should give up, here. So what are you willing to give in return? You had asked for compromises and arguments from both sides. While I don’t have a strong “side” in this I’m at least somewhat in agreement with the (reasonable) pro-choicers, so in turn I would suggest that areas of compromise would be mandatory counseling and a legally defined point in the pregnancy after which an abortion can only be performed for reasons of medical necessity (saving the mother’s life, etc). > [@Rune](#): > > But 26 weeks is also pushing it. Britain I think has the most liberal European abortion law. They have legal abortion till 24 week. Sweden has till 18 week. But most countries have a cut off at 12-14 weeks. Why does the USA need such extremely liberal – compared to liberal Europe – abortion laws? A law like this appears more culturally based and balanced than scientific. Using something like the work of Hofstede, and his “Individualism vs. collectivism” dimension for reference, the US is strongly towards the individual end. Which for the purposes of this discussion would suggest that the will of the individual (the control of the mother over her own body) is valued significantly over the will of the community (to control her body for the good of the child-to-be), so if a law such as this was enacted in the US I would expect the number to be bigger (like the UK) rather than smaller. But, yes, at 26 weeks the fetus is quite likely viable (assuming an otherwise healthy pregnancy), and I’d not favour allowing abortion at that point except for severe medical reasons. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/91 "2008-09-16T01:41:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > In other words, you simply want to ignore my point. Why compromise with woman haters ? Why is it acceptable to compromise with these people and not the KKK, for example ? > > Some viewpoints are simply evil, and should not be compromised with. Now this is where I draw the line. It ain’t black and white. Some antiabortion people believe the fetus is a person and the killing of which is murder, and are just standing up for what they believe is right, misguided as it might seem to you and me. You calling them evil and trying to launch a holy war accomplishes nothing. We see them as slavers they see us as baby killers. They don’t buy your brand of morality just you don’t buy theirs. You’re not going to convince them preaching fire and brimstone. That said you did present a good point and I’m curious what the response to it is. ---
**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 16, 2008, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/92 "2008-09-16T01:52:07Z")
I can’t accept any compromises - any restriction is essentially the state telling a woman that, under some circumstances, she MUST bear her child, and that’s morally unacceptable to me. I know a teenaged girl who did not realize she was pregnant until she went into labor. Dumb, maybe self-deluded? Yes. Should she have been forced to give birth to the baby if she had realized a couple of weeks before term that she was pregnant if she decided that 15 was too young to be a mother? I personally do not think so. Likewise, a woman who repeatedly gets pregnant and has had five abortions. Should she not be allowed to have a sixth one? Why should the state decide that this woman who feels strongly enough about being childless that she has had five abortions should be made a mother now? Yes, maybe she’s dumb for not using birth control. Maybe she has mental issues and allows herself to be bullied into unprotected sex. Maybe she’s just really fertile and sexually active and every time the condom has broken, she’s got pregnant. Nobody but her should have the authority to make the decision as to what happens when she gets pregnant. Yes, nobody has to raise a kid they give birth to, but for some people the idea of giving birth and being separated from the child is far more emotionally traumatic than the idea of ending the pregnancy before the fetus has a chance to wake up and draw breath. Too many babies in this world are not going to be able to find someone who will adopt them, and if we take away the abortion option there will be even more. Something like a third of pregnancies end in abortion. Do anti-choice people not understand what a huge increase in the adoption rate it would be if the birth rate went up by 33% and every one of these added babies needed to be adopted? Some people believe, sometimes even with religious justification, that life begins at birth. Who are we to say that their beliefs are wrong? There can’t be any compromise. Once a compromise is given, others who don’t care about any of the above will push for another. Abortion must be 100% legal and available to any pregnant woman. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/93 "2008-09-16T02:02:11Z")
[http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html](http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html) This was America before Roe. It was an ugly time. Prohibition does not work. That has been proved over and over. It also only affects those too poor to circumvent the law. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/94 "2008-09-16T02:35:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Why ? If this was about “compromising” with racists or homophobes, agreeing to **some** race or gender preference based restrictions of people’s rights, how would you expect people to react ? It’s the same principle, except that more people on this forum are willing to openly demand control over women’s bodies than are willing to openly call for racial or sexuality based oppression. I participated in the thread with the understanding that the other participants are folks _on this board_. I don’t get to make policy in the real world and for the most part neither do the pro-life folks in here, either. Would I be squeamish about the idea of our political leadership banging out a “compromise” with the likes of Randall Terry and Cardinal Ratzinger’s cheering section in the US church? No, because those folks are not to be trusted. They’ll renege on what is “good enough” in terms of what they want, while taking anything we offer as newly conquered political territory. But that’s not the intention or the spirit of this thread. I’m curious to see what, in the name of pragmatism and getting this mess behind us, the fervent folk on the other side (but on this board) would consider acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/95 "2008-09-16T03:58:25Z")
> [@A\_shameful\_cracka](#): > > I can’t accept any compromises - any restriction is essentially the state telling a woman that, under some circumstances, she MUST bear her child, and that’s morally unacceptable to me. And yet the state does get to tell its citizens that they MUST do this, or MUST NOT do that – why is bearing a child a privileged exemption? > [@](#): > > I know a teenaged girl who did not realize she was pregnant until she went into labor. Dumb, maybe self-deluded? Yes. Should she have been forced to give birth to the baby if she had realized a couple of weeks before term that she was pregnant if she decided that 15 was too young to be a mother? I personally do not think so. Should she have been permitted to abort the child once she went into labour (and knew she was pregnant)? Should she have been permitted to have the unborn child euthanized provided part of it was still in the womb? (My point being that there is always a line/limit – we’re just arguing where the line should be). Babies are regularly born “a couple of weeks before term”, and are perfectly viable. Aborting a baby/fetus (pick a term I’m not trying to play semantic games) a couple of weeks before term seems way too close to infanticide for my liking, and is, I think, a position that would alienate many reasonable pro-choicers. > [@](#): > > There can’t be any compromise. Once a compromise is given, others who don’t care about any of the above will push for another. Abortion must be 100% legal and available to any pregnant woman. Up to and including a purely elective procedure a couple of weeks before term? Unfortunate. You want the whole cake. They want the whole cake. At the moment the law is your way, but if that changes it could go the whole way. ---
**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 16, 2008, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/96 "2008-09-16T04:50:08Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > And yet the state does get to tell its citizens that they MUST do this, or MUST NOT do that – why is bearing a child a privileged exemption? > Should she have been permitted to abort the child once she went into labour (and knew she was pregnant)? Should she have been permitted to have the unborn child euthanized provided part of it was still in the womb? (My point being that there is always a line/limit – we’re just arguing where the line should be). > > Babies are regularly born “a couple of weeks before term”, and are perfectly viable. Aborting a baby/fetus (pick a term I’m not trying to play semantic games) a couple of weeks before term seems way too close to infanticide for my liking, and is, I think, a position that would alienate many reasonable pro-choicers. > Up to and including a purely elective procedure a couple of weeks before term? Unfortunate. You want the whole cake. They want the whole cake. At the moment the law is your way, but if that changes it could go the whole way. We don’t force people to undergo risky medical procedures against their will (unless you consider lethal injection a medical procedure). Giving birth is significantly more dangerous than getting an abortion. ---
**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 16, 2008, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/97 "2008-09-16T04:56:37Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Now this is where I draw the line. It ain’t black and white. Some antiabortion people believe the fetus is a person and the killing of which is murder, and are just standing up for what they believe is right, misguided as it might seem to you and me. > > You calling them evil and trying to launch a holy war accomplishes nothing. We see them as slavers they see us as baby killers. They don’t buy your brand of morality just you don’t buy theirs. Thing is, I don’t **believe** them. I don’t believe for a moment that the majority of them care about the fetus; I consider them dishonest and malignant as well as tyrannical. These are the same people who are always fighting against birth control, that HPV vaccine for women, lying about condoms; the same who show zero concern for the children they force into the world, and cheerfully get abortions for themselves or coerce women they get pregnant into getting them. I consider them to be just another hate group, willing to do anything to hurt their targets and uncaring of anything else. And I don’t think they have anything I’d dignify with the word morality. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > You’re not going to convince them preaching fire and brimstone. People like this can only be outlived and marginalized, not convinced. > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > That said you did present a good point and I’m curious what the response to it is. Silence, I expect. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/98 "2008-09-16T05:12:37Z")
> [@A\_shameful\_cracka](#): > > We don’t force people to undergo risky medical procedures against their will (unless you consider lethal injection a medical procedure). Giving birth is significantly more dangerous than getting an abortion. [That’s a myth.](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_August_3/ai_n26947685) ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/99 "2008-09-16T05:38:42Z")
> [@A\_shameful\_cracka](#): > > We don’t force people to undergo risky medical procedures against their will (unless you consider lethal injection a medical procedure). Giving birth is significantly more dangerous than getting an abortion. We / society can and have forced draftees into combat zones at grave personal threat. What’s your point? ---
**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 16, 2008, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/100 "2008-09-16T06:04:38Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > [That’s a myth.](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_August_3/ai_n26947685) From your link : > [@](#): > > Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and focuses on pro-life litigation. In other words, not to be trusted. It’s not like such people have ever hesitated to lie, even if they kill people by doing so. > [@Apollyon](#): > > We / society can and have forced draftees into combat zones at grave personal threat. What’s your point? Well, we shouldn’t do that either. And frankly, both the anti abortion movement and the use of draftees show a similar attitude towards people, namely of regarding them as expendable cattle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=6)