# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/101 "2008-09-16T06:32:59Z")
> [@winterhawk11](#): > > I would have a big problem with this, unless there was some way to opt out. Just to use me as an example: I had absolutely zero interest in sex as a teenager. The few guys I was close to were friends, not potential sex partners. I had a “boyfriend,” but that was kind of a joke–I actually think he turned out to be gay, and he wasn’t any more interested in sex with me than I was with him. The thought of having to take drugs that would potentially mess up my body in order to avoid something that was never going to happen would have been quite insulting to me. I imagine lesbian girls would have issues with it too. Sure. Default means that they get the pill unless the parents actively object, not that the pill is mandatory. The children of apathetic, uninvolved parents, or parents who are hung up on talking about sex will be protected, unlike now. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/102 "2008-09-16T07:22:40Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > 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? Plenty, according to [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#United_States_2). > [@](#): > > I remember a case of some states which tried at some point, but were overruled by the supreme court. Probably because they did not include exceptions to safeguard the woman’s life… again more details on that Wiki page. > [@](#): > > Why does the USA need such extremely liberal – compared to liberal Europe – abortion laws? 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? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/103 "2008-09-16T09:55:57Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > [That’s a myth.](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_August_3/ai_n26947685) That’s not a cite. I’m perfectly willing to believe that it’s not true, but I’m not willing to accept the ALCJ as an authority on medicine. What does the AMA say? Also, their claim addresses late term abortion (the medical term for which is emphatically NOT “partial-birth abortion”, further damaging their credibility). I think even a very cursory investigation will demonstrate the early abortion is exponentially less likely to result in complications than pregnancy and childbirth. ---
**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 16, 2008, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/104 "2008-09-16T12:26:33Z")
What gives a fetus the right to use another person’s body without her permission? A right granted to nobody else in the entire country. I can’t force you to donate a kidney to me, even if you shot me twice, destroyed both my kidneys, and you are a perfect match to donate one. It’s immoral to allow anyone to use another person’s body without their permission. When a man uses a woman’s body without her permission, it’s rape; when a fetus does, it’s “pro-life.” ---
**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, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/105 "2008-09-16T14:15:07Z")
> [@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? Because the child is inside another human being, and that human being doesn’t want it there. Similarly, a homeowner is not obliged to let an intruder stay, even if removing said intruder poses a risk of injury or death. > [@](#): > > 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). Sure, she should be allowed. And just how many times has this option ever been exercised? In Canada at the moment there is no “line”, yet we’ve not had a rash of elective ninth-month abortions (or even one) that I’m aware of. It’s rather hard to imagine a doctor who would perform such a procedure unless there was some critical medical problem. In granting freedom to all women, I’d be willing to accept a hypothetical one-in-a-million chance of what some people might consider an abuse of that freedom. Legislating to the improbable almost always creates bad law. ---
**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, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/106 "2008-09-16T14:31:26Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > [That’s a myth.](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_August_3/ai_n26947685) Nice cite there. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/107 "2008-09-16T15:30:48Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > It’s immoral to allow anyone to use another person’s body without their permission. When a man uses a woman’s body without her permission, it’s rape; when a fetus does, it’s “pro-life.” This is great. Absolutely great. ---
**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 16, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/108 "2008-09-16T15:40:39Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > This is great. Absolutely great. Thank you. I came up with that after reading in a pro-life book “It’s reasonable to expect a woman to endure a pregnancy if the only alternative is a dead baby.” Reasonable to whom? ---
**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, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/109 "2008-09-16T15:56:00Z")
This looks to be degenerating into the same old arguments, AGAIN, and I am again requesting that if you don’t have anything more constructive to add to this thread than how wrong and evil the other side is, start a different thread and snark, accuse, insult to your heart’s content. ---
**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, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/110 "2008-09-16T16:05:55Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Thank you. I came up with that after reading in a pro-life book “It’s reasonable to expect a woman to endure a pregnancy if the only alternative is a dead baby.” Reasonable to whom? You know, there’s a seed for a good science fiction parable there…imagine a world where the males die if they do not have sex within a certain period of time. Would it be acceptable for the state to force a woman to have sex with a man if it was necessary for him to live, and if so, under what circumstances? ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/111 "2008-09-16T16:09:01Z")
> [@XaMcQ](#): > > This looks to be degenerating into the same old arguments, AGAIN, and I am again requesting that if you don’t have anything more constructive to add to this thread than how wrong and evil the other side is, start a different thread and snark, accuse, insult to your heart’s content. That’s because the same arguments haven’t gone away - there will always be people who think forcing someone to allow a fetus to inhabit their body is evil for any reason. There will always be people who believe that killing a fetus under any circumstances is evil, and there is no compromise between the two positions. You can’t make compromises without permitting evil. ---
**Author:** ![FlyingCowOfDoom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyingcowofdoom/32/21776_2.png) [@FlyingCowOfDoom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingCowOfDoom)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/112 "2008-09-16T16:33:41Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > What gives a fetus the right to use another person’s body without her permission? The act of having sex, of course. This argument always surprises me. It’s not like fetuses are randomly appearing from nowhere. There is a very specific act that has to be performed first. Now, I understand the pro-choice stance 100%, and if I didn’t believe that a life is created at conception I’d probably agree with it, but what people don’t seem to get about most pro-lifers is that they believe that a human life is formed at conception. There is no room for compromise on either side, really. Pro-choicers believe that the fetus isn’t really a human until some arbitrary point. I think that the first sign of brain activity is one benchmark that is used, but it doesn’t matter. Until a fetus becomes “alive” it’s no different than a tumor, to the pro-choicer, and as such there is no moral issue with removing it. Asking a pro-choicer to make a compromise is indeed suppressing the rights of women, according to their beliefs. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, believe that the fetus is a live human person from the point of conception, so that abortion is literally killing a person. A pro-lifer can’t condone killing a person in order to prevent (usually temporary) pain and suffering that is not usually something that can’t be avoided by proper contraception/abstention. Granted there are cases of rape and pure ignorance, but again, they are small percentages. Because of the nature of the argument, there is no way to compromise. Either it’s killing a human or it’s not. If it is, how can we compromise killing a human? If it’s not, how can we compromise suppressing rights of women? –FCOD ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/113 "2008-09-16T16:37:35Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > The act of having sex, of course. This argument always surprises me. It’s not like fetuses are randomly appearing from nowhere. There is a very specific act that has to be performed first. If you leave your front door wide open, there’s an excellent chance that strangers may wander in. But there’s no law stating that you have to let them live there. Nope, you’re allowed to eject them. Even to kill them, if that’s what it takes. ---
**Author:** ![FlyingCowOfDoom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyingcowofdoom/32/21776_2.png) [@FlyingCowOfDoom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingCowOfDoom)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/114 "2008-09-16T16:43:20Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > If you leave your front door wide open, there’s an excellent chance that strangers may wander in. But there’s no law stating that you have to let them live there. Nope, you’re allowed to eject them. Even to kill them, if that’s what it takes. True, but in this hypothetical the fetus doesn’t just wander into a uterus. If you invite someone into your house, you’re not allowed to kill them. The metaphor doesn’t quite fit, since you can’t simply ask a fetus to leave your uterus without killing it, but the point should be understood. We will never agree on this point because we do not agree about when a life is created…again that is the fundamental argument that will never change and never allow for compromise. –FCOD ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/115 "2008-09-16T16:46:17Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > Now, I understand the pro-choice stance 100% I dunno, I’m pro-choice and what you go on to describe as the pro-choice attitude doesn’t reflect my stance at all. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/116 "2008-09-16T16:46:27Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > True, but in this hypothetical the fetus doesn’t just wander into a uterus. If you invite someone into your house, you’re not allowed to kill them. The metaphor doesn’t quite fit, since you can’t simply ask a fetus to leave your uterus without killing it, but the point should be understood. I honestly don’t see that sex is an “invitation” to pregnancy any more than an open door is an “invitation” to strangers. ---
**Author:** ![Clu-Me-In](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@Clu-Me-In](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu-Me-In)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/117 "2008-09-16T16:48:08Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > The act of having sex, of course. This argument always surprises me. It’s not like fetuses are randomly appearing from nowhere. There is a very specific act that has to be performed first. So what gives a cancerous tumor the right to inhabit a humans body again. Pray tell. ---
**Author:** ![Clu-Me-In](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@Clu-Me-In](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu-Me-In)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/118 "2008-09-16T16:52:05Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > True, but in this hypothetical the fetus doesn’t just wander into a uterus. If you invite someone into your house, you’re not allowed to kill them. If they unpack and take up residence, you are allowed to summarily evict them without guilt. ---
**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 16, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/119 "2008-09-16T16:52:53Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > True, but in this hypothetical the fetus doesn’t just wander into a uterus. If you invite someone into your house, you’re not allowed to kill them. The metaphor doesn’t quite fit, since you can’t simply ask a fetus to leave your uterus without killing it, but the point should be understood. > > We will never agree on this point because we do not agree about when a life is created…again that is the fundamental argument that will never change and never allow for compromise. > > –FCOD IF you invite someone into your house, that doesn’t give them the right to live there rent free for nine months without your permission. If you ask them to leave and they don’t, you can kill them. ---
**Author:** ![FlyingCowOfDoom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyingcowofdoom/32/21776_2.png) [@FlyingCowOfDoom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingCowOfDoom)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/120 "2008-09-16T16:54:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I dunno, I’m pro-choice and what you go on to describe as the pro-choice attitude doesn’t reflect my stance at all. Ok, I shouldn’t have generalized. I understand the pro-choice arguments that I’ve heard. I bet I’d understand yours as well, if I knew what it was. > [@DianaG](#): > > I honestly don’t see that sex is an “invitation” to pregnancy any more than an open door is an “invitation” to strangers. Well, that’s your belief, but I believe that sex is primarily a biological function that is intended for reproduction…otherwise we wouldn’t need birth control. > [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > So what gives a cancerous tumor the right to inhabit a humans body again. Pray tell. Nothing. But I believe that a fetus is a human, not a cancerous tumor. I don’t think anyone is seeing my point here… I have no desire to debate whether or not abortion is “right” or “wrong”. It will always be wrong to me and it will always be “right” to you. My point is that a thread on what compromises can be made is silly because neither side can be expected to compromise. –FCOD [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=7)