# 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:** 9
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/161 "2008-09-16T22:11:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![UnwrittenNocturne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/6de8d8/32.png) [@UnwrittenNocturne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnwrittenNocturne)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/162 "2008-09-16T22:15:25Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Count me in the people whose views on abortion you should skip as well then. **Der Trihs** is right here. > > I can’t see anywhere I can compromise with the pro-life movement… Nor I. I can’t see any room for compromise with the anti-choice movement. There is a gulf between us on this that can not and will not ever be crossed. They see a person where I don’t. They believe that the state and the fetus own the woman. I don’t. And never mind the disconnect we have on the value of actual human life (I realise this doesn’t apply to everyone so keep your broad brush accusations to yourself). I think that ‘collateral damage’ is murder and ought to be prosecuted as such. Many anti-choice people do not. Just as an example ---
**Author:** ![Infovore](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/infovore/32/420_2.png) [@Infovore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Infovore)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/163 "2008-09-16T22:24:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s not absurd; I recall a thread some time back on this board where several women talked about how being pregnant creeped them out, regardless of how much they liked the end result of a child. And feel quite certain that a lot of impregnated rape victims feel that way. No, it’s not absurd. I’m one of these. I have no desire to be pregnant, if I ever got accidentally pregnant (unlikely, as I’m 100% monogamous and the spouse has been snipped since 1989) I would do whatever necessary to remedy the situation, up to and including going to another country if it were illegal here. I would most certainly look at a fetus as a parasite, and the whole idea of being pregnant _does_ creep me out. I’m not saying that this is common, or even that it happens often, but women who feel this way do exist. ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/164 "2008-09-16T22:26:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure, she should be allowed. And just how many times has this option ever been exercised?.. 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. But if the situation [abortion at a very late stage of pregnancy without medical need] is a) rare, b) unlikely to happen because it’s “hard to imagine a doctor who would perform such a procedure”, and c) something that many reasonable people would oppose, then doesn’t that make it an ideal candidate for a compromise bargaining chip? I’ve been trying to participate in this thread in the spirit that **XaMcQ** requested, looking for areas of possible compromise – and putting aside, for the purposes of the hypothetical, the issues of trusting “them” to play by the rules and not use any compromise as the thin end of a wedge. At the same time, I think the pro-life / anti-abortion camp should be agreeing to whatever it takes to get the number of unwanted pregnancies reduced, and statistics from Europe strongly suggest that \ **freely available contraceptives** and **comprehensive sex education** are valuable tools in this endeavour. > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This is important because when you get a late term pregnancy, the fetus is viable outside your body, it doesn’t need you to live, it just happens to still be inside you. At that point, what gives the you the right to order the fetus killed, instead of ordering it removed? Cheers, **Cheesesteak** , you’ve managed to state rather more clearly what I was trying to get get with the question about choosing to abort in labour. > [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > If a fetus is given human rights and the woman has a miscarriage, it will have to be investigated. Isn’t there already a disjoint here? I could be completely misremembering, but haven’t there not been cases where someone assaulting a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage has been charged with murder? ---
**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 16, 2008, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/165 "2008-09-16T22:48:18Z")
> [@BrainFireBob](#): > > This is an argument in favor of better education and contraceptives more than one for abortion, it seems. Again, where in your purview does accountability for action come in? If a woman wants to secure a better life for herself, should she be engaging in risk-behavior? To what point does society have a responsibility to protect them from themselves? This is not a valid argument for banning abortion; the abortion itself is an option that changes the risk of the equation. If it is legal, it is an option that can be considered in addition to all the other options, and a risk assessment can be made based on all the options to decide what you want to risk doing. Banning abortion for _any_ reason other than to ‘save the baby’ is an attempt to change the playing field to coerce people to behave in a manner you prefer. This is observable in those who want to ban contraceptives in addition to abortion: they want to remove all the options that reduce the risk of carrying a child to coerce people to stop having frivolous sex. To accomplish this they try to ensure that the babies are punishment for _having_ sex, and use the babies as a dissuading factor (since the dissuading effect of the Scarlet A has diminished too much to be useful). Using babies as a punishment is reprehensible. It follows from that that the entire ‘accountability’ argument is reprehensible. Even if your real reason for arguing the point is to ‘save the babies’, resorting to reprehensible tactics is probably not a good thing. > [@BrainFireBob](#): > > I’m asking this in a broader sense than abortion. If she becomes a drug addict, do we owe her rehab and a job, or to give her the opportunity to clean herself up and move up? A more accurate analogy would be - should we make it _illegal_ for her to try to quit. We’re not just talking about not giving abortions away free, remember - we’re talking about removing the option _entirely_. The analogue here is to remove the option of rehabilitating; to shove drugs down the bitch’s throat to make _sure_ she regrets having gone and gotten herself hooked. > [@BrainFireBob](#): > > IMHO, one of the fundamental liberal-conservative divides regards the concept of liberty: To a conservative, it’s the ability to reap what you sow, with freedom provided to sow one’s own preference. To liberals, it is protection from one’s own stupidity as well as the vagaries of life. IMHO, the conservatives only feel this way when it’s not them. It’s very easy to tch-tch-tch and look down on the stupid poor person who got themselves poor or addicted or knocked up, but they’re in no hurry to criticize themselves when folly or misfortune comes down on them. This is a separate issue from being idealogically opposed to killing babies, of course - it’s quite reasonable to keep an unwanted pregnancy out of a moral aversion to killing the proto-human. I’m rebutting only the “Those whores are getting what they deserve and it’s our obligation to make it tougher on them” argument. ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/166 "2008-09-16T23:33:19Z")
> [@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. Oh, please. Hating someone who wants to prey upon women isn’t the same as abusing an animal. > [@XaMcQ](#): > > 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. They have no reason to care; it will inflict suffering and death upon women whether it “works” or not, and that’s the **real** goal for most of them. > [@Apollyon](#): > > Isn’t there already a disjoint here? I could be completely misremembering, but haven’t there not been cases where someone assaulting a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage has been charged with murder? Yes; as part of the “pro-life” people’s constant attempts to redefine a fetus as a person. Just another attempt to wedge the door open. ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/167 "2008-09-17T00:31:14Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] 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. [/QUOTE] Do you think any of us actually care about the fetus? Your wording suggests that maybe some of us pro-lifers may, which surprises me, considering your stated opinion of the pro-life movement in general. Just curious. ---
**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 17, 2008, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/168 "2008-09-17T00:58:18Z")
> [@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. We only “come across” that way when strawman arguments are created for us. I know I’m just talking about fetuses. It’s only in the accusations of pro-lifers that my stance on this particular issue gets extended to party guests, toddlers and puppies. A few years back, there was a thread with the analogy of a toddler stowaway on a spaceship and, yes, my attitude was that the owner of the spaceship should have the unquestioned right to toss the kid out the airlock. That’s perfectly consistent if in the analogy, (toddler=fetus) and (spaceship=uterus). Predictably enough, the response from a pro-lifer was that my stance should (indeed, must) mean that I would casually shoot a toddler who wandered across my lawn. I pointed out that (lawn != spaceship), to no avail. They had decided I was in favour of killing toddlers and that was enough for them. > [@Apollyon](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > Sure, she should be allowed. And just how many times has this option ever been exercised?.. 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. > > But if the situation [abortion at a very late stage of pregnancy without medical need] is a) rare, b) unlikely to happen because it’s “hard to imagine a doctor who would perform such a procedure”, and c) something that many reasonable people would oppose, then doesn’t that make it an ideal candidate for a compromise bargaining chip? > > I’ve been trying to participate in this thread in the spirit that XaMcQ requested, looking for areas of possible compromise – and putting aside, for the purposes of the hypothetical, the issues of trusting “them” to play by the rules and not use any compromise as the thin end of a wedge. Okay, in the spirit of compromise (and, I agree, what the OP was going for), I’ll concede a ban on elective third-trimester abortions, with medical necessity to be determined at the doctor’s discretion. In exchange, I want pro-lifers to agree to not attempt to extend the ban in any manner for at least 30 years, and to drop all legal opposition to sex education, contraception distribution and gay marriage/adoption. Further, my starting position is that procuring or performing an elective third-trimester abortion be a Federal Class E misdemeanor (such class to be created specifically for this issue) punishable by a maximum fine of one dollar or one hour of community service. I admit I’m going for the moon, here, but I await a counter-offer. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/169 "2008-09-17T01:39:02Z")
Question to the pro-choicers- Would you be content with a maintaining of the status quo here in the US, which if I understand it correctly is- first-trimester abortions, legal for any reason; second-trimester abortions, legal but regulated; third-trimester abortions, strictly restricted; public funding for abortions restricted; medical professionals & facilities free to choose whether or not they’ll provide abortion services; parental-consent regulations with a clause for exceptional circumstances. (Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of the above.) IF the prevailing public cultural attitude towards abortion was that it’s a nasty shameful business, although occasionally a tragic necessity, and should be discouraged, with alternatives readily available… which is just slightly to the right of where the cultural attitude is now. If otherwords, if the basic cultural status was “tragic when necessary, shameful when not, but still safe and legal.” ---
**Author:** ![XaMcQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f9ae1b/32.png) [@XaMcQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XaMcQ)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/170 "2008-09-17T01:39:08Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, please. Hating someone who wants to prey upon women isn’t the same as abusing an animal. > > They have no reason to care; it will inflict suffering and death upon women whether it “works” or not, and that’s the **real** goal for most of them. > > Yes; as part of the “pro-life” people’s constant attempts to redefine a fetus as a person. Just another attempt to wedge the door open. So you would only kill a fetal puppy? **Der Tris** I suspect that a large number of pro-life people hate being lumped in with misogynist idiots about as much as I hate being lumped in with you. ---
**Author:** ![XaMcQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f9ae1b/32.png) [@XaMcQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XaMcQ)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/171 "2008-09-17T01:49:01Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Question to the pro-choicers- > > Would you be content with a maintaining of the status quo here in the US, which if I understand it correctly is- > > first-trimester abortions, legal for any reason; > > second-trimester abortions, legal but regulated; > > third-trimester abortions, strictly restricted; > > public funding for abortions restricted; > > medical professionals & facilities free to choose whether or not they’ll > provide abortion services; > > parental-consent regulations with a clause for exceptional circumstances. > > (Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of the above.) > > IF the prevailing public cultural attitude towards abortion was that it’s a nasty shameful business, although occasionally a tragic necessity, and should be discouraged, with alternatives readily available… > > which is just slightly to the right of where the cultural attitude is now. > > If otherwords, if the basic cultural status was “tragic when necessary, shameful when not, but still safe and legal.” I think this is getting close to acceptable, if we could get better sex education and easy access to affordable contraception. Though I would choose ‘unfortunate’ over shameful. ---
**Author:** ![tristram](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@tristram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tristram)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/172 "2008-09-17T01:53:47Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > You find it astonishing that I’m not willing to make concessions regarding sovereignty over my own body? Really? > > Do you not understand what most people, on either side, believe is at stake? Let’s face it, if one side says the issue is “sovereignty over my own body” and the other side says it is “the sanctity of life, which begins at the moment of conception” about the only room for compromise is better availability of birth control methods that prevent conception (which conceivably rules out even the Pill, which can act as an abortofacient). One question I have to those who hold to the “sovereignty over my own body” position is: doesn’t that mean that Roe v. Wade encroaches on your rights? Roe, did, after all, allow restrictions on third-trimester abortions except when the abortion is to preserve a woman’s health (that last part comes from Doe). Presumably, a law that banned third-trimester abortions except when a doctor certified a danger to the woman’s health would encroach upon her sovereignty over her own body? Seems to me like Roe/Doe should be then overruled in favor of finding a right to privacy that encompasses an unfettered right to have an abortion under any circumstances up to the point where the fetus/baby no longer is part of the woman’s body (and she should not have to establish and no one should be allowed to ask if that abortion was related to her health). Or am I missing something here? ---
**Author:** ![XaMcQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f9ae1b/32.png) [@XaMcQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XaMcQ)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/173 "2008-09-17T01:54:36Z")
> [@Lissla\_Lissar](#): > > Do you think any of us actually care about the fetus? Your wording suggests that maybe some of us pro-lifers may, which surprises me, considering your stated opinion of the pro-life movement in general. > > Just curious. I think you do, and I respect your opinion. You and I just don’t agree on when a fetus becomes a person. My take on it is pretty much when it develops a brain and nervous system, therefore having a chance of being somewhat aware and able to suffer. Up till then it is a potential human to me, but an egg and sperm kept in two separate vials could be considered a potential human, but I don’t think sperm and eggs have rights. ---
**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 17, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/174 "2008-09-17T02:37:34Z")
> [@tristram](#): > > One question I have to those who hold to the “sovereignty over my own body” position is: doesn’t that mean that Roe v. Wade encroaches on your rights? Roe, did, after all, allow restrictions on third-trimester abortions except when the abortion is to preserve a woman’s health…\…Or am I missing something here? You’re not missing something. _Roe v Wade_ is not ideal and yes it encroaches on reproductive freedom. The right should extend up until the moment of birth. The mother, not a doctor, pronounces the newborn “alive”. (And it should not merely be the right of a doctor to perform this medical procedure, but reciprocally the right of any pregnant woman to have the abortion and seek out such services as will facilitate it; with sufficiently clever & careful wording, it should enable any suitably skilled practitioner of any relevant medical-arts tradition to offer abortion services, while still protecting people from being victimized by the unskilled. But I am not going to attempt to suggest such wording at this time). _Roe_, in other words, is _already a compromise_. IMHO. As I said before, it’s interesting to see what various people from various perspectives would consider a tolerable outcome. For my part, I can live with some restrictions on abortion itself if the end result is fewer people being forced to remain pregnant against their wishes, fewer unintentional pregancies, and safer/earlier abortions successfully performed more quickly. ---
**Author:** ![tristram](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@tristram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tristram)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/175 "2008-09-17T03:05:10Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > _Roe_, in other words, is _already a compromise_. Although I think if you look at Doe, and its progeny, and in particular some of the arguments that were made against the majority decision in Carhart (the “partial birth abortion” case), the “woman’s health” exception (particularly the “mental health” part that was argued to fall within that exception) swallows up most of the restrictions that Roe purportedly allowed. So I’m not so sure that Roe/Doe really is much of a compromise at all. ---
**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, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/176 "2008-09-17T03:15:10Z")
> [@Lissla\_Lissar](#): > > Do you think any of us actually care about the fetus? Your wording suggests that maybe some of us pro-lifers may, which surprises me, considering your stated opinion of the pro-life movement in general. Some tiny number is, almost inevitably. I’m sure there were a few slaveowners who actually believed that slavery was good for blacks too. > [@FriarTed](#): > > Question to the pro-choicers- > > Would you be content with a maintaining of the status quo here in the US, which if I understand it correctly is- > > first-trimester abortions, legal for any reason; > > second-trimester abortions, legal but regulated; > > third-trimester abortions, strictly restricted; > > public funding for abortions restricted; > > medical professionals & facilities free to choose whether or not they’ll > provide abortion services; > > parental-consent regulations with a clause for exceptional circumstances. No, that’s too restrictive and easily abused. And you forgot the forced “counselling” ( aka let a pro lifer rant and lie at you ) and waiting periods in many places. And the rarity of doctors who will perfom abortions, thanks to “pro life” assassins. > [@XaMcQ](#): > > **Der Tris** I suspect that a large number of pro-life people hate being lumped in with misogynist idiots about as much as I hate being lumped in with you. Then they shouldn’t be part of a misogynistic movement. That’s like joining the KKK and complaining that people assume you are racist. ---
**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, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/177 "2008-09-17T03:49:06Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Question to the pro-choicers- > > Would you be content with a maintaining of the status quo here in the US, which if I understand it correctly is- > > first-trimester abortions, legal for any reason; > > second-trimester abortions, legal but regulated; > > third-trimester abortions, strictly restricted; > > public funding for abortions restricted; > > medical professionals & facilities free to choose whether or not they’ll > provide abortion services; > > parental-consent regulations with a clause for exceptional circumstances. > > (Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of the above.) > > IF the prevailing public cultural attitude towards abortion was that it’s a nasty shameful business, although occasionally a tragic necessity, and should be discouraged, with alternatives readily available… > > which is just slightly to the right of where the cultural attitude is now. > > If otherwords, if the basic cultural status was “tragic when necessary, shameful when not, but still safe and legal.” Too restrictive. I would not restrict funding in any way at all for starters. Get rid of the parental-consent regulations. The medical freedom to choose is more difficult but I would suggest that if you are an OBY/GYN specialist you MUST provide abortions. Culturally I’d love to see the ‘shameful’ thing removed. The only person who is in a position to determine the necessity is the woman involved. On preview - pretty much what **Der Trihs** said ---
**Author:** ![XaMcQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f9ae1b/32.png) [@XaMcQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XaMcQ)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/178 "2008-09-17T04:18:44Z")
Well, folks, this has been enlightening, if very depressing. Not only are very few people willing to compromise or make concessions to the other side, it seems most people don’t even understand the other side’s concerns, or want to understand them. I wash my hands of this mess for the time being. Thanks to the few who made an effort! ---
**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 17, 2008, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/179 "2008-09-17T05:01:43Z")
> [@UnwrittenNocturne](#): > > The medical freedom to choose is more difficult but I would suggest that if you are an OBY/GYN specialist you MUST provide abortions. That seems unnecessary. I can’t agree with forcing someone to perform abortions (or any other medical procedure), though I’d withdraw all special protection for people who _don’t_ perform them, such as the Bush administration has weaselly tried to put forth. If the doctor’s employer requires a particular procedure be performed and the doctor refuses solely on moral grounds, the doctor can be fired and set up his own practice with his own policies if he wants. ---
**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, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610/180 "2008-09-17T05:25:52Z")
How about we meet half way --pull funding from those that refuse (and from any that will not supply birth control, or only to married women)? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/compromising-on-abortion/463610.md?page=10)