The counter to that is there’s prolly someone your tissue donation could save. Hell just some of your money, less then what you paid for internet, could buy food and save a life. You’re sentencing real living humans to death. Maybe several. Should we confiscate every cent you own in the name of saving lives?
Surely a woman’s control over her own body is more important then your control over your wallet.
That’s not what I was raising.
My point was that, I think, conservatives are more concerned about abortion-as-birth-control, which it’s a terrible choice for, and liberals are more concerned with "“sex should not have that high of a cost!”
I have one: How about you don’t see “pro-lifers” as a single monolithic movement or tar them that way?
Understanding them doesn’t mean approving of them, or having any interest in compromising with them. As far as I’m concerned, these are people fighting for an evil cause, most of whom are themselves evil, and it would be wrong as well as foolish to compromise with them.
I’d not be too happy with public funding restricted. Likewise I’d be worried that a cultural attitude that it’s too nasty and shameful is the kind of thing that leads people past “Crap, i’d better not get one” and into other people taking matters into their own hands. Other than that, what you’ve put in general seems reasonable.
Well, abortion *is *a terrible choice of birth control. It’s invasive, uncomfortable, expensive, and terribly inconvenient. That’s why people don’t , as a rule, use abortion as their primary form of birth control.
And while I generally agree with the idea that bearing an unwanted child is rather a disproportionate consequence of gettin’ some, it’s still a rather wild-eyed distortion of my position, which is that my body is for *my *use and convenience, and I get to make all decisions regarding it.
You believe that a good compromise is allowing me to do what I want, as long as I’m properly chastened? That’s… quaint. But hey, if it makes you guys happy and keeps you off me, sure, I’m all kinds of broken up and ashamed about it.
That’s OK- we care as much what he thinks without us as he probably cares about what we think about him.
I don’t agree with the facilities part of this. Similar to my thoughts on Pharmacies providing birth control, I believe that a state licensed facility should provide all relevant services, with a reasonable limitation on time of availability. Individual practitioners can do what they like, but if you’re going to run a business that serves the needs of the community, you don’t get to provide only a subset of necessary services.
I’m not tarring a group, I described a tactic I’ve observed from some self-proclaimed members of that group. Do you have any actual response to my proposal?
Agreement! So we have a successful compromise. I give you this point, and you concede on everything else. 
Well I think all abortions should be regulated, but I don’t think that is what you mean as such. I really can’t answer this without knowing what you mean by regulation here, but overall, I don’t have a huge problem with the concept that the procedure should be more supervised the latter in pregnancy it occurs, not least because it is a more potentially risky procedure at that stage.
Again, I would need to know what “strictly” meant here. If it means “unavailable” then I can’t agree. If it means “unavailable for elective reasons, but available for reasons of mental or physical health, without undue hurdles” then I can see how, if I was certain it wasn’t part of a salami tactic, I might be able to go along with that.
No. Flat out no. That’s a huge stumbling block for me both on economic efficiency grounds and on moral grounds.
Tougher, but as long as the government restricts the availability of medical services through licensing, I support them ensuring that essential medical services are always available.
No. Unless the “exceptional circumstances” requirement is essentially “any time the girl does not want to tell her parents.”
Some may be but a large chunk of Prochoice people are concerned with maintain a person’s control over their own body. This is no different then freedom of speech. Except it’s alot more personal.
I want to make an analogy. Like all analogies, it may fail to correspond to the actual topic if stretched beyond its intended value, but here goes:
In discussion of the criminal justice system, where people convicted of crime are subjected to a legally mandated outcome, a common topic is "what is the PURPOSE of the sanctions? Are we out for retribution? Do we want to rehabilitate them, so they won’t do this again (recidivism prevention)? Or do we want to make an example of them, so as to deter other would-be criminals from doing this kind of thing, lest they meet the same fate?
OK with that in mind as a “Figure One” sort of thing to point to, let’s think about abortion and prochoice people. What I think many pro-life people do not tend to see, when it comes to them understanding our perspective, is our concern about deterrence.
We (at least many of us) do not want the deterrent effect of involuntary pregnancy to loom over human sexuality.
If there are simple, reasonable, affordable, and uncomplicated ways in which decently responsible teenagers and young adults can switch off pregnancy as a likely outcome, so that they can be sexual people whose choices are not dictated by fear of a pregnancy they can’t cancel, then abortion ceases to retain quite so much of its central importance in the equation. Hence the recurrent theme “Well if you pro-life folks will be with us rather than against us on birth control — making it available, making insurance companies pay for it, providing it free in schools, teaching kids how to use it, trying to rid our culture of stupid attitudes like ‘It’s more romantic if you don’t plan to have sex and just get carried away’ or ‘Only sluts use birth control’ — that would sure stop a lot of abortions” occasionally interspersed with a grudging “perhaps possibly we might even listen to you a little bit about the poor freaking fetus, some of us even find abortion itself kind of gross & icky and sad, and others that don’t still find it to be surgery with possibility of complications”…
If you are not prochoice, be aware also that, to us, it often seems like the pro-life people are directly opposed to us on this: that they do want pregnancy to have a deterrent effect on sexuality, and if not pregnancy then something else, but pregnancy is convenient, historically established in that role, and will do. Perhaps, with that not being at the forefront of your minds as the cause of either supporting or opposing legal & available abortion, you have never looked at the pro-life movement’s leadership and how it comes across if you do have that notion in the forefront of your mind. I invite you to do so. Consider the evangelical/charismatic people and consider the Catholic church people and consider the organizations. Ask yourself, if you would: what do each of these have to say about premarital sex, and have you heard any of them decry readily-available abortion on the grounds that it gives insufficient deterrence to sex? How about anything you may have heard them say about birth control?
Pointing again to our Figure One, I think the rhetoric of the prochoice movement has accused prolifers of wanting retribution: “You are out to punish women for being sexually active. You folks hate women”. In my experience communicating with prolife people, I’ve found their reaction to this accusation to be a totally bewildered “Huh?”
I think there is a difference between a desire for retribution and an unease about removing what they see as the natural deterrent risk of pregnancy; I posit that many prolifers do not want to see women punished for having sex outside of marriage (although they may consider it to be sinful), but they worry on a broad social level rather than an individual “that woman right there” level that if sex is successfully uncoupled from the risk of pregnancy, more young people would experiment with sex outside of marriage, sex would be more readily available, and that this would be a bad thing for society. Sometimes it spills over into attitudes about ‘responsibility’ that are expressed at the local level, e.g., “Well if she’s having unprotected sex, she knew the risks, I don’t see why she is entitled to be absolved of the consequences”, whereas a rape victim would get more sympathy for wishing to end the pregnancy.
You see, this is the sort of thing that makes pro-choicers think pro-lifers are mean and horrible. Making abortion “shameful” doesn’t stop women having them, it just makes it more likely they will suffer negative psychological consequences from it. You seem to be saying: if women are going to have abortions, at the very least we’re going to ensure they feel as bad as possible about it.
Nonsense. Only if there is good reason to believe that the miscarriage was the result of some sort of malfeasance.
Everyone agrees that abortion is terrible as birth control. Everyone. However it remains the case that it is an option, and there are those who consider it a better option than carrying the fetus to term and then either keeping the resulting child or giving it for adoption. Other people might disagree, but it’s really not their business - it’s not their womb we’re talking about here.
Yes, the liberals want to keep the option of abortion on the table for those who would choose to make use of it. Here’s an analogy for you: If all broken legs were left untended to healed crookedly and resulted in deformity and limping, or infection and death, it would be a better deterrent to people who might otherwise go skiing and play sports, wouldn’t it? That’s a natural consequence of taking risks that might break your leg. Yet, some irresponsponsible people would choose to the option to have a broken leg properly set by a doctor and put in a cast to heal, which is a blatant attempt to avoid the natural consequences of their irresponsible actions.
That’s the way pro-choice people see the “if you risk pregnancy you deserve it” argument.
The thing about the conservative side is that there are two separate issues being argued for, which muddies the argument. There is the notion that killing any fetus is murder, and there is the notion that all unmarried sex is bad. The question of how moral it is to kill a fetus is one argument, which can lead to calm discussion about when a fetus becomes viable or biologically sentient or whatnot, and where discussions of allowing first-term abortions but strictly regulating third term ones comes into play.
On the other hand, the notion that the conservatives think all sex is bad, and that therefore conservatives should be able to force everyone else to comply with their morals like little theocratic dictators, that notion goes over like a lead balloon and always will. And that’s the notion that is argued by the conservative “pregnancy is the cost (aka punishment) for sex” argument. The sooner the conservatives outgrow their dictatorial impulses and abandon ‘moral censure’ arguments like this, the better off we’ll all be.
Okay, and what do you propose constitutes probable cause for such reason? What act could a law enforcement officer observe that would justify further investigation? A nonpregnant woman returns from Canada? A nonpregnant woman steps out of a OB/GYN clinic? A phone tip from someone claiming to know a woman who was pregnant but now isn’t?
As I understand it, compromise can’t work if Person A has a vague notion of the issue and/or Person B has a vague (but differing) notion of the issue. A and B have to be able to spell out and negotiate specifics.
What would be good reason?
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.
There’s no compromise to be had. What we live in right now is the closest we will ever come to a compromise.
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. 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.
The pro-life side of the argument should accept birth control as a viable option.
All the more reason to not get suckered into making that kind of argument and concentrate solely on the rights of the woman.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. There’s a big difference between “not aiding in an abortion” and “not treating someone who are in the process of getting an abortion”.
Some do, just as the not-a-human-being argument is not endemic to the pro-choice side.