Compromising on abortion.

Great Debates
61

It isn’t stupid. It just doesn’t work. I don’t know when the first restriction on sex before marriage was put into place, but there was probably an instance of it two hours later. Thousands of years of human history, including when the penalty was much greater than today, didn’t stop premarital sex, so I don’t see why you think teaching abstinence only classes or restricting birth control to those who are married is going to reduce the abortion rate at all.

As for pro-life groups teaching birth control., perhaps we can call Catholic methods birth control, but that is pushing it. A while back the Times had an article on how pro-life groups were already moving towards claiming that standard birth control methods were dangerous, as a prelude to trying to ban them.

I doubt many if any pro-choice people are against teaching abstinence as the best method of birth control, but teaching it as the only method is a sure-fire way of increasing the number of abortions, which is something no one wants.

62

Requiring hospitals to have at least X doctors on staff that will perform them is absolutely fine with me.

63

This is where real politics and theoretical politics clash.

Back when I was in school, we had “full” sexual education, emphasizing “safe sex.”

There ended up being STD problems, and an upsurge of oral sex, due to the structure of the program.

The abstinence portion was short and brief. The entire rest of the course focused on pregnancy- leading many of my young peers to think that if they couldn’t get pregnant, they were safe from STDs.

I have personally found most wanting abstinence education wanting it in reaction to this kind of education- but again, I live in a very liberal, progressive area where liberal ideas are the status quo.

64

In the case of pregnant women who want to get an abortion because they can’t afford to carry the child to term, but are willing to give the child up for adoption, I would support a program in which pro-life advocates registered to support the pregnant woman during her pregnancy, and then adopt the child.

This would, of course, be prone to massive abuse… perhaps limit it to one per mother? still, it’d be 7-8 months with most expenses paid by the adoptive parents, the adoptees would be able to have a child, the state would not be supporting abortions…

65

I would hope that reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies could be a cornerstone for ‘middle of the road’ approach. How would anti-abortion/pro-lifers feel about freely available contraception?

“Have a 'script for the pill? Here you go - have a handfull of condoms while you’re at it. And don’t forget this shit doesn’t work for your whole cycle while you’re on antibiotics.”

I would think that could be one of the best methods for reducing the number of abortions altogether.

66

I don’t doubt lots of sex education is done poorly. Hell, teachers can teach abstinence only education with a nudge nudge wink wink also. However, if people get STDs from oral sex, they’d get them from regular sex also, and at least we don’t have the abortion problem. As for me, I’m way too old to understand why people think oral sex isn’t sex.

67

This might be what you meant, but making being on the pill the default for girls coming of age would do wonders. Not only would it prevent unwanted pregnancy, but the very act of taking the pill would make women more aware of the issues, and maybe more likely to force boys to use the condoms that they got handed.

If a male pill ever gets developed, I’d be for that being the default also.

But I have no illusions about this being feasible today, since it would rub the sexuality of children in the faces of their parents. So many seem to want to deny this right up to the point the tummy starts swelling. Both our kids went on the pill before any hint of sexual activity, by the way. When her doctor asked my younger daughter (now 22) why she was on the pill despite not having a boyfriend, she responded “because my mother isn’t stupid.” But it won’t happen so long as the fantasy of the pure and virgin girlchild persists.

68

This.

I agree with this 110%.

69

The few friends I had in high school who went on the pill (or on Depo) experienced major side effects, mainly deep depression, anxiety attacks and weight gain. All on top of what is already a turbulent, hormonal time for teens. In theory, I’d love it if there really was a ‘magic’ pill or shot to prevent pregnancy, but they are far from magic and the consequences suck for many full-grown women.

70

Sometimes you need to change the formulation. Any first stab at any medication can have side effects. One of my daughters needed a change, in fact, but once that was done it was fine. But even given the possibility of side effects, this strategy forces the discussion, which is good in and of itself. Isn’t better for a kid to feel she can go to her parents for help before anything happens, rather than after she is already pregnant?

IUDs are another option, but they seem a bit worse in terms of side effects. And indeed, a perfect solution would be even better.

71

With the uproar over third-trimester abortions you’d think they were routine. They count forfar less than 1% of all abortions*. The vast majority of doctors who perform abortions and the vast majority of pro-Choice people would agree- when it becomes viable outside of the mother it’s a baby, and abortion at that stage almost always has extenuating circumstances. Third trimester abortions simply are not a major social problem.

That said, I think any pregnancy of more than 20 weeks there should be an advocate for the fetus as it is approaching viability.

My compromise on the issue of abortion are

*If you’re anti-abortion, don’t have one.

*Anti-abortion groups who intentionally publish misinformation (e.g. that fetuses have brain waves at 40 days) should face fines.

*Women who are identifiably emotionally distraught should not be allowed to have abortions until they have received counselling.
My own biggest ethical dilemma where abortion is whether the parent/guardian of a minor girl should be notified. OT1H, if you’re 15 and you do not want to mess up your life with an unplanned pregnancy your mother should not have the authority to force you to keep the child; OTOH, if you can’t legally get the 12 free CDs from Columbia House then how should you be considered legally of age to make that vital a decision? I’ve never made up my mind over this one.

*The 1.4% in that graph is for abortions after the 20th week, includes most of the 2nd trimester as well.

72

I understand completely, but I’ve made up my mind.

As a mom, of course I’d want to know if it was my daughter. But I can’t get behind the idea that I should be able to force her to have a baby. Or, for that matter, an abortion (and honestly, I really believe that the majority of parents, given the option, would encourage their 15 year old to abort).

73

Come on, really? You do realize that this statement is to prolife folks the moral equivalent to:

If you’re against rape, don’t rape anyone

If you’re against bashing gays, don’t bash anyone

If you’re against theft, don’t rob anyone

If you’re against drinking and driving, don’t drink and drive

If you’re against child abuse, don’t abuse children.

…so how can you pretend it’s compromise rather than a flip remark?

I like Ethilrist’s idea of sponsoring pregnant women. It would probably be a fairly successful program if anyone tried to implement it. People pour a lot of money into sponsoring poor children, and there are successful programs to sponsor elderly widows too, so this sort of program would probably appeal just as much to people who like the idea of knowing their money is going to what they consider a worthy cause.

The problem I have with this thread is it’s hard to come up with something I can think of as compromise. I’m definitely not willing to concede to a set number of abortions followed by punishment, because each and every one of those abortions is equally wrong, not just the 4th one.

For me, saying that birth control should be better and easily available isn’t a compromise, because I think that anyway. Rather than just reduce the number of abortions by punishing people or making them impossible to safely get, I’d rather we focus efforts on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in general. Sure, there would be fewer abortions then, but there would be fewer abused and unwanted babies at all too.

Then there’s the issue of gay adoption. That can’t be called a compromise either, because I think it’s a good idea already. I don’t think that religion-based adoption agencies should be forced to allow gay couples to adopt, but the state should not be allowed to discriminate against people because of their orientation or marital status. It’d be great if more gay couples and single people who wanted to were allowed to adopt.

What else is there left to compromise on?

74

I somehow doubt the rape victim, bashed gays, robbery victim, drunk driver victim, or abused child would see the equivalence. To someone who would, why use logic?

75

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?

Just for perspective from Denmark, which is often considered liberal:

In Denmark there is free abortion till the 12th week. After the 12th and until the 24th week the girl can apply to a special board for a “late abortion”, which can be granted if there is some special condition - mostly genetic faults on the foetus or if the girl is less than 15 yo. But there have to be some serious and real issue and the farther into the pregnancy the more serious the condition must be. No abortions are ever granted after the 24th week. Spontaneous abortion after the 24th week is considered a stillbirth. Late induced abortion is pretty much considered barbaric human rights abuse and reviled by everybody and connected to things like Chinese one-child programs and North Korean labour camps. Recently there was a suggestion by a doctor to lift the cut off date from the 12th to the 18th week. Not a single political party supported it. And all abortion doctors interviewed opposed it too.

(Doctors and nurses are allowed to not participate in abortions. Some areas of Denmark only allow abortion in case of rape and danger to the mother’s life)

Girls under 18 must have parental permission for abortion as for all other surgeries. This can be circumvented if there are some special considerations. This is only granted to girls of Muslim immigrants, which if the parents discover she has had sex, is in danger of her life.

76

Yes, it’s that poisoned. I consider the anti-abortion side to be as bad or worse than the Ku Klux Klan. Evil people, fighting for an evil cause. I don’t respect their position, nor do I trust them in the slightest. Why would I want to compromise with them ?

For the same reason that it’s preferable for filling in cavities to be as rare as possible. There’s nothing wrong in fixing a tooth, but it’s much better to prevent the need.

And what is the parent/guardian is the one who got the girl pregnant ? And no, telling her to go to a judge and get an exception is a bad idea, since it assumes that the judge isn’t “pro-life” and won’t either flatly deny her, or force her to beg her molesting father for an abortion ( it’s happened; the girl was murdered by her father ).

And choosing to have an abortion isn’t that “vital” a decision anyway. It’s choosing to NOT have one that has huge consequences. Choosing TO have one is about as morally complex as having your hair cut, whatever the anti-abortionists like to claim.

77

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.

For me, the abortion issue is all about control over one’s own body, and the issue of actual vs. potential. A fetus is potential life. It can’t survive outside the womb until a certain point, at which time it can be removed and placed in an incubator. Therefore, if it’s not wanted, it’s a parasite. It’s not a baby. It’s not a precious and anticipated bundle of joy. It’s a collection of cells that causes profound and potentially dangerous changes in a woman’s body, forces her to make fundamental changes in the way she lives and conducts her life, and requires her to support it.

How do the pro-life propoents feel about what the woman should do if she can’t have an abortion and simply does not want to be pregnant or bear the child? Must she stop smoking, if she gets joy from that? Must she stop drinking? Must she eat healthily, if she likes to frequent fast food restaurants? How much responsibility does this woman have to this thing inside her that she doesn’t want?

I’m not trying to be facetious here…I’m seriously asking. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a question of each individual woman (along with her doctor) must make the decision that’s best for her. In every other situation described by other posters (robbery, rape, etc.) both parties in the act are without a doubt full human beings (reprehensible ones in some cases, but still inarguably full actual human beings). To me, whether abortion is killing a child is not necessarily relevant, if the woman (a) doesn’t want the child, (b) doesn’t want to carry the child and experience the changes to her body, and (c) hasn’t got any moral compunctions about killing it. Even a premature infant, though completely helpless, can be cared for by someone who isn’t its mother. A fetus cannot. The mother is REQUIRED to care for it if she can’t have an abortion, whether she wants it or not. I don’t see how this can be forced in a free society.

78

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. Most of what I’m seeing is the same old ‘you’re murdering precious babies vs. it’s not a baby, it’s a clump of parasitic cells’ arguments. I for one have heard plenty of that. If you don’t want to participate in the spirit of the thread’s intended discussion, that’s fine. Start your own thread. If things don’t improve pretty soon, I’m going to ask the mods to shut this thread down.

79

  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.

  2. If the USA did think so, it wouldn’t be “alone”. Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion at any time during pregnancy.

80

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?