Here’s a snippet of the proposal being offered, quoted with the author’s permission:
Read through the rest of his proposal on his site.
Do you think that this idea could work? Is it possible to offer any kind of compromise that would work to eliminate or reduce the intensity of the conflict?
I think it could work if both sides were invested in their positions solely for rational reason. That not being the case for either side, at this moment compromise remains impossible.
Not really - because the two sides aren’t exactly “opposites”. Eg this would fit the pro-choice perfectly, but not the pro-life.
Because most of those of us who are pro-choice want it to be an informed choice anyway. I for one think people should hear both sides of the argument, rationally and truthfully (not sensationally though, with pictures of dead mothers or dead foetuses etc).
For people that are unequivocally “anti-abortion” (I could see how someone might determine themselves “pro-life” and include the life/death of the mother in that category, ie allow the foetus’s life to be ended to save the mothers, but not for any other reason) there is just no room for compromise.
I think another major difference between pro-life/anti-abortion and the pro-choice crowds is that the former advocates imposing their (no to abortion) choice on the rest of the world, whereas the pro-choice crowd is happy for people to make up their own minds.
However as has been mentioned before, it’s possible to be anti-abortion (on a personal level) AND pro-choice in terms of not wanting to impose your views on others, so this doesn’t always hold.
I see a few problems with this proposal.
First off, it is not much of a comprimise. It all works out to “make abortion harder”, which is a solid win for one side and a solid loss for the other.
Why should a woman- who we can assume has made a decision for some reason known to herself- have to sit through equal counseling by the other side? We don’t do this for other controversial medical procedures (cochlear implants, circumsicion, plastic surgery). The only purpose it can serve is to help the pro-life side, which may be an honerable cause but has no real place in a medical facility.
Likewise, a 24 hour waiting period has only one effect- to make getting a abortion more of a pain in the ass. Don’t you think the women involved have thought about it? Women arn’t automitons. They genereally think before their actions. 24 hours won’t change much, except to add more red tape and make it harder for people to have access to abortion. Remember, some folks are coming from out of town, or hiding their abortion from people that might abuse them. These people need abortion to be safe, legal, and fast.
And why share resources? Right now the system we have works pretty well. Women that want abortions go to the abortion clinic. Women that want to adopt go to the adoption office. Women that want conciling go to a counciler. Women that want to keep their babies stay home. Going to an abortion clinic is an active choice, and it usually means you want an abortion. The womans decision will be best served by performing the abortion.
All this proposal proposes is that pro-life people be allowed into abortion clinics and that women should be forced to jump through their hoops before they get an abortion. That doesn’t make any sense. Nobody forces every pregant woman to go to abortion clinics. They are equally able to go to a pro-life office. Imagine how absurd it’d be to have an abortion doctor hanging around adoption agencies trying to convince people to abort their kids before they are allowed to start the adoption process. It’s equally absurd the other way around.
And besides this proposal being an absurd non-comprimise, it won’t even work. Nothing will ever convince pro-lifers to stop seeking political change regarding abortion. The argument that pro-life people make isn’t that they don’t get fair representation, it is that abortion is murder. Nothing short of banning abortion is acceptable.
Nah, I don’t see this flying. IMHO, it’s not a true “compromise” but rather a very-well-stated explication of a moderate pro-choice viewpoint.
Some pro-choice folks might object to a waiting period or pro-life required counseling, but most pro-choice folks would likely be okay with it. Again, my interpretation based on what I’ve seen/know personally of that viewpoint.
Most pro-life folks would most certainly not be okay with it. They don’t view this as open to compromise, and per their viewpoint, they are right. “Would the author be willing to say murder is acceptable if it was done with full information and in a structured way?” is the likely response.
I don’t think any compromise can be reached, frankly.
If you outlaw abortion after the first trimester entirely, with major restrictions on it DURING the first trimester, I think you might find at least a sizeable chunk of pro-lifers willing to sign on, but pro-choicers running for the hills.
On the other hand, if you go with more modest restrictions, like, say a ban on “partial birth” abortions only (I say that to distinguish that from simply “any late term” abortion)… Well, we had a real-world example of the pro-choice camp finding that unacceptable just recently here.
MHO: When you’re talking about moral, philosophical, religious, emotional ideas, some issues simply aren’t open to compromise
Dang it: necessary addendum:
On the other hand, if you go with more modest restrictions, like, say a ban on “partial birth” abortions only (I say that to distinguish that from simply “any late term” abortion)… Well, we had a real-world example of the pro-choice camp finding that unacceptable just recently here. -----And the pro-life camp would view that as at best an opening salvo, not a victory and certainly not an acceptable “compromise” status quo!-----
I don’t see this as an acceptable compromise.
On the pro-choice side, I think it’s ludicrous to make a woman have to sit through a presentation of both sides POV before she can access whatever choice she requests. Why is it assumed that she hasn’t thought it through already ? Why is it assumed that she needs things spelled out for her ? Why are women being treated as if they need help to reach a reproductive decision ?Optional counselling from both sides, I have no problem with, but compulsory ? No way.
On the pro-life side, I can’t see many pro-lifers being happy with women choosing to abort, after being told that it is a living human being they will be killing. AFAIK, they don’t think the woman should have that choice, and feel that the fetus’ right to life supercedes any woman’s personal choice. (please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not intentionally trying to misrepresent)
Another problem is the abortion issue is too much pollitically wrapped up in the left’s (dem/lib) campains and issues. I don’t see them wanting to get rid of this issue as it’s too valuable to say that the latest rep/cons. canidate wants to take away your right to chose.
The problem is that the two sides counseling the patient would not have similar but opposite goals. The pro-choice side, in theory, would not have a stake in whether or not the woman has an abortion, but would be interested in giving her only the facts so she can make the choice for herself. The anti-abortion side would have one goal–stop her from having the abortion.
If the pro-life hour could be guaranteed to be reasonable and relatively free of emotional manipulation, focusing mainly on the woman’s other options, then it might fly. No Silent Scream. No talking about how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer (which is bullshit).
Even if it were perfect, it would never get past the anti-abortion side, because this process would still allow abortions to happen.
Dr. J
kanicbird: I don’t think the political right makes any less use of the issue for their purposes either… “They’re still killing babies” etc. I should know, I’m a Republican, I get the Direct Mail pieces…
I don’t think you’re wrong, BTW, I just think BOTH sides have a vested interest in keeping this political football around to kick.
This is a thinly disguised pro-choice posture. Why in the world would this satisfy a pro-lifer? An “informed” decision that results in the death of an innocent is not a “compromise.”
There is something to recommend some of the activities described, but not at the cost of accepting abortion as a reasonable choice, one that couldn’t be protested or discussed “within the political arena.” What the hell does that even mean? How would that be enforced?
Silliness dressed up as reasonableness. Anyone who opposes is against compromise, I suppose.:rolleyes:
interesting DrLizardo, though I’m sure you are correct we are in the same area (NYC) and I rarely see such adds as you claim. I have seen it many times the way I put it. I would not think it to be a good stradigy to look like you wish to take away the right of a woman to get an abortion in this neck of the woods.
Either way it looks like we’ve agreed on my main point, politically this is a good issue to keep around.
I don’t see that at all. Liberals would like nothing better than for the abortion issue to go away (with it staying legal, of course), while conservatives are the ones who persistently broach the issue.
The issue over “partial birth” abortion was raised by the Republicans mainly to score political points. Democrats were forced to choose between handing their opponents a victory and publicly taking a stand in favor of the “gruesome” procedure. Also, the Catholic Church has lately been targeting politicians who are for abortion rights and are Catholic. I’m sure they are saying “we don’t need this shit”.
It’s a “compromise” only if you define “compromise” as making both sides unhappy with no resolution of the fundamental issues.
From a pro-abortion rights standpoint, the proposal locks in the concept that women cannot be trusted to make an informed decision without having to jump through government-mandated hoops, and allows them to be harangued by anti-abortion rights advocates in what should be a medical setting where the patient’s well-being (physical and mental) is paramount.
From the standpoint of anti-abortion rights advocates, it would be unacceptable, perpetually confining their side to what amounts to low-level harassment without the hope of winning an all-out ban.
Why would that even be considered a compromise? It sounds like something that a ‘pro-choice, big-government type’ would propose, with a bunch of beurocratic nonsense and an absurd waiting period just to make the whole situation less sensible. People who are opposed to abortion don’t call themselves “pro-life” because they live professional lives, they call themselves that because they consider the fetus a person, with the same right not to be killed as anyone else. Why would this proposal be at all acceptable to them?
That’s the fundamental problem with abortion debates, a lot of people have blind spots and most people ignore the real issue of whether the fetus is a person or not. “Let the mother decide” is not even looking at the real issue, I don’t think that much of the pro-choice crowd would be in favor of allowing a mother to decide that her retarded kid is not a person, then kill him without consequence. Of course, most abortion debates are really irrelevant - Roe vs Wade makes the issue moot in the US, and it’s in the interests of elected officials in both parties to keep it around, as it allows them to take a strong stance on abortion to pick up a few votes without having to take actions on abortion with the risk of losing votes.
But hey, since this proposal includes one of the stupidest concepts written into law in recent times, the waiting period, why not go a bit more analogous with gun laws, and allow abortion as long as the person has a permit from their local Chief of Police/Sheriff, said permit being issued at the discretion of the CP/S? The legal-abortion side gets what they want, since requiring such a permit doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights, and the illegal-abortion side gets what they want, since their local CP/S can disallow local abortions. Perfect for both! (Note that that’s not a serious proposal, but that it illustrates the problems with a ‘compromise’ that gives one side most of what they want and nothing to the other side.
Something on the lines of the OP has been the law in Germany since 1992 (as a compromise between the more restrictive law in former West Germany and the more liberal law in former East Germany. The East German negotiators had got a commitment for a review of the West German law into into the unification treaty as the East German women probably wouldn’t have agreed else.)
The political effect of this compromise has been that the abortion debate (a very passionate one in West Germany from the sixties on) has become relatively quiescent. There are some vocal opponents from both directions but they cannot get a lot of people interested.
The compromise is (for normal situations where no crime or medical issue is involved):
Another part of the compromise package was that all municipialities have since had to guarantee a childcare place for every child from age three to the beginning of primary school.
It is obvious, of course, that this is philosophically unpalatable to both camps (the counseling session as an imposition on the woman on the one hand, abortion being tolerated on the other hand). But it’s not a field where campaigners can gather a large following anymore. Feminists have drifted to more rewarding battles, and opponents of abortion have mostly drifted to policies for a societal and economic climate more favorable to raising children.
Thanks for the responses. I agree that the compromise seems to be a longshot at best. I’ve actually asked the author of the piece to clarify his position and he actually claims to be very much pro-life, so I’m kind of surprised that so many people took his position to be so pro-choice.
tschild’s post was very interesting to me; if Germany has been able to implement something like this (with a three-day waiting period, no less), do you think that there would be a chance for a similar situation to succeed in America?
I suspect the major problem is that only one side in the abortion debate wants the controversy to end. That is the side that has what it wants, and would like to stop or reduce pressure for change.
Regards,
Shodan
Right. What Shodan says. With emphasis.
Darn it. I simply must learn pithy.
In order to explain in more detail why pro-lifers (such as myself) find this unnacctable, I proffer that this is simply an institutionalization of evil. That is what it means to use. That it is a formal system is irrelevant. Evil is not made less so by being banal.