Will the abortion debate ever be resolved?

Great Debates
1

I’m sure this question has been asked, and thought, by many people. I am wondering if the two sides of the abortion issue can ever come together?

On one side, you have the people who truly firmly believe it’s not a baby. It’s just a clump of tissue, and by destroying it you are taking away the rights of the living breathing sentient woman who has to carry it. It’s not murder, because it doesn’t really ‘exist’ yet.

On the other hand you have the people who believe life begins at conception (or sometime before birth) and see it as murder, and there is no gray area for them.

How will we ever come together? Personally I don’t see why we can’t live and let live; i.e., if you don’t believe in abortion don’t have one but don’t take away everyone else’s rights. I mean, no one’s making you have an abortion. The pro-choice people might be able to deal with this but many right-to-lifers will never ever accept this.

So where is the common ground? How do we come together on this? Will we ever come together?

2

We won’t.

3

From a political standpoint, it is as close to being resolved as it’s ever going to get. The conservatives who are pro-life have come to realize that this issue is not winnable for them. The majority of Americans want abortions tobe legal and they know that by attacking abortion rights they are committing political suicide.

It’s possible that Bush or another republican president would put in Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v Wade, but unlikely.

Even if that happens it’s extremely unlikely that states would start banning abortion.

(For the record, I’m pro-choice.)

4

People will always have differing beliefs. What do you mean by “come together”? If by that you mean every person in the country will have exactly the same belief - no, I don’t think that will ever happen. I don’t think anyone believes abortions are good, just that the right to decide belongs to the individual, not the government. And I do think that in the long run, civil-rights always trump religion eventually in the U.S.; sometimes it just takes awhile. So while there’s currently an anti-abortion backlash, I don’t think it’ll ever permanently take hold.

5

Your common ground is the pro-choice position? Why would pro-life people see this as any type of common ground position?

Also, on the one hand you acknowledge that people really truly believe that it is a living human and yet you want them to hold this belief and just look away? If I truly believed that people with red hair were not real humans, would you just look the other way as I killed people with red hair since I wasn’t forcing you to kill people with read hair? Would this be a common ground solution?

6

I believe that if Roe vs Wade were banned our country would become even more bitterly divided. Just like we used to have free states and slave states, we will have “pro-choice” states and “pro-life” states. And just like with slavery we’d have desperate people crossing state lines to evade the laws of their home state.

It would not be a pretty sight.

7

Did I say banned? I meant overturned. :o

8

I actually think the Republican leaders are genuinely happy Roe v. Wade hasn’t been overturned. If it ever is, then they will be forced either to piss off the religious right, or the majority of Americans who want abortion legal. At the moment, most who want abortion legal don’t think the Republicans will actually do anything to stop it. And the Pubs can tell the religious right that because of the Supreme Court, at the moment they just can’t deliever.

9

I don’t think this really accurately represents the views of the ‘two sides’, but rather the views of possibly a small minority of individuals who choose to inhabit the extremities. They are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconciled without changing their minds.

10

i firmly believe that my body is none of your (not you personally, but you know :slight_smile: ) business.

11

Some states would!

Actually, its remarkable to me how many people give lip service to being pro-life but are de facto pro-choice. I.e., if it (pregnancy) happens to them or someone they are close to, they support the abortion. For example, John McCain’s answer to Keyes (IIRC) during the Republican candidate debates back in early 2000 was honest in this regard. Also, there are a lot of stories of doctors who perform abortions seeing people in their clinic they had previously seen outside with signs, protesting.

Basically, a serious Republican candidate is going to have to pay lip service to pro-life causes to get a Repub nomination, but they’ll lose their attempt at reelection if they try to do anything substantive about it.

Of course there is a group that will always think abortion is murder.

I say that it is essentially unresolvable for the reasons Debaser mentions, but also because the arguments for banning abortions (i.e. that abortion = murder) are based primarily on religious ideology. Until science can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus is conscious and rational in a way the law can recognize, while it is in the womb the decision is legally going to remain the individual woman’s choice. And rightly so, in my opinion.

The saddest part of all is that it is abundantly clear that this is the one main issue that causes so many Christians to think they have to vote GOP.

12

The Center for Reproductive Rights said today that if Roe vs Wade were overturned, 21 states would be highly likely to ban abortion, 9 would be moderately likely, and 20 would be at low risk of banning it.

The states likely to ban abortion:

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Middle Risk: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

Low Risk: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

13

I’m pro-choice, and I can’t say I believe this. I don’t know when a foetus gets to the point where its actually a human. At conception? That’s a bit weird to think about. However, I’ve never understood the difference between a woman who gets a third trimester abortion, or a woman who births her baby and then sticks it in a garbage can. There’s just not a lot of difference in the aftermath, IMO.

However, I do know that in life we sometimes have to make difficult choices regarding those who live and those who do not. Its quite often the case that aborting a foetus saves the mother’s life/emotional well-being/sanity, or the lives of her family, or what-have-you. Every woman’s situation is different, and I refuse to sit in judgement of that woman’s decision. I’d like to think its not the sort of decision that would be made flippantly.

I think I do believe that abortion is murder of a sort, but its justifiable murder, given the scenario.

14

I’ve long thought that the only way it will ever get resolved is if abortion is not practiced in this country because it is no longer necessary. That is, all pregnancies are welcomed and wanted by the parents. That would both sides would have their end-goal (though I’d bet that pro-lifers would want it banned even if absolutley no one was doing it anyway).
I’m not sure how this fantasy land could ever come to exist though, maybe some type of pregnancy repressive hormone that is 100% safe and effective ( :dubious: ) and can be “turned off” when the person wants to become a parent. This course, could lead to some nasty new areas to fight over (prove financial stability, emotional state before you can do it; even eugenic type stuff).

So, no, I don’t think it ever will be resolved.

I also agree that the GOP has no real interest in overturning Roe v. Wade anyway. It’s the primary reason they’ve swept to power over the last 25 or so years.

15

I appreciate this level of honesty.

In fact, until I stumbled upon this message board, every person who I’ve ever encountered took the position that the fetus had not achieved “human” status; that it is simply “tissue mass.” (and other benign terms)

But I’ve noticed several times here, in related threads, people (pro-choice) who either implicitly, or even explicitly, acknowledge the fetus as a human life. That’s remarkable to me.

For people who are opposed to abortion, it is indeed murder. Yet, I find nothing in your post that distinguishes this type of murder as “justifiable.” If the fetus is indeed a child, there is little justification for the millions of babies that are yanked from their mother’s wombs each year. For most, it’s simply an issue of convenience. As one poster here put it, “Stop me from an abortion and I have an unwanted baby on my hands.”

We live in a time when many people have abandoned any sense of personal responsibility. Abortion is a convenient way to evade the consequences of one’s choices. In that respect, I am “Pro Choice”; I believe you have every right to choose to have sex with anyone you choose. You’re free to act as recklessly as you wish. But if you create a baby in the process–a human being–you better stand up and take responsibility for your choices.

Your statement,* “However, I’ve never understood the difference between a woman who gets a third trimester abortion, or a woman who births her baby and then sticks it in a garbage can”*, is a powerful one, and although I’m sure you didn’t mean to support those who view fetuses as children, it accurately captures the views of many of us. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

16

Yeah, common ground is possible, if not particularly likely:

Element 1: Someone develops, releases, and successfully markets a birth control modality that works by default (like the Norplant implants), that is generally noninvasive of anyone’s body / no significant side effects (like condoms), that is extremely reliable (like a vasectomy), that works on either sex (like nothing we’ve got), is safe to use on your kids from the time they are 10, and which, in order to reverse it and establish fertility, takes an act of will by both partners. In short, sex no longer causes pregnancy — only sex plus turning off your birth control causes pregnancy.

Element 2: Medical science develops and perfects the ability to remove a fertilized egg cell, embryo, or fetus from the uterus intact and alive and maintain it in an artificial environment until it is viable on its own, and through a combination of technological refinements and economies of scale gets the cost down.

Element 3: The political-social environment accomodates the necessary shifts in attitude, policy, and program to cause it to be pretty much socially unacceptable to not have your kids on birth control from long before they could reasonably be fertile until they’re old enough to make the decision themselves, without it becoming “cool” and “edgy” for teenagers to rebel by turning it off; and to fund keeping embryos and fetuses alive via artificial environment, or at least come close enough to full funding to offset any tendency of pregnant women to seek black-market abortions as an alternative.

You get those three pieces together, you have no abortions and no call or desire for them. Or none of either to speak of, at any rate.

Meanwhile, although I’m loath to wade back into the pissed-in waters of the standard debate, I have to correct this impression:

Don’t posit that all pro-choice people believe that, or that a valid pro-choice sentiment depends on that viewpoint. That’s called a “Straw Man” argument.

17

Not exactly. Yes, some pro-abortion rights people believe this. A few, like me, believe that it doesn’t matter if it’s a baby or not, that no one gets to use another person’s body without the express written permission of the office of the commissioner of baseball… wait, that’s not it… without the permission of the person whose body is being used.

Which means that abortion isn’t about killing the embryo/fetus, but about removing it. Which, additionally means, for many of us, that were the technology available to remove the embryo/fetus without harming it, that should be strongly encouraged.

18

I don’t think there is possible common ground.

In Brazil they are having a hard time with the church and religious movements being against the “abortion” of fetuses with no brains ! They claim they are alive and they only die minutes after birth. If they think its reasonable for a woman to maintain a condemned baby alive… where is the common ground ? I know most pro-lifers aren’t that radical… but the issue gets way to much attention and the positions tend to radicalize. Pro-choice should be against advanced pregnancy abortions for example… but they still stopped it in congress. Neither side wanting to budge an inch…

As for overturning Roe vs Wade… its not that impossible. If states are allowed to ban then being pro-life means sending “problems” elsewhere. Your state doesn’t allow abortions ? Go to the neigboring state. Pro-lifers can feel smug about not having “murder” in their area. Making abortion illegal just means sending it underground… not much change.

Women please answer... if you wanted to abort, would you NOT do an abortion if it were illegal ? Would you submit to an illegal operation if you wanted an abortion ? Probably yes. The illegality of it only complicates matters... it doesn't change many minds.

 Still a "armistice" would be nice... an acceptable middle ground. The way the issue is used as political ammunition does nothing to help americans or any other nation.
19

Here is a question to consider, that is relevent to the debate - is there any difference in the birth rate between people who are pro-abortion and those who are anti-abortion? One would think that people who are pro-choice would be more likely to have an abortion, and maybe then have fewer kids overall. Since most children tend to have similar politcal views as their parents, this could over the long run lead to pro-lifers being a solid majority.

20

I see the opposite… children not tending to have similar political views. Unless they stay in the same socio-economic situtation. Education and religion determine abortion positions… not parents… IMHO. Though parents can be a big factor in both.