• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion Compromise?

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
“All mutual concession in the nature of compromise must necessarily be unwelcome to men of extreme opinions.” – Democrat Millard Filmore, December 2, 1850

Millard Filmore was celebrating the success of a series of compromises that kept slavery legal, caused the Federal Government to be in charge of capturing runaway slaves, and in return admitted California as a free state and kept slavery out of the territories of Utah and New Mexico. This got me thinking.

In a debate in Florida for the Senate seat, Charlie Crist accused his Republican opponent Marco Rubio of being radically against abortion. Crist then claimed he himself is pro-life. He is among a growing number of so-called moderate Republicans and independents who think we must compromise on abortion and not emphasize it in elections. Some Republicans suggest we compromise by allowing some early abortions in order to stop late term abortions and partial birth abortions. Here is my question, what compromise on slavery would Crist have been happy with? Is it an ok compromise to make California a free state if it means leaving people in Georgia enslaved?
Compromises on the life and death issue of abortion puts us on the wrong side of the issue no matter what side we are coming from. Abortion is contrary to the constitution, to basic human rights, and to a civilized culture. Yet the left argues that it is constitutional. As though this is some moral determining factor, the left argues that it is the law of the land, therefore it is right. Again, this echoes the moderates of a century and a half ago. Consider these words:

“I believe that involuntary servitude (slavery), as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called the ‘compromise measures,’ are strictly constitutional and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect…I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.” – Democrat Franklin Pierce, from his inauguration, 1852.

The left and the middle are portraying pro-life Republicans as radicals. Thank God for radicals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Frederick Douglas, and the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln.

Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections? Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.

May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
“A
Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections? Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.

May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.

1. Generally, why does abortion tend to follow party lines?
2. Why is there a separation of church and state?
3. Do you support the right to all people to live, or just those from conception to 9 months later? Are you against war, death penalty, rage killing, "pulling the plug", a husband giving his life for his wife...
4. Do you disagree with human interference with Divine plans such as CPR, antibiotics, surgery...
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The state shouldn't get involved with what a citizen does with the professional advice of her medical practitioner. Simple as that.
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The left and the middle are portraying pro-life Republicans as radicals. Thank God for radicals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Frederick Douglas, and the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln.

Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections? Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.

May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.

Okay - fair enough - let's apply some true conservative principles to your argument.

*There's no free ride. No free meals. No free health care. We shouldn't let these people sponge off their neighbor.

Big Government should stop forcing us to carry these little freeloaders around. Right?

Let's draw the line right here - if they can't make it on their own, sorry. And don't give me that liberal compromise "viable fetus" crap. They are all human babies. First term, second term, third term... The earlier we get them out and on their own, the better. No lungs? Can't breath? Just a bunch of liberal excuses for lazy and unmotivated.

*or* why not let states regulate and restrict late-term abortions?
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,313
Reaction score
4,928
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
their divinely-endowed right to life.

Sorry, but I can't take you seriously after reading this.

As for the 'abortion is like slavery' analogy, you are FAR from the first person to bring this up, and it is no more apt now than the last several dozen times I heard it.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,716
Reaction score
33,530
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
no.

you don't compromise in these kinds of issues. nor should you.
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Did friday ditch his/her own thread?
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,716
Reaction score
33,530
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
no.

you don't compromise in these kinds of issues. nor should you.

on further thought, i'd like to modify this.

you can tactically compromise; but strategically, you cannot.

for example, I would support a law that limited abortions, and i would support laws that require women to see sonograms prior to abortion; actions taken to reduce what i see as evil even as it allows some to remain.

but i would still push to erradicate what was left.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay - fair enough - let's apply some true conservative principles to your argument.

*There's no free ride. No free meals. No free health care. We shouldn't let these people sponge off their neighbor.

orion-albums-misc-stuff-picture67112603-abortioncartoon.jpg


hehehe
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Okay - fair enough - let's apply some true conservative principles to your argument.

*There's no free ride. No free meals. No free health care. We shouldn't let these people sponge off their neighbor.

Big Government should stop forcing us to carry these little freeloaders around. Right?

Let's draw the line right here - if they can't make it on their own, sorry. And don't give me that liberal compromise "viable fetus" crap. They are all human babies. First term, second term, third term... The earlier we get them out and on their own, the better. No lungs? Can't breath? Just a bunch of liberal excuses for lazy and unmotivated.

*or* why not let states regulate and restrict late-term abortions?


:lol:

Got a good laugh out of those two posts :2wave:
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That is a funny cartoon, but it does oversimplify. Abortion is not just an individual healthcare issue.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is a funny cartoon, but it does oversimplify. Abortion is not just an individual healthcare issue.

To you maybe, but it does involve a bunch of non-professionals trying to make medical decisions for women everywhere, and act like they have the moral high ground. :shrug:
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
To you maybe, but it does involve a bunch of non-professionals trying to make medical decisions for women everywhere, and act like they have the moral high ground. :shrug:

Well, not just to me, but to about half of American citizens (according to polling data). As far as the moral high ground: I'm also against slavery, rape, murder, theft, child labor, the death penalty, domestic violence, drug abuse, genocide, child abuse and quite a few others. Is that moral high ground as well?
 

Missed AB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,714
Reaction score
363
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That is a funny cartoon, but it does oversimplify. Abortion is not just an individual healthcare issue.

And why bother to take the time to elaborate on your point when you can score an easy post point by saying nothing at all.

You pointed out the irony a cartoon poked fun at without evaluating the entire topic in 2 cells. That was a really deep response. Where would we be without you mac. I think you need to bring back your sock puppet.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is no such thing as a compromise when it comes to abortion. Either it happens or it don't. If you're pro-life then abortion is wrong period. If you're pro-choice then abortion should be allowed. Anything inbetween is being hypocritical.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, not just to me, but to about half of American citizens (according to polling data).

We've already established that mob opinion doesn't matter when it comes to civil rights.

As far as the moral high ground: I'm also against slavery, rape, murder, theft, child labor, the death penalty, domestic violence, drug abuse, genocide, child abuse and quite a few others. Is that moral high ground as well?

Most of those issues, save for the death penalty, have very clear cut consensus within our society about the harms they cause, and that includes the opinions of the scientific community as well. Fetal personhood does not rank among them, but I suppose in your mind it does.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And why bother to take the time to elaborate on your point when you can score an easy post point by saying nothing at all.

You pointed out the irony a cartoon poked fun at without evaluating the entire topic in 2 cells. That was a really deep response. Where would we be without you mac. I think you need to bring back your sock puppet.

And your response did nothing but poke at me. Really deep indeed.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We've already established that mob opinion doesn't matter when it comes to civil rights.

Is pro-choice not mob opinion too then?

Most of those issues, save for the death penalty, have very clear cut consensus within our society about the harms they cause, and that includes the opinions of the scientific community as well. Fetal personhood does not rank among them, but I suppose in your mind it does.

All of those issues at one point in our history (some very recently) did not have clear cut consensus.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is pro-choice not mob opinion too then?

Not really since, as you say, pro-choice people are in the minority.

All of those issues at one point in our history (some very recently) did not have clear cut consensus.

That's true, but when challenged in the courts things inevitably changed. What did Roe v Wade do? It assured the privacy of women everywhere and blocked the anti-choice crowd from progressing.

The choice to abort is forward thinking and is therefore en par to the other decisions of the past.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not really since, as you say, pro-choice people are in the minority.

No, it's roughly 50/50. Each side goes up and down from year to year.

That's true, but when challenged in the courts things inevitably changed. What did Roe v Wade do? It assured the privacy of women everywhere and blocked the anti-choice crowd from progressing.

The choice to abort is forward thinking and is therefore en par to the other decisions of the past.

I see your point but disagree with the logic since it wasn't really abortion itslef that was ruled a right. It was privacy, and abortion was assumed to fall under that right.

It took years of work for genocide to be seen as a real and seperate issue due to the hard work of a very few people. Up to the point where genocide became recognized as a real and specific crime, countries were loathe to violate the soveriegnity of another nation in order to stop it. I think that (with a lot of work) forward thinking will eventually show the barbarism inherent in abortion and will eliminate it.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it's roughly 50/50. Each side goes up and down from year to year.

Then why, in other debates, do you continue to insist that there is a staunch moral majority who is against abortion? Are you retracting those claims now?

I see your point but disagree with the logic since it wasn't really abortion itslef that was ruled a right. It was privacy, and abortion was assumed to fall under that right.

Abortion can't be ruled a right because it's a medical procedure which means money and an agreement are required. If I injure my leg I do not have an enshrined right to medical treatment, but I will likely get it anyway.

SCOTUS had to weigh the rights of women with fetal viability. That is why partial birth abortions have been banned in many areas, because they tend to approach fetal viability and the likelihood that fetal suffering occurs. No such fact has been established pre-22 weeks. The body of the fetus is a shell and little else based on the lack of a cerebral cortex, and it cannot surpass the sentience of the pregnant woman in rights.

The privacy ruling means that no one can say for sure if the fetus is or isn't a person - not you, and not I - and it is relegated to the realm of subjective personal beliefs. Therefore it is no one's business what a woman does with her pregnant during this period, as it is between her and her doctor. You can pretend that your morals are based in concrete reality but they simply aren't.

Once again, I will remind you that your wish to see abortion banned is based upon the thought process that your moral and subjective beliefs should override the beliefs of everyone else and become law. Frankly there is no reason to do that. Given the subjective nature of this debate, I am pro-choice because it encompasses both the desire to not have an abortion, and the desire to have one.

The best thing you can do to honour pro-life is not have an abortion. Your control of the situation stops there, and I disagree that there will be some revolution in the future. As Jallman proved in another abortion thread, the pro-life movement has not really overturned Roe v Wade since it happened.

It took years of work for genocide to be seen as a real and seperate issue due to the hard work of a very few people. Up to the point where genocide became recognized as a real and specific crime, countries were loathe to violate the soveriegnity of another nation in order to stop it. I think that (with a lot of work) forward thinking will eventually show the barbarism inherent in abortion and will eliminate it.

The European powers were committing genocide via imperialism all the way up until the death of the British Empire. The only reason why they suddenly started caring was because the plight of the Jews gave them political leverage to recruit new allies (such as the U.S.) for WWII. In the beginning of the holocaust, few nations reacted, least of all the United States. Hitler even had support for his anti-semetic platform in Britain until war was declared, and then the propagandized lines were drawn.

After WWII, Europe had to save face and continue its anti-genocide policy, but honestly, most of the developed world doesn't care. If it did, the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia would not have happened, Bosnia would have been a much more straightforward affair, and Darfur would not be in the state it is today.

All minutiae aside, it is difficult for me to take your anti-choice arguments seriously, given that humans generally don't care about the welfare of other adults. I am not saying it's right, but... it seems like you are expecting some grand abortion enlightenment to happen. For that to take place, the human condition in general would have to become more enlightened, including honouring the sacred nature of sexuality which would prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Humans are a long way off from that, and no law you try to make will force people to change overnight. For now, abortion is a necessary evil to prevent much, much larger problems from happening.
 
Last edited:

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Are we still arguing on how we can be killing something that has not taken its first breath and is therefore not alive?
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are we still arguing on how we can be killing something that has not taken its first breath and is therefore not alive?

Yes... sigh...
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The state shouldn't get involved with what a citizen does with the professional advice of her medical practitioner. Simple as that.


I'd be perfectly okay with that statement... up until the point that the citizen and the medical practitioner conspire against a third party, to end a human life without the victim's consent.

I'd find these assertions that the unborn isn't alive, or isn't a human being, laughable if it were not so serious a matter. When you've seen ultrasounds, especially the newer ones, there is no denying what you're looking at. It isn't a lump of tissue; it is a baby.


unborn.jpg
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
“All mutual concession in the nature of compromise must necessarily be unwelcome to men of extreme opinions.” – Democrat Millard Filmore, December 2, 1850

Millard Filmore was celebrating the success of a series of compromises that kept slavery legal, caused the Federal Government to be in charge of capturing runaway slaves, and in return admitted California as a free state and kept slavery out of the territories of Utah and New Mexico. This got me thinking.

In a debate in Florida for the Senate seat, Charlie Crist accused his Republican opponent Marco Rubio of being radically against abortion. Crist then claimed he himself is pro-life. He is among a growing number of so-called moderate Republicans and independents who think we must compromise on abortion and not emphasize it in elections. Some Republicans suggest we compromise by allowing some early abortions in order to stop late term abortions and partial birth abortions. Here is my question, what compromise on slavery would Crist have been happy with? Is it an ok compromise to make California a free state if it means leaving people in Georgia enslaved?
Compromises on the life and death issue of abortion puts us on the wrong side of the issue no matter what side we are coming from. Abortion is contrary to the constitution, to basic human rights, and to a civilized culture. Yet the left argues that it is constitutional. As though this is some moral determining factor, the left argues that it is the law of the land, therefore it is right. Again, this echoes the moderates of a century and a half ago. Consider these words:

“I believe that involuntary servitude (slavery), as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called the ‘compromise measures,’ are strictly constitutional and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect…I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.” – Democrat Franklin Pierce, from his inauguration, 1852.

The left and the middle are portraying pro-life Republicans as radicals. Thank God for radicals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Frederick Douglas, and the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln.

Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections? Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.

May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.

Good - and when you come up with a working legislation that is going to actually stop abortion please let me know - It is illegal here and our rates are very little different from yours
 
Top Bottom