[W:#268]How About This Compromise?

[Liberal7360]

Most Americans support choice.

How about a compromise?

What do the far right think of the following compromise?

First trimester a woman has the right to terminate with no regulations. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

It's very simple. It's protecting life once it gets to the point it can live outside the woman's body. With only the exception for the woman's health. That way a woman who is having a miscarriage of a very planned and wanted pregnancy, won't be denied the life saving and fertility preserving abortion she needs. Preserving her health also preserves her life so if her life is in jeopardy she isn't forced to be minutes from death before a doctor can save her life.

What is so objectionable about that compromise?

 

[mrjurrs]

Most Americans support choice.

How about a compromise?

What do the far right think of the following compromise?

First trimester a woman has the right to terminate with no regulations. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

It's very simple. It's protecting life once it gets to the point it can live outside the woman's body. With only the exception for the woman's health. That way a woman who is having a miscarriage of a very planned and wanted pregnancy, won't be denied the life saving and fertility preserving abortion she needs. Preserving her health also preserves her life so if her life is in jeopardy she isn't forced to be minutes from death before a doctor can save her life.

What is so objectionable about that compromise?

It puts the government ahead of the pregnant person.

 

[CaughtInThe]

If people who are anti-choice are saying that abortion is murder then they have no room to negotiate.

 

[Blue Dog]

It’s a reasonable compromise.

Those who believe life starts at conception are not open to such suggestions…

 

[Liberal7360]

It puts the government ahead of the pregnant person.

Are you sure?

Do you support Roe V Wade?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Unfortunately, many women don't know they are pregnant before the second trimester, so no restrictions are acceptable during the first six months.

 

[Gordy327]

What is so objectionable about that compromise?

It's not an entirely bad compromise. Although I'm sure there are those who won't even accept that. But a simple, more streamlined compromise can be, abortion is completely unrestricted prior to fetal viability and can be allowed after viability in cases of rape, incest, or maternal/fetal health issues. Best to keep the government out of it as much as possible. Also best for everyone else to mind their own business too!

 

[Lursa]

Most Americans support choice.

How about a compromise?

What do the far right think of the following compromise?

First trimester a woman has the right to terminate with no regulations. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

It's very simple. It's protecting life once it gets to the point it can live outside the woman's body. With only the exception for the woman's health. That way a woman who is having a miscarriage of a very planned and wanted pregnancy, won't be denied the life saving and fertility preserving abortion she needs. Preserving her health also preserves her life so if her life is in jeopardy she isn't forced to be minutes from death before a doctor can save her life.

What is so objectionable about that compromise?

No. Loads of stories have already come out about how, in the 2nd trimester, women's lives are put at risk due to Dr hesitation or restrictions or questions of 'how much risk' she's in.

Why should the unborn be protected at her expense, in any case, period? What justifies trading her life (everyday life), her self-determination, for the exact same things for the unborn? Why do you consider the unborn more entitled to those things? (And yes, that's what your proposal means.) You would allow the govt take away her right to consent, period.

Women have rights the govt is obligated to protect. The unborn has none. They cannot be treated equally under the law, unless you can explain how?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Most Americans support choice.

How about a compromise?

What do the far right think of the following compromise?

First trimester a woman has the right to terminate with no regulations. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

It's very simple. It's protecting life once it gets to the point it can live outside the woman's body. With only the exception for the woman's health. That way a woman who is having a miscarriage of a very planned and wanted pregnancy, won't be denied the life saving and fertility preserving abortion she needs. Preserving her health also preserves her life so if her life is in jeopardy she isn't forced to be minutes from death before a doctor can save her life.

What is so objectionable about that compromise?

The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Period!

What happens in a woman's body is her business.

Period!

Put up all the regulations you want, but it is NOT freedom of choice so strike that from your national identity if you want regulations!

Why? This is about pleasing far right Christians. The same people who want to BAN abortions are the ones who scream "Freedom" the loudest.

Religion has no place in government.

 

[gdgyva]

Abortion is one of those items where there is no middle ground

The OP is trying to find some....

But the people on both ends of the spectrum want to hear nothing about compromise

It is the same as in DC

If it is an idea generated by a D, then it must be defeated by every R
And every idea generated by an R, must be defeated by every D

There are no deal makers in DC anymore.....just partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle

I truly was hoping that with Biden we might see some changes.....but it not only isnt happening, it continues to get worse

I dont know the answer other than an ENTIRE NEW HOUSE AND SENATE....and i mean them all

And we need to shut down K street in DC and every lobbying house in Washington

It would clean out the cesspool for a little while....would it work? Maybe for a short while....

 

[Liberal7360]

Unfortunately, many women don't know they are pregnant before the second trimester, so no restrictions are acceptable during the first six months.

The compromise doesn't allow states to ban abortion in the second trimester. It allows for regulations on it but they can't outright ban it.

 

[Liberal7360]

To all those who think that the compromise is too restricting.

It's ROE V WADE. That case law ruling. Those are the compromises that are in Roe V Wade.

It worked for nearly 50 years and I support it so does most of the nation.

Roe V. Wade:

The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background

Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a T...

www.history.com

 

[Fearandloathing]

Abortion is one of those items where there is no middle ground

The OP is trying to find some....

But the people on both ends of the spectrum want to hear nothing about compromise

It is the same as in DC

If it is an idea generated by a D, then it must be defeated by every R
And every idea generated by an R, must be defeated by every D

There are no deal makers in DC anymore.....just partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle

I truly was hoping that with Biden we might see some changes.....but it not only isnt happening, it continues to get worse

I dont know the answer other than an ENTIRE NEW HOUSE AND SENATE....and i mean them all

And we need to shut down K street in DC and every lobbying house in Washington

It would clean out the cesspool for a little while....would it work? Maybe for a short while....

The status has nothing to do with unborn babies. The "war" is about not letting the 'other side' be seen to have a victory.

 

[Liberal7360]

The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Period!

What happens in a woman's body is her business.

Period!

Put up all the regulations you want, but it is NOT freedom of choice so strike that from your national identity if you want regulations!

Why? This is about pleasing far right Christians. The same people who want to BAN abortions are the ones who scream "Freedom" the loudest.

Religion has no place in government.

I support Roe V. Wade.

What I posted is Roe V. Wade.

It took the government out of our bedrooms very well for nearly 50 years and most of the nation supports it.

 

[Lursa]

The compromise doesn't allow states to ban abortion in the second trimester. It allows for regulations on it but they can't outright ban it.

And again, since there are restrictions (that's what regulations are), I direct you again to the large number of stories in the media every week about women's lives being at risk in the 2nd trimester because of those restrictions, delays, Drs unsure of how to proceed without prosecution, etc.

Women's lives are still weighed against the unborn and the govt gets the final say. Post 8 explains this.

 

[Lursa]

I support Roe V. Wade.

What I posted is Roe V. Wade.

It took the government out of our bedrooms very well for nearly 50 years and most of the nation supports it.

No it's not what RvW was. RvW allowed abortion with no restrictions up thru the 3rd trimester. However it did provide the choice to states to restrict it at viability, ~24 weeks. Many states did impose restrictions at that point, several did not.

In all cases, no states had any elective abortions of healthy, viable fetuses, no matter what the laws. Women dont electively abort healthy, viable fetuses. Why would they? Why would they suffer and sacrifice and wait all that time when at that point, they could deliver (at this point birth is safer and less painful) and make a cool $10,000 to 30,000 in a private adoption?

 

[CLAX1911]

Most Americans support choice.

How about a compromise?

What do the far right think of the following compromise?

First trimester a woman has the right to terminate with no regulations. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

It's very simple. It's protecting life once it gets to the point it can live outside the woman's body. With only the exception for the woman's health. That way a woman who is having a miscarriage of a very planned and wanted pregnancy, won't be denied the life saving and fertility preserving abortion she needs. Preserving her health also preserves her life so if her life is in jeopardy she isn't forced to be minutes from death before a doctor can save her life.

What is so objectionable about that compromise?

I think you're framing this a bit wrong. Most people support choice up to a point. The compromise should really be at what point.

Forget abortion all the way up to and including birth cuz people who support that are an extreme minority. And the 6-week heart beat bill is probably a bit too far the other way.

You're really kind of settled on 12 weeks I think that should be the compromise.

I don't think it should happen at all. Women should be treated exactly like men in this regard. If you didn't want to be a parent you should have thought about that before doing what you did that's exactly how you treat men I don't know why there has to be a double standard but I live in the world and the world is full of hypocrisy and double standards so I have to compromise.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Most Americans support choice.

How about a compromise?

What do the far right think of the following compromise?

First trimester a woman has the right to terminate with no regulations. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

It's very simple. It's protecting life once it gets to the point it can live outside the woman's body. With only the exception for the woman's health. That way a woman who is having a miscarriage of a very planned and wanted pregnancy, won't be denied the life saving and fertility preserving abortion she needs. Preserving her health also preserves her life so if her life is in jeopardy she isn't forced to be minutes from death before a doctor can save her life.

What is so objectionable about that compromise?

Sounds like Roe.

 

[MamboDervish]

Most Americans support choice.

How about this compromise? A woman has total autonomy over her own body - period.

Works for me.

 

[beefheart]

How about this: If you don't like abortion, don't get one.

Leave everyone else the hell alone.

 

[Liberal7360]

No it's not what RvW was. RvW allowed abortion with no restrictions up thru the 3rd trimester. However it did provide the choice to states to restrict it at viability, ~24 weeks. Many states did impose restrictions at that point, several did not.

In all cases, no states had any elective abortions of healthy, viable fetuses, no matter what the laws. Women dont electively abort healthy, viable fetuses. Why would they? Why would they suffer and sacrifice and wait all that time when at that point, they could deliver (at this point birth is safer and less painful) and make a cool $10,000 to 30,000 in a private adoption?

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

I couldn't find the exact document and text but all the other articles I found on it says the same thing.

Casey also says regulation without undo interference. It doesn't say a state has to regulate it. My state allows abortion up to viability. A person can't have an abortion less than 6 months after they already have had one. That is a regulation in my state but I don't know of any other restrictions here.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Liberal7360]

I think you're framing this a bit wrong. Most people support choice up to a point. The compromise should really be at what point.

Forget abortion all the way up to and including birth cuz people who support that are an extreme minority. And the 6-week heart beat bill is probably a bit too far the other way.

You're really kind of settled on 12 weeks I think that should be the compromise.

I don't think it should happen at all. Women should be treated exactly like men in this regard. If you didn't want to be a parent you should have thought about that before doing what you did that's exactly how you treat men I don't know why there has to be a double standard but I live in the world and the world is full of hypocrisy and double standards so I have to compromise.

Then you just agreed to the compromise of Roe V. Wade.

 

[Liberal7360]

Sounds like Roe.

It is.

It worked very well for nearly 50 years.

 

[Anagram]

I don't think it should happen at all. Women should be treated exactly like men in this regard. If you didn't want to be a parent you should have thought about that before doing what you did that's exactly how you treat men I don't know why there has to be a double standard but I live in the world and the world is full of hypocrisy and double standards so I have to compromise.

I don't agree that it is obviously hypocritical or a double standard. In the scenario where a woman gets an abortion, there is no child that needs to be supported. In the scenario where a woman carries a child to term and the father does not want to be a parent, there is a child to be supported. And we do not discriminate in cases where a child exists that needs support. When a woman carries a child to term but either does not want to be a parent or is a bad enough parent that the father gets primary custody, she has to pay child support in the same way a father does.

 

[CLAX1911]

Then you just agreed to the compromise of Roe V. Wade.

So if that's something you can even get me to agree on why not make an amendment? That's actually what Congress is supposed to do. They had 50 years to do it didn't lift a ****ing finger. Why?