[W:#268]How About This Compromise?

[VanceMack]

You don’t care why I don’t like butter pecan ice cream, but you care why I don’t like abortions?

I don’t like abortions because I feel bad for the women that make that choice. And the stigma they face. It sucks that they are in situations where they have to make that choice and undergo a medical procedure or take pills and then face the bleeding, cramping, etc that will come from it.

It all just sucks.

And it sucks even more than people who have NO part in that choice and decision interject their opinions on it.

But why does it suck? And Im not trying to be difficult...but this is the crux of the matter. If the baby is just a worthless zef...a zygote...a parasite...why does that suck to have to choose to kill it?

 

[Ishm]

I don't think "compromise" is a position well supported across American politics today. The extreme crazies have become too influential.

 

[ClaraD]

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?

that is the way it was before....the cons don't want that.

 

[ClaraD]

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

I disagree. At 6 months you are 24 weeks pregnant. That is beyond viability. 20 weeks is viability. If a fetus can survive outside of the womb, abortion is not acceptable after that...unless the fetus is dying, dead, or the mother is in grave danger and the baby cannot be otherwise delivered.

 

[CLAX1911]

How one views it is irrelevant. It's about what it actually is,

then how you view it is irrelevant. An embryo does absolutely become a baby so you're killing an embryo you're killing a future baby that's 100% fact.

Not really. The unborn are not legal persons. THe law is actually quite clear on that. Science is also clear on the terminology.

no that's really a murky area legally speaking. France terms don't say that this isn't a person person who does nothing to do with science. That's an arbitrary cultural meaning.

Then he's wrong, plain and simple.

this is just your opinion because to him you are and how do you prove yourself correct

It's not about what I think or about semantics. I'm applying the proper terminology, which has specific definitions. THe unborn is not a baby/child. That's just a simple fact.

sure they are depends on what month they're in.

 

[Lursa]

I disagree. At 6 months you are 24 weeks pregnant. That is beyond viability. 20 weeks is viability. If a fetus can survive outside of the womb, abortion is not acceptable after that...unless the fetus is dying, dead, or the mother is in grave danger and the baby cannot be otherwise delivered.

No, 20 weeks is not viability.

It's ~24 weeks and that's the point where 50% survive. And of those, most are severely mentally and/or physically compromised.

 

[Liberal7360]

that is the way it was before....the cons don't want that.

Exactly.

It's Roe V. Wade.

I was hoping that if the name "Roe V Wade" was removed and the actual law posted, it might at least get some people to think.

I was wrong.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I disagree. At 6 months you are 24 weeks pregnant. That is beyond viability. 20 weeks is viability. If a fetus can survive outside of the womb, abortion is not acceptable after that...unless the fetus is dying, dead, or the mother is in grave danger and the baby cannot be otherwise delivered.

Everyone who learned the Roe vs. Wade ruling knows 20 weeks is NOT viability. The line was set at 25 weeks.

 

[Lursa]

Exactly.

It's Roe V. Wade.

I was hoping that if the name "Roe V Wade" was removed and the actual law posted, it might at least get some people to think.

I was wrong.

I posted this answer in post 8 and never got a response. Perhaps now?

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 with family, friends, work, etc), her self-determination, for the exact same things for the unborn? 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?​

 

[Cordelier]

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?

Philosophical question... can you really compromise on human rights?

If a woman doesn't have domain over her own body, then what rights does she really have?

It's like the fight for Civil Rights in the 60's.... if there was compromise on that, we'd still have "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains.

I think where it comes to human rights, you either stick to the fight down the line, even if it's 99-1 against you, or you go down fighting. There's no compromise to be had.... and if the Supreme Court had held to that viewpoint in deciding Roe, we wouldn't be in this position now. Some things just have to be decided on an "all or nothing" basis. Sometimes you've just got to shove in your whole stack of chips.

 

[BirdinHand]

But why does it suck? And Im not trying to be difficult...but this is the crux of the matter. If the baby is just a worthless zef...a zygote...a parasite...why does that suck to have to choose to kill it?

I said nothing about the baby/fetus.

The woman has to undergo a medical procedure and/or a chemical abortion. And I stated that in my reply.

That sucks.

Do you imagine either is pleasant?

You seem to think not one moment about the woman…why is that?

 

[VanceMack]

I said nothing about the baby/fetus.

The woman has to undergo a medical procedure and/or a chemical abortion.

And that sucks.

Do you imagine either is pleasant?

So its just that the woman has to take an action to kill the baby...not the actual killing of the baby that 'sucks'?

 

[Scrabaholic]

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.

Abortion at any time and w/o apology.

 

[Liberal7360]

Philosophical question... can you really compromise on human rights?

If a woman doesn't have domain over her own body, then what rights does she really have?

It's like the fight for Civil Rights in the 60's.... if there was compromise on that, we'd still have "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains.

I think where it comes to human rights, you either stick to the fight down the line, even if it's 99-1 against you, or you go down fighting. There's no compromise to be had.... and if the Supreme Court had held to that viewpoint in deciding Roe, we wouldn't be in this position now. Some things just have to be decided on an "all or nothing" basis. Sometimes you've just got to shove in your whole stack of chips.

What I posted is Roe V. Wade.

It was a compromise at the time.

It worked well for nearly 50 years.

I have always supported Roe and will continue to do so.

 

[Liberal7360]

I don't understand why some can't see that an all or nothing situation isn't going to work. In fact, it will get women killed or take their fertility from them.

Roe V. Wade worked well for nearly 50 years.

I would remove all the stupid regulations that red states have imposed on women to be able to get an abortion during Roe. Stupid stuff like vaginal ultra sounds and waiting periods etc. All of that is ridiculous and only meant to shame or inflict harm on the woman. They don't consider that women who planned pregnancies sometimes have to abort because of medical reasons and forcing them to actually have that vaginal ultra sound is just cruel. Forcing that vaginal ultra sound on any woman for any reason is cruel and should have never been allowed.

All of the ridiculous regulations red states imposed on women during Roe were cruel and never should have been allowed but the women in those states didn't stand up and go to the polls to vote those politicians out of office. So the far right believed they could do anything they wanted and would not face any consequences.

We will see if they do face any consequences this November.

An all or nothing approach gets everyone nothing.

Meanwhile, women and children will suffer.

 

[Liberal7360]

I posted this answer in post 8 and never got a response. Perhaps now?

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 with family, friends, work, etc), her self-determination, for the exact same things for the unborn? 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?​

But Roe prohibits states from banning abortion before viability and that doesn't happen before the 3rd trimester.

Roe allowed states to put some regulations on the second trimester but they can't prohibit or prevent an abortion at that time.

Roe prevents women from having their lives put at risk in all three trimesters.

What you typed happens now in red states but I've never heard of it happening in a blue state or when Roe was the law of the land.

Roe worked well for nearly 50 years. I thought if I took the name from it and posted what it actually said, the far right would be more receptive.

I was wrong.

At least they see that Roe prohibited abortion at birth. Which is so ridiculous. Abortion can't be performed at birth. After it's born it's called a homicide. Abortions in the third trimester only involve a matter of life and death or the fetus is already dead or will die soon after death. I know a few people who had to go through that. It's horrible but their lives and fertility were preserved.

I am the daughter of a woman who was an OBGYN before and after Roe. I remember what it was like. I remember my mom coming home, locking herself in her room to cry all night because she couldn't save the life of a woman who went to a butcher. I watched all those deaths take a piece of my mom.

I saw it all stop with Roe V. Wade.

 

[Cordelier]

What I posted is Roe V. Wade.

It was a compromise at the time.

It worked well for nearly 50 years.

I have always supported Roe and will continue to do so.

It "worked" for 50 years... I think it's a stretch to say it worked "well".

The way I figure it, a woman has full domain over her uterus at any time during a pregnancy or she does not. Full stop. Trying to dance around viability or any of the other compromises was never going to provide a lasting solution. It was like all of the Antebellum compromises between Slave States and Free States in the 40 years leading up to the Civil War - sooner or later there was going to be a reckoning... all they were really doing was postponing the inevitable.

 

[Gordy327]

A to the men. I agree...convenience is a terrible excuse to kill a baby.

Why? Who says? And what difference does it make?

lets stick with the first part...the inhuman drive to slaughter unborn babies in the name of convenience.

Merely your own opinion.

For the record...I am in favor of an amendment to make abortion safe, legal, and most importantly rare. Lets just not kid ourselves about what you and others have done to the sanctity of life...ALL life, including women...when you dehumanize babies so you can justify killing them in the name of convenience

If you're ok with abortion, then what difference does it make why a woman would choose to have one? More importantly, what business or concern is it of yours or anyone else's?

So its just that the woman has to take an action to kill the baby...not the actual killing of the baby that 'sucks'?

THere is no baby to kill. So your point is moot.

I get it. In order to justify the slaughter of unborn babies, you have to work really hard to dehumanize them

I get you're really desperate to sell the whole "unborn baby" nonsense and engage in emotionally charged rhetoric to do so, which only shows how weak your argument really is.

But why does it suck? And Im not trying to be difficult...but this is the crux of the matter. If the baby is just a worthless zef...a zygote...a parasite...why does that suck to have to choose to kill it?

It doesn't suck. Why would it? That's really for the pregnant women to decide for herself anyway.

 

[Gordy327]

then how you view it is irrelevant.

Yes, it is. THe difference is, I am using correct terminology with specific definitions.

An embryo does absolutely become a baby so you're killing an embryo you're killing a future baby that's 100% fact.

But it's not yet a baby and won't be until birth. THere's also no guarantee an embryo will endure the entire pregnancy either. Also 100% fact.

no that's really a murky area legally speaking. France terms don't say that this isn't a person person who does nothing to do with science. That's an arbitrary cultural meaning.

What does France have to do with our jurisprudence? In this country, the law does not recognize fetal personhood or rights.

this is just your opinion because to him you are and how do you prove yourself correct

I use correct terminology. A ZEF is not a baby. There is no baby until birth. Simple scientific fact!

sure they are depends on what month they're in.

Really? what month does a ZEF become a baby? Or a person?

 

[Liberal7360]

It "worked" for 50 years... I think it's a stretch to say it worked "well".

The way I figure it, a woman has full domain over her uterus at any time during a pregnancy or she does not. Full stop. Trying to dance around viability or any of the other compromises was never going to provide a lasting solution. It was like all of the Antebellum compromises between Slave States and Free States in the 40 years leading up to the Civil War - sooner or later there was going to be a reckoning... all they were really doing was postponing the inevitable.

Roe V Wade worked well for nearly 50 years.

I sure would like to know the name of a woman who went through most of a pregnancy only at the last couple months decide to abort a healthy fetus. It just doesn't happen. Most elective abortions happen in the first trimester.

The woman decides in the first few months to abort. Not at the end of the pregnancy. Termination at the end of the pregnancy is a 2 day process that is painful and a nightmare. The woman is going to do it when it's a matter of taking a pill or a one day procedure in a clinic. They aren't going to put themselves though a nightmare unless they have no other choice as in it's a matter of her life and death.

Roe V Wade includes termination in the last trimester for the woman's health. So if there's a problem with the pregnancy in those last months the woman's life can be saved and her fertility can be preserved.

So I see Roe V Wade as working well.

I agree. A woman should have 100% control and say over her own body no matter if she's pregnant or not.

However, women aren't cruel. We don't go through most of a pregnancy only at the end of it to decide not to give birth. Elective termination isn't needed in the last trimester because by then the woman has either already terminated or she wants to give birth.

I'm surprised so many pro choice people are so against Roe V Wade.

I'm pro choice. I support Roe V Wade.

 

[Gordy327]

Roe V Wade worked well for nearly 50 years.

I sure would like to know the name of a woman who went through most of a pregnancy only at the last couple months decide to abort a healthy fetus. It just doesn't happen. Most elective abortions happen in the first trimester.

Me too. I've challenged pro-lifers who claim that less or no restrictions on abortions will lead to a woman suddenly choosing to abort days or even minutes before birth. Such claims are more emotionally driven and beyond irrational.

I agree. A woman should have 100% control and say over her own body no matter if she's pregnant or not.

Absolutely. And everyone else should MYOB about it!

I'm pro choice. I support Roe V Wade.

As do I. If anything, Roe was itself too restrictive on abortion rights.

 

[weaver2]

An embryo does absolutely become a baby so you're killing an embryo you're killing a future baby that's 100% fact.

This is not a custard pie
4 cups whole milk
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon butter
4 eggs
½ cup white sugar
3 tablespoons cornstarch
1 9" unbaked pie shell

This is a custard pie


This is not a baby

This is a baby


There is a difference.

 

[Lursa]

But Roe prohibits states from banning abortion before viability and that doesn't happen before the 3rd trimester.

Roe allowed states to put some regulations on the second trimester but they can't prohibit or prevent an abortion at that time.

Roe prevents women from having their lives put at risk in all three trimesters.

What you typed happens now in red states but I've never heard of it happening in a blue state or when Roe was the law of the land.

Roe worked well for nearly 50 years. I thought if I took the name from it and posted what it actually said, the far right would be more receptive.

I was wrong.

At least they see that Roe prohibited abortion at birth. Which is so ridiculous. Abortion can't be performed at birth. After it's born it's called a homicide. Abortions in the third trimester only involve a matter of life and death or the fetus is already dead or will die soon after death. I know a few people who had to go through that. It's horrible but their lives and fertility were preserved.

I am the daughter of a woman who was an OBGYN before and after Roe. I remember what it was like. I remember my mom coming home, locking herself in her room to cry all night because she couldn't save the life of a woman who went to a butcher. I watched all those deaths take a piece of my mom.

I saw it all stop with Roe V. Wade.

"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." link​

It ended up being used by some states to restrict access to abortion. That was not its intent. I mentioned TRAP laws...did you look that up? So no, it didnt function well or even adequately. Some huge states ended up with only a single clinic...so women have been traveling out of state for abortions for awhile...it was closer for many.

That was with regards to the woman's safety. Period. It had nothing to do with the unborn. You seem unaware of the basis for RvW...it had little to nothing to do with the unborn but about some states denying women the much safer medical procedure. Way safer than pregnancy/childbirth.

"Coffee and Weddington brought a lawsuit on McCorvey’s behalf (who went by the alias “Jane Roe” throughout the case to protect her identity) claiming that the state’s law violated Roe’s constitutional rights. The suit claimed that, while her life was not in danger, Roe had a right to obtain an abortion in a safe, medical environment within her home state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional."​

​

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

More from RvW:

The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed.​

And after millenia of abortion being a high risk to women, medical practices improved:

It's a decision that came about once a medical procedure was proven safer than giving birth. Once abortion was a safer procedure, there was no longer any foundation for banning it electively, in the guise of 'protecting women.' The decision was not about protecting the unborn.​

 

[Lursa]

But Roe prohibits states from banning abortion before viability and that doesn't happen before the 3rd trimester.

Roe allowed states to put some regulations on the second trimester but they can't prohibit or prevent an abortion at that time.

Roe prevents women from having their lives put at risk in all three trimesters.

What you typed happens now in red states but I've never heard of it happening in a blue state or when Roe was the law of the land.

Roe worked well for nearly 50 years. I thought if I took the name from it and posted what it actually said, the far right would be more receptive.

I was wrong.

At least they see that Roe prohibited abortion at birth. Which is so ridiculous. Abortion can't be performed at birth. After it's born it's called a homicide. Abortions in the third trimester only involve a matter of life and death or the fetus is already dead or will die soon after death. I know a few people who had to go through that. It's horrible but their lives and fertility were preserved.

I am the daughter of a woman who was an OBGYN before and after Roe. I remember what it was like. I remember my mom coming home, locking herself in her room to cry all night because she couldn't save the life of a woman who went to a butcher. I watched all those deaths take a piece of my mom.

I saw it all stop with Roe V. Wade.

And this is my opinion, backed by their decisions (in post 148) (The 'legal standing and status of the unborn is fact, not opinion)

The state can and does regulate medical procedures. What legal basis does it have to deny a much safer medical procedure to women? The unborn has no legal status the state/fed is obligated to protect. It is obligated to protect women and our Const. rights.​

​

In the case of abortion the state, according to RvW, cannot deny a woman a procedure that is safer in order to protect the unborn life. The procedure is safer...there's no legal or Constitutional justification for the govt to force women to remain in more danger to save the life of another. Esp. when that the life has no legal standing that supersedes her rights.​

The state cannot compel another to donate a kidney or bone marrow (See Shimp v McFall) to save the life of another. And yet, RvW didnt use that part of the 4th Amendment, security of the person, "bodily autonomy" in its decision. It was a 'half solution.'

 

[Scrabaholic]

Abortions don't happen in bedrooms.

Some medical abortions most likely do.