Abortion - room for common ground?

[HouseApe]

The purpose of this thread is to determine if it is possible for pro-life & pro-choice people to find common ground on abortion. I think the very purpose of political parties is to divide people. I think most of us could find common ground on this issue if left to our own devices, being reasonable, intelligent and caring human beings.

My stance. I am pro-choice. My stance on abortion is that there is a tension between the value of the life of a fetus and the liberty of a pregnant woman. I naturally dislike the taking of any life, and I naturally dislike the denial of liberty. I recognize that a fetus is genetically human. I also recognize that a brain dead person is genetically human. I would not require that we maintain the life of a brain dead person at the expense of the liberty of said person's family and the rest of society, nor would I require the maintenance of life of a brain dead fetus at the expense of the liberty of a woman.

That being said, I also do not like the fact that some woman use abortion as a first line of birth control. I am sure it is rare, but I think it does happen. I am not sure why I don't like it, but I do. I think it has something to do with condoning irresponsible behaviour.

As a starting point for common ground, I would like to throw out a few ideas. The need for abortion starts with an unwanted pregnancy. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, there would be very, very few abortions. Just those associated with a high risk to the health of the mother. I would like to see the government mandate sex education, focusing first on abstinence and the responsibility of pregnancy along with the danger of STD's, followed by the responsible use of birth control. This would be done at a level sufficient to insure teenagers really understand what they are getting into. Secondly, I would like to see the government subsidize a large scale effort to provide improved birth control mechanisms, as well as subsidize the price of birth control mechanisms. All of this would include things like the morning after pill.

Once women are "without excuse", I would consider criminalizing abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and deleterious health consequences.

Is anyone else willing to compromise? Under what scenario? Or are you in the all or nothing camp?

 

[Blessed2003]

The purpose of this thread is to determine if it is possible for pro-life & pro-choice people to find common ground on abortion. I think the very purpose of political parties is to divide people. I think most of us could find common ground on this issue if left to our own devices, being reasonable, intelligent and caring human beings.

My stance. I am pro-choice. My stance on abortion is that there is a tension between the value of the life of a fetus and the liberty of a pregnant woman. I naturally dislike the taking of any life, and I naturally dislike the denial of liberty. I recognize that a fetus is genetically human. I also recognize that a brain dead person is genetically human. I would not require that we maintain the life of a brain dead person at the expense of the liberty of said person's family and the rest of society, nor would I require the maintenance of life of a brain dead fetus at the expense of the liberty of a woman.

That being said, I also do not like the fact that some woman use abortion as a first line of birth control. I am sure it is rare, but I think it does happen. I am not sure why I don't like it, but I do. I think it has something to do with condoning irresponsible behaviour.

As a starting point for common ground, I would like to throw out a few ideas. The need for abortion starts with an unwanted pregnancy. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, there would be very, very few abortions. Just those associated with a high risk to the health of the mother. I would like to see the government mandate sex education, focusing first on abstinence and the responsibility of pregnancy along with the danger of STD's, followed by the responsible use of birth control. This would be done at a level sufficient to insure teenagers really understand what they are getting into. Secondly, I would like to see the government subsidize a large scale effort to provide improved birth control mechanisms, as well as subsidize the price of birth control mechanisms. All of this would include things like the morning after pill.

Once women are "without excuse", I would consider criminalizing abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and deleterious health consequences.

Is anyone else willing to compromise? Under what scenario? Or are you in the all or nothing camp?

I am torn on this issue HA!
I am in the camp of all or nothing, as of right now, because I am seeing it from my own perspective. I've never had an abortion, nor do I conceive me having one, but I've only walked my own shoes, so to speak.

I believe all life is a gift, not an accident. Which is where I start from. In my opinion if the fetus was planted in the womb it is not there by default, but I also know there are plenty of instances where the life of the Mother might be in danger, or the child is severely deformed, would that make a difference? I don't know?

I'm interested in hearing what everyone else has to say.

Blessings,
B

 

[California Tim]

In order for a pro-lifer like me to compromise, I would have to sanction murder. The very foundation of the pro-life argument is that the fetus is a human being endowed with inalienable rights - just like the mother. Since the baby is not in a position to defend itself, it is encumbent upon others to carry his/her defense. Let's just say I'll compromise this far: I'm a pro-choicer too in that I feel the woman has a right to choose - right up until conception. In otherwords if you don't want a baby, then don't put yourself in a position to conceive. After that, all bets are off.

 

[HouseApe]

In order for a pro-lifer like me to compromise, I would have to sanction murder. The very foundation of the pro-life argument is that the fetus is a human being endowed with inalienable rights - just like the mother. Since the baby is not in a position to defend itself, it is encumbent upon others to carry his/her defense. Let's just say I'll compromise this far: I'm a pro-choicer too in that I feel the woman has a right to choose - right up until conception. In otherwords if you don't want a baby, then don't put yourself in a position to conceive. After that, all bets are off.

How many abortions will be committed this year? Would stopping even one of those be of value to you? What happens if abortion is never criminalized simply because of your all or nothing attitude? Aren't you concerned that your all or nothing attitude might be responsible for keeping the pure number of abortions so high?

If pro-choicers are left with nothing, you have a huge fight on your hands. One I am going to bet you won't win. But if you compromised, you might save millions of people from having abortions.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

How many abortions will be committed this year? Would stopping even one of those be of value to you? What happens if abortion is never criminalized simply because of your all or nothing attitude? Aren't you concerned that your all or nothing attitude might be responsible for keeping the pure number of abortions so high?

If pro-choicers are left with nothing, you have a huge fight on your hands. One I am going to bet you won't win. But if you compromised, you might save millions of people from having abortions.

Let me point out that it doesn't HAVE to be an all or nothing vs. a compromise in my values issue for someone like me.


The weaker tributaries will be systematically tackled:
Late-term abortion/partial birth abortion - no medical reason for this practice. The reason it failed in its accepted ban was because there was a "theoretical possibility" that it may be needed given extremely unlikely circumstances.

Abortion across state-lines or without parental consent - by passes accountability and parental rights.

There is probably a broke-down listing of the finer 'types' or sub-issues, but the battle over this subject is far from over and you are forgetting that the group that mostly holds this as wrong is one that maintains hope against the odds.

On a personal note, I would say that compromise in values is the mantra of the weak willed and moan of the falling. I don't know if that has been said before, but I find it to be true.

 

[Billnew]

Room for comon ground?

Anti abortion view:Abortion is killing a baby.

Pro-choice: A person has the right to choose for herself, abortion on demand anytime any reason.

Not much comon ground. Seems like polar opposites.

I, too am in the middle, alot farther towards anti-abortion then I use to be.
But I support abortion for only limited reasons:
1.to save the life of the mother.(and Baby should not be harmed unless absolutely neccessary)
2.rape or incest
3.a fetus so deformed as not to be viable outside the womb.(by obvious means.)

I would settle for abortion in only the first half of preganacy. But I am not an activist.
And I think mandatory teaching on birth control should be required prior to doing the procedure. To prevent the next pregnancy, instead of post conception contraception.

I use to be of the opinion that it was up to the woman to choose for herself. It's her body. But my opinion changed when I found Jesus.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

But my opinion changed when I found Jesus.

 

[psalms 91]

compromise where values is concerned, biblical i mean, is a trick of the devil. he wants christians to back away and give a little and then the next time uit becomes easier and easier to give more and more. pure and simple life is life. god says that he knew us before we were concieved so it is a no brainer for me to say life begins at conception. it is not about winning or losing but about upholding gods standards even when everyone else is not.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

How many abortions will be committed this year? Would stopping even one of those be of value to you? What happens if abortion is never criminalized simply because of your all or nothing attitude? Aren't you concerned that your all or nothing attitude might be responsible for keeping the pure number of abortions so high?

Oh, how sad... the pro-life side has NOTHING to be guilty of - they didn't CHOOSE to kill the life.

 

[Phred]

Late-term abortion/partial birth abortion - no medical reason for this practice. The reason it failed in its accepted ban was because there was a "theoretical possibility" that it may be needed given extremely unlikely circumstances.

I understand the Dilation and Extraction (partial birth abortion is a marketing term used by one side of the debate) procedure to have had a foundation in necessity. Have you ever heard of hydroencephalitis? A fetus never grows a brain. Inside the skull is simply spinal fluid. The size of this skull prevents natural delivery, it becomes too large. To avoid a c-section this procedure is carried out.

Now, avoiding the entire abortion on demand issue and speaking only to this one procedure. Why ban it? Doesn't a ban on this just succeed in forcing a woman to have a more risky c-section to deliver a doomed child and prolong the agony of having conceived such a child?

.
​

 

[HouseApe]

On a personal note, I would say that compromise in values is the mantra of the weak willed and moan of the falling. I don't know if that has been said before, but I find it to be true.

If your value is to minimize the number of abortions, then compromise is necessary. If your value is to force your values on others, then I can see your point.

 

[:æ:]

In otherwords if you don't want a baby, then don't put yourself in a position to conceive. After that, all bets are off.

That reasoning simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Putting one's self in a position to have his rights violated does not amount to a waiver of one's rights. Inviting a person into one's home does not imply consent to have one's property burgled, for example. Driving a car is not the same as consenting to being hit by another driver. Likewise, having a sexual encounter does not imply consent to become and remain pregnant.

:æ:

 

[psalms 91]

ae, i would say that when you have sex and are aware that one of the consequences is getting pregnant then i fail to see how that gives someone the right to kill in order to avoid a consequence that they consider bad.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I understand the Dilation and Extraction (partial birth abortion is a marketing term used by one side of the debate) procedure to have had a foundation in necessity. Have you ever heard of hydroencephalitis? A fetus never grows a brain. Inside the skull is simply spinal fluid. The size of this skull prevents natural delivery, it becomes too large. To avoid a c-section this procedure is carried out.

Now, avoiding the entire abortion on demand issue and speaking only to this one procedure. Why ban it? Doesn't a ban on this just succeed in forcing a woman to have a more risky c-section to deliver a doomed child and prolong the agony of having conceived such a child?

This false premise would only work on the unlearned. Perhaps you would like to submit the imaginary evidence that states that this 'condition of circumstances' is the pre-requisite for the procedure. I won't hold my breath.
Thank you for the demonstration of how the improbable has been used to justify and obscure the whole. Now, if you would like to talk about the adding REQUIREMENTS that would allow this procedure, then we could discuss legitimately.

 

[christzen]

Common ground? Among Christians? or in the U.S.? Two very different groups and rationale.

========
For you Pro-lifers:

"You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours.... To unplug you would be to kill him.... remember.... all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons."

Have your rights been violated if you did not invite being attached to the violinist?

Have your rights been violated if you engaged in an activity which might inadvertently lead to being attached to the violinist?"

=======
For you pro-choice Christians:

What passages of scripture do you rely on to support your view that a Christian has a right to choose?

 

[The Seeker]

IMO, abortion is a medical decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. It's nobody else's business.

 

[psalms 91]

another inane analogy that has no bearing on the true argument.

 

[christzen]

another inane analogy that has no bearing on the true argument.

It has every bearing on the argument if the argument is one of law and an individual's natural rights.

If the argument is one of scripture, then I ask all pro-lifers to stand up and abide by ALL of the decrees found in the bible. Not just those they are comfortable with, but all.

And I'll cite them here for you:

Polygamy allowed
Slavery Recognized
Genocide permissible
Short hair for women disallowed
Head coverings for women mandated
Capital Punishment allowed
Sexual Slavery allowed
Divorce disallowed except in cases of adultery

 

[:æ:]

ae, i would say that when you have sex and are aware that one of the consequences is getting pregnant then i fail to see how that gives someone the right to kill in order to avoid a consequence that they consider bad.

No, what is noticably absent is a reason to equate awareness of a possible (but statistically unlikely) consequence of one's actions to culpability for that consequence. Moreover, why should that be a basis to deny a person their fundamental right to bodily integrity, and forcefully submit them to a being that lacks personhood? In dubio pro libertate.

:æ:

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It has every bearing on the argument if the argument is one of law.

No it doesn't. It is a false premise and one that avoids any relevancy in comparison. Your 'little scenario' is void of cause and effect - unless you think that people are so ignorant in thinking that 'going to sleep' causes dependancy of life FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Your cute little scenario is void of specific action may bring about effect and fails to specify a time limited dependancy. One can go on, but those are sufficient to negate your whole.

If the argument is one of scripture, then I ask all pro-lifers to stand up and abide by ALL of the decrees found in the bible. Not just those they are comfortable with, but all.

And I'll cite them here for you:

A bit presumptuous of you to assume that I don't abide in the Spirit. Good luck on becoming the accuser, I thought that position already was filled but I see you are eager to become him. You may wish to reconsider your alleged 'platform'.