Pro Life, Pro Choice, Compromise?

Question

Would you compromise so as to come to an agreement or will you never compromise and let this "issue" go on and on? If you are willing to compromise, what would be your middle ground plan?

My plan is this, it's rough still, and need to address other parts of it but the basis is this. Abortion will not be illegal at all because this may cause other problems such as an increase death/injuries to women by back alley abortions. It will be regulated though, to were after a certain time of pregnancy a woman cannot have an abortion. Before an Abortion is seen as an option, there should be many other options refered to the woman. Under 18 will need consent of parents, and there will be a limit to how many abortions a woman is permitted as to not let women have let's say 5 abortions in 2 months. Well it's kinda hard, I'm still thinking about it, what about you?

Answer 1

It is cool and says a lot about you that you are even trying to bring the two sides together. There is nothing wrong with trying to encourage the two groups to put down their rhetoric and try get along. Sadly, I can't help feel that what you are doing is ultimately futile.

The two positions, pro-life and pro-choice are fairly intractable and usually devolve into people screaming at each other. This makes me think that, as the subject is currently "debated" in our culture, there can be no compromise.

Here's what I think I've pieced together:

For religious pro-lifers, the bible dictates that all life is sacred. So, if it is the world of God, what choice for compromise to they really have? Anything stepping away from "Its a child not a choice" and "God said it and I believe it and that's that" is a betrayal of their religious beliefs.

I am not religious. If I were to pray to Jesus it would be for protection from his followers. So for me the issue is really about who is going to decide what a woman can do with her body. True pro-lifers seem to want the government to dictate that no abortions are to be permitted or very few in limited circumstances such as rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Cloaked in protecting the "pre-born," the hardcore pro-lifers would tell pro-choicers (1) what they can and cannot do, and (2) they would have the federal government step in and make it the law of the land.

Pro-Choicers, often wrongfully described as being pro-abortion, want protection from such government interference in what they perceived as a fundamental, if not constitutionally mandated, right to privacy. In this way, for the hardcore pro-choicer, the woman can decide for herself what to do with her body free from government interference. As I understand their position, their argument is about who should make the choice, even if the ultimate choice is to not have an abortion.

Here's where I am going to get into trouble:

It seems to me that any pro-lifer who is willing to make an exception for rape, incest or the life of the mother is really pro-choice although they would never, ever have an abortion. Accordingly, because true choice includes the freedom to say no, I believe the compromise position would be the pro-choice position until the goverment starts telling religious people they must have abortions.

Of course I fully expect to get yelled at by both sides for what I have written -- these are enlightened times after all. LOL

Answer 2

Well, I am extremely pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception. However, we are not getting anywhere very fast with all the angry rhetoric being shot back and forth from people on both sides of the issue. I would consider a compromise to be at least a step in the right direction, that might eventually lead to a better solution down the road.

So, with that frame of mind, I'd say that your compromise idea is pretty reasonable, especially the part about underaged minor children needing parental consent.

It is an extremely tough issue, and it's interesting to read someone else's ideas on how to find middle ground. While I am anti abortion and would prefer it be illegal across the board, I would think any compromise that reduces the number of abortions would be a good thing.

Answer 3

Nope. I'm pro-choice because I believe my human rights are more important than a self centered moron's imaginary depeiction of something inside of my body.
Also.

A) Already, the vast majority of abortions take place before 12 weeks. Afterwards is usually medical emergency followed by people unable to get to a clinic or afford one or who didn't know they were pregnant. By 16 weeks it's all medical emergency, you'll be hard pressed to find a doctor legally doing abortion for other reasons by that point.
B.) Already, kids need parental consent unless they go through courts.
C.) No one has 5 abortions in 2 months. Abortion is expencive, not comfortable, and rarely asseccible for most. It would be like buying a car every time you need a tank of gas. Not to mention, many people would have to deal with pro-life terrorists.
D.) Being legal means nothing when people can't get the care they need.

Answer 4

That's pretty much the current law. As per the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), states can regulate abortion provided they don't impose an "undue burden", meaning that as long as the woman still can exercise her right to make her choice.

The thing about the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing entirely unrelated issues. Pro-life people say "abortion is bad". Pro-choice advocates say "The government not should be making personal decisions that like". It's not about abortion. It's about WHO gets to make the decisions.

Answer 5

Either a human is a human, or it isn't. It is either murder, or it isn't. Where is the compromise?

Does your DNA define you as a human being or as some other animal? If your DNA defines you as a human, then what does it matter if you are 1 day old, 2 weeks old, or 12 years old? I can literally do a DNA test on you 1 minute after conception, 1 year after birth, and 100 years after birth, and the DNA will be the exact same. Why is it ok to kill to kill a human based on nothing but age?

You can make this a religous argument, or a scientific argument. Both clearly and undeniably prove the humanity of a child and killing that child is murder by any definition.

It is not a woman's body. It is the woman's body AND the child's body. They are two seperate individuals (again proven by DNA). You have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. You do not have the right to murder your child just because it is inside of you instead of outside.

Answer 6

No compromise. That's like saying it's wrong to shoot someone, unless they don't know it's you, or unless they are blonde, or unless they have a learning disability. Then it's okay.

Killing unborn babies is wrong, period. The defense about back alley abortions is just a smoke screen. What you are saying is that, if there is a law, people will break the law, therefore there should be no law. Back to my example above. There will always be murder, and since it's illegal, people have to take more risk to commit murder. Therefore, to protect the murderer, should we get rid of the law against it?

There's just no defense for abortion.

If a doctor thinks that the mother's life is in danger, then they should perform an emergency c-section and try to save them both.

What a sad world we live in where the liberals won't protect the lives of people who are inconvenient to others, and where men and women won't take responsibility for their sexual acts.


EDIT: Additional comments: It is bitter irony indeed that the left, who wants government to control every aspect of life, shouts so loudly that they have no business 'legislating a woman's morality' or 'taking the decision away' from a woman about 'what she does with her own body'. These are the same people who demand helmet laws, seat belt laws, higher drinking age, limit your free speech if it offends them.

And that conservatives, who claim that less gov't is always better, are pushing for the gov't to limit or ban abortion. Odd, eh?

The bottom line here though is that abortion is not a victimless act. A baby dies in the process. And don't tell me that's better than having the baby die and then be thrown in a dumpster. Can you imagine my claiming to be innocent of murder when I admit to shooting someone in the back, but my defense is, Well at least I didn't tie them up and slowly carve them to death with a rusty pocket knife? So set me free.

Answer 7

abortion is murder unless you have a really good reason such as your a rape victim or the baby is going to die and the chance of the mother death if she gives birth. to all the young ladies who want to act like women there are other options theres the safe haven law where you can take that baby to a hospital fire station church police station they do have options most girls have abortions so there moms and dads dont find out their having sex parents as a hole should be teaching their kids more about what they can do if you think your daughter is having sex put her on the pill push condoms let them know if your gonna do it be safe about it your right abortion will never stop but with the help of the parents the numbers could come down more and more every year

Answer 8

No compromise at all. Save if the woman's life is in danger. That only happens in 1 in 100000 births. I mean really in danger. Like she may die if the baby is not aborted. Other than that there is no reason to ever take a life. As far as the back alley abortions when they show up to the hospital for treatment. Arrest them for Murder. Simple.

Answer 9

Actually, the scenario you described is the current standard.

Things like:
-It is very difficult to find places that will do abortions after the first 3 months of pregnancy.

-Planned Parenthood has programs that offer homes for mothers that want to put their children up for adoption. They literally support the mother throughout the pregnancy including healthcare.

-Some states no longer have any abortion clinics at all. This is due to the pro-life groups lobbying for legislation that puts too many restrictions on the doctors that perform them... rendering it impossible.

- Birth control is perscribed after an abortion.

- There is now a by law waiting period from your initial appointment.

- Underage girls must have parental consent by law now.

I will never change my pro-choice position unless two things occur:
1. God comes down to earth and defines exactly when a fertilized embryo becomes a person with a soul.
2. The Supreme Court reverses its position based on the 1st Amendment right to privacy of what happens to your body.

#2 is because I am a constitutionalist and an American that believes in that constitution. The constitution is not something that you agree with parts of and disregard other parts that you don't like. The constitution is what our country was founded on and is why we are a great nation.

Answer 10

While I think that abortion is a piss poor means of birth control and I personally am against it, I do not think that the government has any business regulating anybodies morality. Keep the government out of a persons personal business is the only compromise. Education is the answer on how to ward off on planed pregnancy with abstention being a first choice. But keep in mind that God instilled in us a need to propagate and if things can happen they will. So to sum up teach abortion should be a last resort only to be used as a last ditch effort. This should be taught at home and in the Church's. and to some extent in the schools.