Why don't abortion activists on both sides realize that their inflexibility just makes them appear silly?

Question

I understand that an activists job is to protect their "bottom line" and not to give an inch to the opposition for fear of weakening their position. Why though, can't their respective leaderships make some concessions in order to appear reasonable to the public and maybe even earn more followers to their causes?

I am against the idea of abortion but I believe a woman should always have the final word on medical matters. It saddens me that so many choose to abort pregnancies, but making it illegal seems like it's not the right answer either. You may ask how someone can be anti abortion but for a woman's right to choose all at the same time, but sorry folks, that's me.

My problem is with those who advocate something as brutal as a Partial Birth Abortion....and ...Those who want to stop a rape victim from doing what they need to do to put their horror behind them.

Both sides are guilty of promoting, untenable and unrealistic agendas. How can we accomplish anything this way?

Paxico, first off thanks for answering.

You are a "posterperson" for the pro-life side of my question that I attempt to showcase..

Thank you for telling me that my stance is illegitimate and how "it cannot be reconciled". I reconciled it in my question with a rather clear explanation. I am a reluctant supporter of the right to choose even though I have moral issues with many peoples reasons for excercising the right to have an abortion. Even though abortion is personally horrifying to me I simply don't have a moral superiority complex that would have me force my beliefs on others.

The law of the land says it is a medical issue even if you debate the contrary.

While you are correct in stating that the fetus is just as innocent in a rape victim , it would be MORE cruel to expect any woman who didn't want to have it, to give birth to a child conceived in this way. It's simply a real life reality that you attempt to remedy with a cookie cutter--all or nothing approach.

Answer 1

You have a good point, but it isn't correct to treat both sides equally. If you believe life begins at conception and that human life is sacred, then it's a moral imperative that you be inflexible. I may not agree with their position, but I give them respect for moral and intellectual honesty. I can't say the same for those who treat a third-trimester fetus as if termination were the equivalent of a haircut.
By the way, my feelings on the subject are much the same as yours. If the laws restricting abortion had clauses for rape, incest, and physical health/life of the mother, that would be OK with me. The problem is that when they're tried, emotional health is also a qualifier, and that devolves in practice into too loose a definition in our society in which any minor inconvenience is seen as a tragedy. That would be a good place for psychologists and ethicists to focus.

Answer 2

I think it's unfair for you to say the 100% prolife position is inflexible and unrealistic. Why? Because if a person believes abortion is murder, then how can they be expected to compromise this position? Just because a woman is raped does not mean that the abortion won't be a murder like all the others. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Consider this example: suppose I told you rape was wrong and I believed it should stay illegal. Using your reasoning you would answer: "That's unrealistic. You are take too hard a line on this. Why don't we only outlaw rape of young girls who are more vulnerable?"

See how absurd this is when considering such an important moral issue? How can you make exceptions for the rape of some women and not others? How can you make exception for some fetuses and not others?

You say women should have the final word on "medical matters." Abortion does not fall under that category. Since when it is a medical decision to murder an innocent fetus? That is a moral decision and it's always the wrong decision.

You need to rethink your "anti abortion" stance that allows for a woman's right to choose. It defies both logic and the moral law. It makes no sense and leaves you without a leg to stand on when you say you are against abortion.

Your inconsistency cannot be reconciled.

Answer 3

You know, oddly, the only two women I know who had a so-called "Partial birth abortion" (Actually a D&X) desperately wanted their babies.

One had a baby with a chromosomal defect incompatible with life (after mom had had *five* miscarriages), the other was suffering from untreatable eclampsia at twenty weeks gestation (his twin had already died in utero, and he was failing) . They both made the choice to terminate their pregnancies so their kids could die peacefully inside them rather than be born and suffer without understanding why for their terribly short and unpleasant lives. Oh yeah, and in the latter case, so the mom wouldn't die.

Nobody can make you have an abortion. And nobody should be able to make you sacrifice your life for someone else... even if it is your baby. That's why people are getting so aerated on the pro-choice side about the new ban.

Can't speak for the pro-lifers.

Answer 4

We have. It's called Roe v Wade. Have a nice day and yes I'm pro choice and if you don't want an abortion, don't get one. It's the extremists that get issue on the front burner in this country. There are so many special interests groups that it is very difficult for everyday people to get any legislative notice in this country. Not good but a truth we live with. Most politicians on both sides of the fence have the most important issue out front; to get re-elected. Vote your heart; just vote. Please.