Radical Opinion on Abortion?

[fridjonk]

@Natasha Beautifully said 

[Natasha]

25 minutes ago, fridjonk said:

@Natasha Beautifully said 

Thank you! 

[Yog]

I think that there is something both sides of the camp can agree on. If they saw it from this simple angle.

In a weird way, its that abortion is obviously bad, not in a moralistic way.
You know that by the fact you wont wish for anyone you love to have one.

The better question is, should all things that are bad be illegal.
its focus well spent.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Yog

[Hatfort]

It's about the boundaries, different people see them in different ways.

Some people are against abortion always, they put the boundary in the moment the spermatozoid fertilizes the ovule, I guess. No matter the circumstances, they say not even the mother has the right to choose to stop her pregnancy. Not even if she has been raped, there is a high risk for her life or the child presents deformities or diseases, the three cases usually accepted to go for it. Maybe it's just the mother does not want a child in that moment in her life, there may be many other reasons for that, the father may have a voice, but not a vote in the end. A legal limit has to be put in any case, about 4 months in many countries.

Boundaries don't really exist, they have to be kind of agreed. I think four months is reasonable, in the end women will have the freedom to decide if they do it or not, there's no obligation in either direction. For those who are against abortion, fine by me, don't abort. We can agree on having different boundaries, can't we? Oh yeah, with some people, we can't.

[Leo Gura]

@Hatfort It's more complex than that because pregnancies have all kinds of complications past 4 months.

In practice, though I agree that we can set some reasonable cut-off point for normal healthy pregnancies. Perhaps at 4 months. And longer if doc sees there are complications.

I think this would be a good political compromise. But the hardcore right-wing will not accept such a compromise because they got it in their mind that all abortion is murder and they use compromise to keep pushing that timeline lower and lower and lower because they want it at zero and with no exceptions for rape, incest, or complications.

But about 75% of the US would agree to such a compromise. The ban abortion crowd is a small but vocal minority.

[Hatfort]

@Leo Gura

Yeah, I think I agree with that. This is an issue where legality should better be flexible enough to adapt to potential different or complicated cases, out of rigid boundaries too.

[remember]

i could go with not allowing abortion if rape would get death penalty.

the worst about a time before it was legal in some countries and probably still is the case in countries where it’s not allowed is that in some situations women did it anyway and sometimes even probably died because it was not even done under medical safe conditions, or worse things happen with older babies... because there are probably still women in horrible situations. i don’t even want to think about it. but ignoring that is worse.

Edited January 13, 2020 by remember
at least that would bring some basis for negotiations maybe.

[Baotrader]

If you love this planet absolute birth control is needed (Osho)

[WorknMan]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I think this would be a good political compromise. But the hardcore right-wing will not accept such a compromise because they got it in their mind that all abortion is murder and they use compromise to keep pushing that timeline lower and lower and lower because they want it at zero and with no exceptions for rape, incest, or complications.

This is not universally true across the board.

[Bodigger]

So few abortions take place due to health, rape, and other reasons it is worth little discussion, and it would help people in untruths to justify there decision to have an abortion.

A cutoff time is a problem both sides because if you make it, say 20 weeks, then the pro-choicers are acknowledging that life begins at 21 weeks.  To compromise at anytime between conception and birth would acknowledge life beginning at a certain point.  My question is, if you narrow it down to the day, why would it be acceptable to abort at 140 days and not 141?

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

So few abortions take place due to health, rape, and other reasons it is worth little discussion, and it would help people in untruths to justify there decision to have an abortion.

A cutoff time is a problem both sides because if you make it, say 20 weeks, then the pro-choicers are acknowledging that life begins at 21 weeks.  To compromise at anytime between conception and birth would acknowledge life beginning at a certain point.  My question is, if you narrow it down to the day, why would it be acceptable to abort at 140 days and not 141?

Of course. Any timepoint is arbitrary because "life" is a human construct and there is no beginning to "life".

Pro-lifers are in the same boat as Pro-choicers. Pro-lifers cannot state an exact timepoint in which "life" begins. 

Setting a threshold of 20 weeks is not acknowledging that "life begins at 21 weeks". That is a story you are creating in your mind. I would be ok with a 20 week limit, yet I do not believe that "life" begins at 21 weeks. You, me, pro-choicers, pro-lifers cannot give an objective point of when "life" begins because there is no objective beginning. It is made up and arbitrary. Yet even arbitrary decisions can have practical value - in this case, making up an arbitrary time limit can reduce a lot of conflict. 

As well, the definition of what counts as "life" is also biased and arbitrary. If we closely inspect any definition of life, there will be biases, internal inconsistencies and arbitrariness. The same goes for why humans deserve a "right to life" and not primates and other animals. 

[Bodigger]

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, and pro-choicers at birth.  I find it difficult to see how there can be compromise on either side?

[Forestluv]

51 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, and pro-choicers at birth.  I find it difficult to see how there can be compromise on either side?

Both of those beginnings are arbitrary. Pregnancy lasts about 40 weeks, so cut that in half to 20 weeks as an arbitrary midway compromise. As someone said earlier, about 75% of the population would support a 20 week compromise. 75% support is a good level for compromise. 

[Hatfort]

6 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, and pro-choicers at birth.  I find it difficult to see how there can be compromise on either side?

I'm pro choice, but I wouldn't word it like that, I see some truth in both points you mention as beginings. Traditionally, we've always started counting life after birth, the first year in our life is the zero year, we don't count the pregnancy. But at the same time, everyone of us has been conceived in some point, after our parents had sex or maybe happened in vitro.

It's not written anywhere that we need to respect life after birth either, although it's good we decide to do that in my opinion. But we cannot even totally or radically agree on that, war laws, killinf for self defense, random assassinations, death penalty, euthanasia, mercy killing to avoid suffering and so on... All those are cases were we kill each other after birth, some of them pro-lifers defend as legit and some I do too, others not. I just want to make the point of how arbitrary and complicated things like this can be.

About abortion again, that would be the grey area from conception to birth, there are not real boundaries in there, it's a process where we develop from one cell, to a baby with all the organs formed and ready to take the first breath. Personally I'm in favour of letting a woman decide if she wants to go on with her pregnancy within a reasonable period we can arbitrarily agree, like about four months I'd say, before the fetus is too formed, but also letting some flexibility for special cases after that time, like for medical reasons. Now tell me this would be an arbitrary law, of course, all laws are. But this law would allow pro-lifers to go on with their pregnancies as they think is right and pro-choicers to make their decisions too, in any way they decided as best for them in that moment and circumstances, this law includes both options as possible.

[remember]

 

@Bodigger what about a better support for single moms? in so many cases it means a social fall down - tell me how many men would consider abortion in that case? you can count it by how many not pay the support for their descendants.

and by the way the rape cases might not be that many in some countries, but we are talking about the right of safe abortion in general, aren’t we? the right to decide about ones own body and life or have others decide for us. 

having a baby means to have ones life on the line, a lot of people still don’t get that.

Edited January 14, 2020 by remember

[Leo Gura]

On 1/13/2020 at 6:23 AM, WorknMan said:

This is not universally true across the board.

Of course I was generalizing about the hardcore conservatives. Moderate conservatives are more open to a compromise like I prosed.

In fact, we have reached a reasonable compromise decades ago with Roe v Wade. A majority of Americans are happy with it.

Outlawing abortion would be anti-democratic as only a small vocal minority want that.

[Bodigger]

@Hatfort If the pro-lifers were to accept terminating limits at 5, 10, or 20 weeks they would lose ground in there stance because the pro-choicers ultimately win due to the life being terminated within a certain time period.  Think of it from both dynamic levels, does this make sense? 

I find it interesting that many pro-lifers do not have a problem with trophy hunting animals and many pro-choicers are enraged if you stepped on a sea turtle egg on the way to the clinic.

@Leo Gura Would you mind pointing me in a direction where I may find these polls or percentages you are talking about?  I have been unsuccessful in finding anything like the 75% you have been saying. 

[Hatfort]

@Bodigger

What we gotta tell pro-lifers is that they can go on with their pregnancies like they want, nobody is going to stop them, but they don't have the right to decide for others. All those numbers you are putting there, we are all saying they are arbitrary, there are no real limits. It's like being an adult at 18, it could have been 20. We needed to establish one point for legal practical reasons, that's it. It's the same about abortion, just that the issue is more controversial.

I wouldn't enrage if somebody stepped on a turtle's egg going to the clinic, I guess you are saying like in a hurry to save somebody's life, but not on purpose. I wouldn't like someone stepping on a turtle's egg on purpose with no reason, why would he do that? I would enrage someone stepping on a pregnant woman too, going to the clinic or not.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Hatfort

[Forestluv]

38 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

If the pro-lifers were to accept terminating limits at 5, 10, or 20 weeks they would lose ground in there stance because the pro-choicers ultimately win due to the life being terminated within a certain time period.  Think of it from both dynamic levels, does this make sense? 

Of course. An extreme pro-lifer has a position. Their position is timepoint 0 (conception). If we set a timepoint of 20 weeks, of course they will perceive it as losing ground. It is losing ground relative to their position of timepoint 0. An extreme pro-lifer will interpret this as pro-choicers "winning".

On the flip side, an extreme pro-choicer may want the timepoint to be 40 weeks (birth). From this position they will see a 20 week cutoff as losing ground. It is losing ground relative to timepoint 40. An extreme pro-choicer will interpret this as pro-lifers "winning".

The point of compromise is not to appease either extreme. Neither extreme will be happy with compromise. Both extreme pro-lifers and extreme pro-choicers will see any intermediate timepoint as losing ground and that the other side is "winning". . . The goal of compromise is not to appease either extreme. The goal of compromise is to find maximum consensus. By definition, the two polar extremes will be unhappy with compromise. . . Compromise must be between 0 and 40 weeks. The greatest level of consensus is most likely between the first and third trimesters. Somewhere between week 12 and week 25. It might not be exactly at week 20, yet that misses the point. Focusing and debating about the specific week is a strategy used by both extreme pro-lifers and extreme pro-choicers because they don't want to "lose ground" from their relative position. Yet from the perspective of consensus, the specific week is a secondary concern. The primary concern is reaching maximum consensus. If maximum consensus is week 15, go with week 15. If maximum consensus is week 23, go with week 23. . . Overtime, the point of maximum consensus may change considerably and need to be adjusted. 

38 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I find it interesting that many pro-lifers do not have a problem with trophy hunting animals and many pro-choicers are enraged if you stepped on a sea turtle egg on the way to the clinic.

You are missing the point of what motivates ardent pro-lifers and ardent pro-choicers. Most ardent pro-lifers are motivated to protect human life. They see human life to be more sacred than other forms of life,. Of course they won't care about protecting deer life and are fine with killing deer. 

An ardent pro-choicer is motivated primarily by personal choice. They are motivated to protect a women's right of choice. They place choice higher than the protection of a biological organism in their body. I'm not surprised at all if a pro-choicer gets angry over someone stepping on a sea turtle egg, because the sea turtle egg is not in their womb and they are not being forced to carry a sea turtle to its birth against their own wishes. . . If sea turtles developed in human wombs, ardent pro-choicers would support the choice to abort the sea turtle pregnancy because they place personal choice and autonomy over their own body over the life of the biological organism. 

 

[Bodigger]

Please correct me if I am getting this incorrect; what @Hatfort and @Serotoninluv are saying is, it is okay to choose for ourselves to end life inside our own bodies but not if it is outside our bodies.

As I do more self work I find myself revering all life in all its expressions, no matter what, even if I don't understand it.