Someone wants a compromise on abortion? Really?!

[hymnia]

From beliefnet.com:

Safe, Legal, and Early

The author suggests a compromise on abortion where the pro-life side concedes more freedom for early abortions and the pro-choice side concedes more restriction for late abortions.

Of course it isn't ideal by any means, but if pro-choicers would actually agree to reasonable restrictions on later

Comments

[weirdmisty]

In my experience, whenever someone calls for compromise on the issue of abortion, it eventually spins into a demand that the pro-lifers concede on all points.

[hymnia]

Yeah, that's been my experience, too. I'm especially thinking of suggested agreements where the "concessions" that the pro-choicers make are things like supporting adoption programs--as if that was ever a major point of contention! Whereas pro-lifers are expected to concede pretty much everything.

But "reasonable, tightly written prohibitions on third trimester abortions while genuinely protecting the life of the mother" sounds more like a real compromise position to me.

[hymnia]

Considering the current state of US law on the matter, though, I think what this article describes would be a step up. Like I said, it depends somewhat on what concessions, specifically, we'd be asked us for. Some things (more liberal positions on birth control and sex ed, for example), are not necessarily a matter of compromising on murder so much as compromising on the pro-life side's traditionally conservative stance on sexuality.

[natewillsheets]

Holy shit--a rational pro-choicer. Too bad the pro-choice movement won't compromise nor do they really have any reason to. Pro-lifers aren't really threatening anything, and now that President Obama gets to choose their next Supreme Court justice, their blessed Roe vs. Wade will be safe for another thirty years.

[laceandtattoos]

I really doubt a compromise will ever truly work. Sure, we can become more liberal with sex-ed and birth control, but that's really not the issue.

When it comes to abortion itself, pro-choicers will never agree to give up "their rights" and pro-lifers will never agree to keep any form of abortion legal, because frankly, it's all murder. If we are arguing that life begins at conception, it doesn't matter whether it's an embryo, fetus, or 10 month old child being slaughtered. It's all the same, and I'll never say that it's okay to terminate a pregnancy at 10 weeks but not 20 or 30. Age of the unborn child is irrelevant -- murder is murder.

[dance_the_dance]

I think it's shady at best. :| Younger fetus "doesn't look like a baby", so if pro-lifers agree, the proposition would only be good for pro-choicers - they'd have a "proof" that as long as it's a "blob of cells" no one really cares about it... The "it becomes a human being later" argument, completely unscientific, would only have more power.

But I am for reforms and compromises that don't involve killing anyone, no matter what age.