Would you accept this as a compromise on abortion?

[Former President tack50]

1) Acceptance that if abortions are to occur. they'd best come early.

2) Therefore allow abortions (paid for by the insurance) up to the end of the first trimester with no real strings attached and little fuss. (Basically try to ensure that medical abortions are the norm)

3) After the first trimester cuts in, a ban on all abortions aside from in the case of a non-viable foetus/risk to the mother's health/weird circumstances like cryptic pregnancies/failed prior abortion procedures signed off by two doctors.

4) Allow minors to have abortions without parental consent.

it seems to me it would satisfy the main aims of both movements:

- it would allow abortions for 99% of women who want one, seeing as reams of women requiring abortions in latter trimesters for sh**ts and giggles is not particularly one we see in reality. The cut-off point is a little earlier than I'd like, but America is a conservative nation; and I think the abortion debate would be served better with a consensus than the sort of ding-dong race between two equally unstable outcome.

- it would allow the pro life movement (Aside from those who literally believe in babby since zygote) a way to avoid what they see as the ultimate horror: "babies" being killed in cold blood)

So, basically what we have here?

Abortion is 100% legal in all cases up until the 14th week. After that it's only allowed in certain cases:

- If the pregnancy is certified as "risky" for the mother, it's extended up to week 22
- If there's a risk of a severe malformation in the baby it's extended up to week 22
- If the malformations are so severe that the baby will die no matter what, it's allowed at any time

I would agree with what you propose, it's really only minor modifications.

[wxtransit]

Nope. Not even a compromise.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, I'm not for the government actively supporting the destruction of human life just because the killing might end up a little earlier in development on average than it is currently.  Trimesters are pretty meaningless divisions anyways.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So a pro-choice doctor could just declare a 39-week fetus non-viable and perform an abortion. LOL. This is not a compromise.

I'm using the medical definition of the word viable (i.e. able to survive independently). No use forcing women through the trauma of giving birth to a child that immediately dies.

And who in practice makes that determination of capability of independent survival? The doctor. So my statement still applies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, of course. I can't understand why a pro-choicer wouldn't agree to this.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So a pro-choice doctor could just declare a 39-week fetus non-viable and perform an abortion. LOL. This is not a compromise.

I'm using the medical definition of the word viable (i.e. able to survive independently). No use forcing women through the trauma of giving birth to a child that immediately dies.

And who in practice makes that determination of capability of independent survival? The doctor. So my statement still applies.

The doctor would have to provide proof.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, I'm not for the government actively supporting the destruction of human life just because the killing might end up a little earlier in development on average than it is currently.  Trimesters are pretty meaningless divisions anyways.

Serious question: would you find a spontaneous miscarriage in the first trimester a big as tragedy as a newborn dying shortly after birth?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, I'm not for the government actively supporting the destruction of human life just because the killing might end up a little earlier in development on average than it is currently.  Trimesters are pretty meaningless divisions anyways.

Serious question: would you find a spontaneous miscarriage in the first trimester a big as tragedy as a newborn dying shortly after birth?

In some ways yes, in some ways no.  I'm not really sure how to answer that in the abstract.  In the social sense, I think the newborn, for most people, would be more tragic, in part because there is a longer and more involved period of expectation, and is more tied to the specifics of the child as an individual beyond what is in the realm of what is imagined.   As to what extent, disregarding the subjective experience of others, it is more tragic, I guess that would depend on how one weighs the fact that the child was at least able to live for longer, versus whatever additional experiences or capacities the child had over this time which makes that death more of a blow, in a sense.  And then there is the whole question of pain and suffering involved in death itself.

Still my instinct would be to view the death of a fetus at 10-12 weeks development as more similar to the death of a newborn than to the death of a human embryo at the blastula stage.

[Frodo]

1) Acceptance that if abortions are to occur. they'd best come early.

2) Therefore allow abortions (paid for by the insurance) up to the end of the first trimester with no real strings attached and little fuss. (Basically try to ensure that medical abortions are the norm)

3) After the first trimester cuts in, a ban on all abortions aside from in the case of a non-viable foetus/risk to the mother's health/weird circumstances like cryptic pregnancies/failed prior abortion procedures signed off by two doctors.

4) Allow minors to have abortions without parental consent.

it seems to me it would satisfy the main aims of both movements:

- it would allow abortions for 99% of women who want one, seeing as reams of women requiring abortions in latter trimesters for sh**ts and giggles is not particularly one we see in reality. The cut-off point is a little earlier than I'd like, but America is a conservative nation; and I think the abortion debate would be served better with a consensus than the sort of ding-dong race between two equally unstable outcome.

- it would allow the pro life movement (Aside from those who literally believe in babby since zygote) a way to avoid what they see as the ultimate horror: "babies" being killed in cold blood)

I can live with this, assuming that comprehensive sex education is made mandatory in all public schools, and contraceptives are made available over-the-counter as part of this compromise. 

[TJ in Oregon]

Absolutely not. The non-negotiable item for me to support any kind of compromise is that abortion-on-demand be illegal during all trimesters. The rest, exceptions, government support, etc. I generally disdain but can tolerate in a deal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Absolutely not. The non-negotiable item for me to support any kind of compromise is that abortion-on-demand be illegal during all trimesters. The rest, exceptions, government support, etc. I generally disdain but can tolerate in a deal.

would you accept abortions allowed for "socioeconomic reasons" as it is here in Britain?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Absolutely not. The non-negotiable item for me to support any kind of compromise is that abortion-on-demand be illegal during all trimesters. The rest, exceptions, government support, etc. I generally disdain but can tolerate in a deal.

would you accept abortions allowed for "socioeconomic reasons" as it is here in Britain?

Dumb question but what does that mean exactly?  Are 1%ers not allowed to get abortions?