Would you accept this as a compromise on abortion?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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)

[DavidB.]

Would it be possible to abort a fetus if after the first trimester the fetus appears to have a serious medical condition (say, Down)?

[TPIG]

It's not ideal, but I'd be willing to accept it if #4 was removed. Parents should absolutely be involved in such an extremely important decision for their child.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Honestly, no. I'm uncompromisingly pro-choice.

[Enduro]

Yes, but I still think that society as a whole (especially churches) should focus more on creating a support system for mothers who might have an abortion and have had an abortion than the legality of it.

[Dr. MB]

I think this is a decently good system, but I agree with David that if the fetus has a birth defect later on abortion should be an option.

[Cactus Jack]

No. All pro-choice, all the time. The government has no business probing uteri.

[Young Conservative]

Nope. Not even a compromise.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Nope. Not even a compromise.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's not ideal, but I'd be willing to accept it if #4 was removed. Parents should absolutely be involved in such an extremely important decision for their child.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former 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.

[Hoosier_Nick]

Honestly yes. Abortion is extremely divisive and not everyone will be satisfied with a solution, but anything that keeps the first trimester legal, with exceptions for life in the others, is good for me. I doubt pro-lifers would accept this, but this seems extremely reasonable to me.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Add a requirement stating that states can't implement ridiculous and unnecessary clinic regulations and this is pretty sensible IMO.

Also, what David said.

[junior chįmp]

Nope. Pass a Constitutional Amendment legalizing abortion and end this phony culture war issue once and for all

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

Nope. Pass a Constitutional Amendment legalizing abortion and end this phony culture war issue once and for all

I'm not sure that is a) possible or b) likely to succeed in ending the issue.

Honestly, no. I'm uncompromisingly pro-choice.

But why? No women want abortions at later stages without a damn good reason so why die on this hill?

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

I would reluctantly accept it, though I'd try to fight for a longer time limit, IF and only if women who were raped would also be included into these special cases.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It's not ideal, but I'd be willing to accept it if #4 was removed. Parents should absolutely be involved in such an extremely important decision for their child.

No. Paternal consent just means parents get to shove their bs on their children.

[fhtagn]

It's not ideal, but I'd be willing to accept it if #4 was removed. Parents should absolutely be involved in such an extremely important decision for their child.

Not a pro-lifer, but just like any other medical procedure, a parent should be involved since a child cannot legally consent.

Other than that, I think it's a pretty fair compromise.

[°Leprechaun]

Like it or not, Roe v Wade is the law of the land and after 45 years it has not been overruled. So there is no need for compromise. I believe that the majority support it. Getting into pointless battles, is, well, to be redundant, pointless.

It's a non-issue for me.

[TPIG]

It's not ideal, but I'd be willing to accept it if #4 was removed. Parents should absolutely be involved in such an extremely important decision for their child.

No. Paternal consent just means parents get to shove their bs informed perspective on their children.

Pretty sure that's part of being a parent. There's nothing wrong with parents playing a role in such an important issue in the life of their child. Even if you're pro-choice, you should want abortion to be a last resort and give parents the chance to present support/alternative options to their daughter.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

How about irt parental consent, requiring it normally but allowing a judicial bypass in circumstances where this would be inconvenient? Trouble is I don't like this approach - you want the abortion to be as early as possible to ensure the foetus is as far from sentience as possible and also to avoid the mother being visibly pregnant (which would invite stigma).

[RINO Tom]

I really wouldn't be the one "compromising" my views here, but absolutely.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I lean against parental consent because I don't think a woman should be condemned to pregnancy (and the ensuing physical changes) against her will, no matter her age.  Plus there are enough scummy parents out there who would disown their child just for getting pregnant.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Like it or not, Roe v Wade is the law of the land and after 45 years it has not been overruled. So there is no need for compromise. I believe that the majority support it. Getting into pointless battles, is, well, to be redundant, pointless.

It's a non-issue for me.

While the increasing secularization of America makes it extremely unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, it being the law of the land doesn't mean it is right.

[°Leprechaun]

Like it or not, Roe v Wade is the law of the land and after 45 years it has not been overruled. So there is no need for compromise. I believe that the majority support it. Getting into pointless battles, is, well, to be redundant, pointless.

It's a non-issue for me.

While the increasing secularization of America makes it extremely unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, it being the law of the land doesn't mean it is right.

True, but a lot of what goes on isn't right.