Hey folks! So I’ve been seeing a good number of new abortion and immigration related threads popping up recently and that got me to wondering what you all might think of the political forum consensus positions on the subjects. For those who don’t know, last year a bunch of us participated in a series of Ranked votes to try and find acceptable middle ground on what we all thought ought to be done in relation to a series of different issues, including Abortion and Immigration, two topics in which we also happened to use the results of those votes to pull together comprehensive consensus plans to act as a compromise between extremes The results of those two threads can be found here: Ranked Vote: How Should the Law Handle Abortion? Ranked Vote: How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Consolidated) Rather than bump up those old threads though, I figured I'd pose the question more directly with regards to what folks thought of the results, giving them their very own threads. This one will focus on the abortion side of things, while the immigration piece can be found here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pf-comprehensive-immigration-reform-compromise.550626/ So with that, let the discussion begin! What do you think of the following Abortion Compromise proposal? (Note, the most integral parts of the proposal, as voted on by PF members, have been underlined) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The cutoff-point for legal abortions should be placed at 24 weeks gestational age (viability) with all costs associated with the abortion being paid for by the person getting it (and not the government), but with exceptions made for abortions beyond that cutoff point if the life or health of the mother is threatened, if the pregnancy was a product of rape or incest, or if certain fetal abnormalities are discovered. Efforts should also be made to improve the availability of contraceptives and taxpayer funds should be used to keep any preterm infants alive. Beyond this, any other abortion-related questions should be handled on a state-by-state basis as opposed to by the federal government, e.g. such as whether or not there should also be an exception made based on a parent's ability to afford and care for the child if born or whether or not there should be a loan program to help fund people wanting to get abortions, ideas which there seems to be a small bit of support for. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions: How does the above proposal differ from what you would view as your ideal resolution on the abortion issue? Despite whatever your ideal might be, do you view the above proposal as at least acceptable as a compromise? If not, what specific abortion related changes would you make to the proposal to make it more acceptable, while still maintaining its status as a compromise? Some of the points of this proposal are somewhat broad. If you were to add additional details to the proposal to better flesh out the more general areas, what would those details be? Looking forward to reading everyone’s thoughts on this! Please be sure to keep all discussion respectful and nonpartisan. And no graphic images please. Thanks! -Meta
Thanks for the thoughtful OP Meta. Well stated as usual. I agree wholeheartedly about contraception, however it has to be reliable and affordable. Many of the most reliable methods are also the most expensive. It has been the use of these though that is responsible for America’s falling abortion rate I disagree though, on time limits for two reasons Firstly that abortions after 24 weeks are RARE (less than 1.5% - that is not for a week but spread over the entire rest of the pregnancy with the rate lowering each week) Abortions over 24 weeks are done either for foetal anomaly/death/non-viability or maternal health of the “we have no other choice” kind. The nastiest rumour that was ever circulated is that women will have a late term abortion so they can fit into bathing suits
I'm fine with abortion in the last trimester but think there needs to be some cutoff close to birth, excluding the health of the mother of course.
Likewise I agree, that certainly seems to be the part of the proposal that makes the most sense. For prevent pregnancy by making it easier for folks to access a wide array of contraceptives and the whole rest of the abortion dilemma immediately becomes moot. My view is that people should have access to the widest possible spectrum of contraceptive types, and that they would ideally be able to easily afford whichever one of their choosing. Increase the number of affordable options folks have access to and I predict you'll see the slope of your chart drop off even more. But this does bring up an important point. Just about any method of making contraceptives more affordable is going to cost money, and at some point it has to be considered how much money and where it comes from. But even if the only thing that changed was that the number of places that a wide variety of such contraceptives could be obtained increased, without reductions in cost, I still think that that would at least be a good step in the right direction. I'd also like to see some sort of increase in public education regarding the different available options, their respective pros and cons, and how to obtain them. So abortions after 24 weeks are rare, and abortions after 24 weeks for reasons other than abnormality, maternal health, etc. are even rarer. Well if that's the case, then what exactly is the harm in having a 24 week cutoff point just so long as exceptions are made for abnormalities/health of mother etc.? Sure, at the end of the day it may only affect a very small percentage of cases, but the way I see things, that ought to be thought of as a good thing. And personally, just the very idea alone, that a proposal like this might finally set the issue to rest/free us (i.e. the American people - though the same applies to any nation in similar circumstances) to focus more on other important issues, regardless of the real tangibly felt extent of its direct impact, is plenty reason enough to welcome it in my book. Or to put it more succinctly... I believe that such a compromise would be a net positive for the country just by virtue of giving those who are concerned some peace of mind with regards to our laws and allowing us to focus our attention on other important matters. -Meta
Let's do it point by point. That's a hard NO for me on this. 24 weeks is 6 months. This is insane. This literally legalizes late term abortion on demand. Compare with the cutoff in other civilized countries, for example European countries are almost all at 12 weeks. Abortion on demand up to 24 weeks is not a compromise, it's an extreme position. I'll make this 12 weeks. Completely agree. Government money should be used to fund cancer research not pay for people's mistakes. Agreed. Very skeptical of this. They should definitely get an abortion, but I don't see how it justifies a late term abortion. What if they abort at 9 months out of sadism? Yes, but only until a clearly specified cutoff age. Let's say 5 months. Otherwise it's euthanasia. Agreed. This sounds potentially abusable. Yes, but there has to be hard limits to this at the federal level. Okay. Overall, for me the default position should be that late term abortions (>3 months) are illegal at the federal level, except in some clearly specified exceptions. Like in Europe.
I have been there in those “OMG we are going to lose her” cases and NOTHING should stand in the way of saving the woman. But these are WANTED pregnancies in the vast majority of cases. Pregnancies that have gone horribly terribly wrong Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland even though the law at the time did allow for abortion in the case of Maternal health but because the law was unclear and there were pressures put on the medical staff they were reluctant to perform the abortion that would have saved her life
I, too, am not supportive of a 24 week elective abortion. Once a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (with medical assistance), abortions should not be performed except in cases of severe medical abnormalities which would make viability impossible. A woman's right to choose is of vital importance, but with rights comes responsibility. And to leave an elective abortion to a six month decision is irresponsible. Yes, there are exceptions - and of course, they should be considered. I also believe in accessibility of birth control, but am adamant about effective education about sex and birth control in schools.
Why would a mother to be choose abortion that late in the pregnancy? Why not just have an early Caesarian?
I agree we cannot make abortion, even late term abortion illegal o4 you run the risk of another Gosnell operating outside the law. Keep it legal safe and controlled. Late term abortions are far far riskier than early abortions, far more expensive and usually have a bloody good reason to be done
A very good and legitimate question. Why are certain states within the united states implementing such long windows of opportunity? And do such long windows of opportunity wind up creating a false sense of security?
Almost every European country. France, Germany, Italy, Greece, you name it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm America is a huge outlier on late term abortions.
Ah that sucks. Kinda seems like basing positions on arbitrary criteria is a large part of why there remains so much disagreement on this particular issue even after so many years. Because even if some are able to communicate and or set up a coherent policy, if it doesn't have any sort of objective basis then people will eventually question whether such a policy should continue to exist, and rightfully so. Of course, it may not always be possible to avoid some amount of arbitrary aspects, but in those cases where it is possible to establish specific and meaningful justification, I think it make sense to do so. -Meta
Except that is more than a little misleading. Wherever there is a “health and safety” clause in the legislation it effectively renders that legislation null and void. I know, abortion until last year, was illegal here in QLD and yet our abortion, legally done, rate was similar to the USA’s. The reason for that is that “ health and safety” clause
It almost has to BE arbitrary because who decides? You have a case like Savita Halappanava and it becomes a question of do you act early BEFORE you have so much clotting derangement ( disseminated intravascukar coagulation) that the woman will bleed to death or do you act early and hope
I pretty much concur. 24 weeks is not much beyond the time that a fetus shows distinctive human traits, mostly brain wave patterns. I think the exceptions need to be strengthened; abnormalities need to be better defined, e.g. Possible state exceptions require scrutiny and due diligence.
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 Hey, have folks here seen this yet?... (rhetorical question) I'm wondering now if general opinion on this subject has shifted recently, or if perhaps the court here has gotten a little too extreme and may be getting out a bit over their skies with this one. Any thoughts?? -Meta
