I have an idea to calm the turmoil re abortion

Lindsay Graham et al want to codify banning abortions versus the President et al want to codify just the opposite. I have an idea how to write some federal law that might satisfy the lion's share of disputants. I propose a law that universally permits abortion (within the first two trimesters as per Roe) but only if the mother AND father sign off on it; otherwise it's banned after six weeks' pregnancy (with exceptions for rape or incest or if the mother's life is endangered). Now, there might be a teensy wrinkle about the degree of certainty in identifying the true biological father, for we cannot allow fraud to occur in such a crucial matter. But hopefully our oh-so-clever lawmakers will find a means to iron out that one wrinkle. What say you??

 

That won't satisfy the fetal blood lust of the left. They want abortions up until birth and I wouldn't be surprised if they push it further, like up to age 5.

 

You are hilarious!

 

I think that would be a plan that would manage to obtain bi-partisan agreement opposing it.

 

Sounds like a good omen, that!

 

No, because it's a woman's body and ultimately it's her decision and that of her physician.

The father can offer support, if he so chooses.

Years ago, in my spent youth, I got a girl pregnant, just a few years after Roe, and she called me up one day and said she got an abortion, and I didn't even know she was pregnant and I was it's father. I could have had a conniption for her not telling me in advance, but, I do support that it's a woman's decision, and I respected her decision. She asked me to pay for half, which, at the time, was $100. I thought that was fair.

Do I wish she had had the kid? Maybe, but, again, it's her right, her conscience, all I can do is respect it. We had long since broken up, anyway. Maybe it was for the best.

My religion believes in reincarnation, so that 'soul' who might have inhabited that fetus, that soul will merely go find another womb. Can I prove it? No, but you can't prove when a fetus becomes a 'person' (no one can, not even science). Thing is, if your beliefs toward abortion are based on your religion, okay, mine says its okay, so, whose religion prevails? This is why we have the first amendment.

There is the argument that goes, well, since no one knows, why not give the 'life' the benefit of the doubt and end abortion. The reason that doesn't work is that you still have to allow abortions in the case for rape and incest. And if your beliefs are pro life, you must not allow for rapes and incest, either you believe in your conviction or you don't. I'm a pragmatist, and say, well, though I personally find abortion as repugnant as an pro-lifer, I recognize that it's not a man's choice, it's a woman's choice. I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice, to be accurate. Ultimately, I don't feel any man has the right to violate a woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy. ( And no, I don't support vaccine mandates [except for pandemics, under the pragmatist concept] ), either.

 

I am 100% pro-choice, like you. I am simply suggesting a compromise, in the hopes of resolving this seeming never-ending intense contention.

 

*^Maybe we should support capitol punishment for those who bear false witness?^

Up until birth? No, they don't. We support Roe.




* ^ ^=sarcastrophy marks.

 

I got that, and I rejected it, for reason stated.

Where the compromise could be, which I would accept, is that, instead of 15 weeks (Graham's) versus 22/23 (Roe's), I would accept 18/19.

What do you think about that?

 

I personally am fine with it! But I think mine has a better chance to be enacted because I believe that a major backlash against abortion arises from those all-too-often occasions when a woman chooses to terminate, whilst leaving the biological father entirely out of the loop.

 

Dems are never going to go with five or six weeks, whatever it was. Way too short. Most women do not even know they are pregnant at such a short time.

 

reply #1: Yeah I suppose you're right, so make it a tad higher but include the father's okay being mandatory.
reply #2: Sure the Dems will go for it, because it basically resurrects Roe but with only the one new highly palatable proviso.

 

Boomers will be dead in 20-30 yrs.
It will be resolved.

 

You're just full of profundities ain't ya?

 

AMI wrong?

 

No and yes.

 

Perfectly fine with me. I would have said 20 weeks but whatever. You can't make everyone happy. I do have a pet peve regarding the rape exception. If you haven't figured out that you've been raped in 4 1/2 months, then something else is going on. A baby is a baby regardless if the father raped the mother or not. But, if that's what people need to end this miserable debate, I'll go along.

 

Thats the closest thing to a reasonable compromise that I've seen on this forum in a long time.

I still think letting each state handle it on their own is better, but I think if more of them took this approach, a lot more people would be content with it.

 

What's the point? Other than aggravating and causing more roadblocks.

 

Intellectual laziness breeds extremes on both sides. Only a barbaric idiot thinks abortion should be legal all the way to birth just as only an impractical idiot thinks abortions should be banned at conception.

These fools toss around absolutist tripe like “it’s her body” or Bible verses to justify their complete inability to think deeper than preschool level on a subject.

At the end of the day the vast majority of people thankfully agree this issue is solved by a middle ground of abortion up to a reasonable point, allowing every woman out there ample opportunity to figure it out before *gasp* actually having to take responsibility for it. Which is why the overturning of Roe is so great, because it finally gives the power back to the majority.

 

By the way, Lindsay Graham's bill pretty much said the same thing and set the limit at 15 weeks and does have exceptions for rape, mother's safety, doctor recommendations, etc.
https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/publ...rn-children-from-late-term-abortions-act-.pdf
See page 10.

 

ON #2, no because requiring a man's approval goes against the principle that it's a woman's choice owing to the simple fact that it is her body.

 

You're right, I erred when I said 6 weeks. Horrors! I'll go with the larger number.

 

I don't think that was a point that was ever a focal point, when the child realizes she was raped. Now then, some have asserted that one child, in particular, 'consented' and therfore it wasn't rape, to which my reply was, no, any sex with a 10 year old child is rape, for no 10 year old child is mature enough to have a valid 'consent' to sex.

A fetus is not a person. When it's fair to recognize, validate it's development after a time achieving personhood, which is that which can only be decided by court decree, not science or anyone or anywhere else, then you legally can call it a baby. This is not about philosophy or religion, it's about policy, and policy is about law and what is best for the child that walks among us. Forcing a 10 year old child to give birth could be life threatening to the child


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rth-isnt-just-horrifying-its-life-threatening

Dr Brahmi, who once worked at the World Health Organization in the Department of Reproductive Health and Research, told me: “very young adolescents [under 15 years old] have a high risk of eclampsia, infection, preterm birth and intrauterine growth restriction” compared to adult women.

 

And this is why we can't have a compromise. Everyone has a different definition of when a fetus becomes a baby. For some, it's the millisecond before birth. For some, it's at conception. If the law set the time to 8 1/2 months, you would still be saying that it's forcing a 10 year old to give birth. It's like saying that a speed limit of 75 mph is forcing people not to drive.