Abortion Trade Off/Compromise

[Independent thinker]

I've been thinking a lot over the last several months about the abortion topic and was wondering about a possible compromise. From what I understand, there can be a fairly safe pharmaceutically induced abortion up to about 12 weeks, which is around the time frame that most of Europe accepts abortions. Since miscarriages can happen during those first 12 weeks, not usually requiring a D&C, a pharmaceutically induced abortion wouldn't really be much different than a miscarriage which, unfortunately, happens 10%-20% of the time anyway. I would personally be very opposed to an abortive medical procedure that isn't pharmaceutical at any time unless the mother or the child are having life threatening complications. Rape and incest pregnancies would have to be aborted within that 12 week period. So, that leaves me asking the following main questions to both sides:

1. Directed at the left: If pharmaceutically induced abortions were a legal right during those first 12 weeks, would you accept the fact that after that 12 week period was over women DO NOT have the right to choose anymore and that after that 12 week period the only abortions that could be done are if the woman's life or her child were in danger?

2. Directed at the right: Assuming that my compromise would be enacted and made into law, would you then accept pharmaceutically induced abortions during those first 12 weeks, something that really isn't too much different than miscarriages?

 

[Lesh]

There’s no compromise with ultra right wing Republicans. We’ve seen that.

 

[TNHarley]

ultra right wing Republicans

those dont even exist

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There’s no compromise with ultra right wing Republicans. We’ve seen that.

So, tell us, Lesh, do you support abortion at any time up to labor or after the birth has occurred?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

those dont even exist

It's all relative, ain't it?

Heck, anybody who thinks having a penis makes a person a male is considered an ultra-right wing republican these days.

 

[TNHarley]

Heck, anybody who thinks having a penis makes a person a male is considered an ultra-right wing republican these days.

Right?

 

[Resnic]

12 weeks, 12 minutes or 12 seconds after the egg is implanted it's still killing a child.

Soon as the egg is fertilized and implants then it's a child because if you just leave it alone (barring any unforeseen circumstances) a baby will come out of the woman in 9 months.

Just because it's a very tiny blob doesn't mean it isn't a child. It's just the very beginning of a 17 to 19 year growing period to becoming an adult.

So if you abort a child even 1 day after the egg implants you're still ending the life of what will grow into a fetus that will be born and be a baby.

I don't say that out because of any religion or political stance, it's just a fact. Whether you abort it at 3 minutes or 3 months you're still ending a child's life and that's all there is to it. A baby is no less a baby at 3 days than it is at 3 months or 3 years, it's all just a process of growing more and more.

So if someone can rationalize killing a baby at 2 months then they should be able to rationalize killing one at 2 years because it's the same thing, murdering a child. But people seem to think just because it doesn't say googoo then it is somehow not a life.

 

[TNHarley]

12 weeks, 12 minutes or 12 seconds after the egg is implanted it's still killing a child.

Soon as the egg is fertilized and implants then it's a child because if you just leave it alone (barring any unforeseen circumstances) a baby will come out of the woman in 9 months.

Just because it's a very tiny blob doesn't mean it isn't a child. It's just the very beginning of a 17 to 19 year growing period to becoming an adult.

So if you abort a child even 1 day after the egg implants you're still ending the life of what will grow into a fetus that will be born and be a baby.

I don't say that out because of any religion or political stance, it's just a fact. Whether you abort it at 3 minutes or 3 months you're still ending a child's life and that's all there is to it. A baby is no less a baby at 3 days than it is at 3 months or 3 years, it's all just a process of growing more and more.

So if someone can rationalize killing a baby at 2 months then they should be able to rationalize killing one at 2 years because it's the same thing, murdering a child. But people seem to think just because it doesn't say googoo then it is somehow not a life.

No one wants to murder 2 month old babies. Thats some silly ass shit

 

[TNHarley]

Abortion is one of the crappiest debate subjects on the planet. People can NOT leave their feelz out of it. They just cant.
No facts, just emotion.

 

[basquebromance]

Abortion is one of the crappiest debate subjects on the planet. People can NOT leave their feelz out of it. They just cant.
No facts, just emotion.

i will compromise with you. if you like the songs i sent you earlier today, i will not abort any of my future children!

 

[Resnic]

No one wants to murder 2 month old babies. Thats some silly ass shit

If you actually read what I said thoroughly then you'd have read that I never said anyone wanted to kill a 2 month old baby. I illustrated fairly clearly that aborting a 2 day implanted embryo is no different than killing a 2 month old or even a 2 year old.

 

[1srelluc]

Being a right-leaner that favors the utility of abortion I thought that the 15-week "Mississippi Compromise" had some merit.

Note I said utility, I don't give two shits about Karen's right to choose.

 

[TNHarley]

If you actually read what I said thoroughly then you'd have read that I never said anyone wanted to kill a 2 month old baby. I illustrated fairly clearly that aborting a 2 day implanted embryo is no different than killing a 2 month old or even a 2 year old.

So if someone can rationalize killing a baby at 2 months then they should be able to rationalize killing one at 2 years because it's the same thing
No one is doing that silly shit.

 

[kaz]

There’s no compromise with ultra right wing Republicans. We’ve seen that.

You're getting abortions now up to the point of birth, you're not compromising from that. I'm pro-choice, but that's just murder

 

[kaz]

So if someone can rationalize killing a baby at 2 months then they should be able to rationalize killing one at 2 years because it's the same thing
No one is doing that silly shit.

I for one respect your right not to get an abortion

 

[Resnic]

So if someone can rationalize killing a baby at 2 months then they should be able to rationalize killing one at 2 years because it's the same thing
No one is doing that silly shit.

Again, if you read everything I said you'd have seen what I said because I explained it quite cleay. Unless I made it too complicated and you're unable to understand which is highly likely.

Either way I'm done interacting with you because you're either just a contrarian or have reading comprehension that is equivalent to a 5 year old. In either case there are too many on here worth talking with other than you to make me waste my time.

 

[blackhawk]

I've been thinking a lot over the last several months about the abortion topic and was wondering about a possible compromise. From what I understand, there can be a fairly safe pharmaceutically induced abortion up to about 12 weeks, which is around the time frame that most of Europe accepts abortions. Since miscarriages can happen during those first 12 weeks, not usually requiring a D&C, a pharmaceutically induced abortion wouldn't really be much different than a miscarriage which, unfortunately, happens 10%-20% of the time anyway. I would personally be very opposed to an abortive medical procedure that isn't pharmaceutical at any time unless the mother or the child are having life threatening complications. Rape and incest pregnancies would have to be aborted within that 12 week period. So, that leaves me asking the following main questions to both sides:

1. Directed at the left: If pharmaceutically induced abortions were a legal right during those first 12 weeks, would you accept the fact that after that 12 week period was over women DO NOT have the right to choose anymore and that after that 12 week period the only abortions that could be done are if the woman's life or her child were in danger?

2. Directed at the right: Assuming that my compromise would be enacted and made into law, would you then accept pharmaceutically induced abortions during those first 12 weeks, something that really isn't too much different than miscarriages?

Sounds reasonable to me unfortunately reasonable is not in the vocabulary of hard left and right.

 

[Lesh]

You're getting abortions now up to the point of birth, you're not compromising from that. I'm pro-choice, but that's just murder

You’re prochoice… sure ya are. Up to the point of birth is just a flat out lie.

People who are prochoice don’t lie like that

 

[TNHarley]

Again, if you read everything I said you'd have seen what I said because I explained it quite cleay. Unless I made it too complicated and you're unable to understand which is highly likely.

Either way I'm done interacting with you because you're either just a contrarian or have reading comprehension that is equivalent to a 5 year old. In either case there are too many on here worth talking with other than you to make me waste my time.

Yeah, gaslight me because you speak in hyperbole. Mmmkay.

 

[martybegan]

I've been thinking a lot over the last several months about the abortion topic and was wondering about a possible compromise. From what I understand, there can be a fairly safe pharmaceutically induced abortion up to about 12 weeks, which is around the time frame that most of Europe accepts abortions. Since miscarriages can happen during those first 12 weeks, not usually requiring a D&C, a pharmaceutically induced abortion wouldn't really be much different than a miscarriage which, unfortunately, happens 10%-20% of the time anyway. I would personally be very opposed to an abortive medical procedure that isn't pharmaceutical at any time unless the mother or the child are having life threatening complications. Rape and incest pregnancies would have to be aborted within that 12 week period. So, that leaves me asking the following main questions to both sides:

1. Directed at the left: If pharmaceutically induced abortions were a legal right during those first 12 weeks, would you accept the fact that after that 12 week period was over women DO NOT have the right to choose anymore and that after that 12 week period the only abortions that could be done are if the woman's life or her child were in danger?

2. Directed at the right: Assuming that my compromise would be enacted and made into law, would you then accept pharmaceutically induced abortions during those first 12 weeks, something that really isn't too much different than miscarriages?

I'm good with abortions for any reason by any sound method up to 16 weeks, with exceptions for the mother's life afterwards, and of course non-viable fetuses being medically removed as safely as possible.