Someone wants a compromise on abortion? Really?!
From beliefnet.com:
Safe, Legal, and Early
The author suggests a compromise on abortion where the pro-life side concedes more freedom for early abortions and the pro-choice side concedes more restriction for late abortions.
Of course it isn't ideal by any means, but if pro-choicers would actually agree to reasonable restrictions on later abortions, well, I think that would make me feel a little better at least. However, it's not really clear to me what specific issues the author thinks we should concede. Over the counter morning-after pill, perhaps? (I would have no problem with that, personally.) Government subsidies for low-income women up through X weeks? (I would find that one harder to accept.)
I've been told by friends who live in Europe that many countries there have an abortion policy that is similar to what this article describes--very free in the first trimester, very restricted later on; as a result, abortion politics are not as divisive as they are in the US. The question is, is that really a good thing, to come to an imperfect compromise that causes the debate to lose momentum?
I don't have a solid opinion on this; I'm just offering food for thought.
ETA: Based on some of the comments, I feel the need to add that I'm looking at this from the perspective that in my country (USA), abortions are currently virtually unlimited throughout pregnancy (at least in practice). So "conceding" legal access to abortions in the first trimester doesn't seem like a big concession to me, at least not in a practical sense, because they already have that. From an ideological perspective, of course, it's a huge concession, as many of you have pointed out. And if cooperating with pro-choicers means giving up the right to that ideological position, then I agree that it's not worth it. But from a practical perspective, I don't see anything specific in the article that pro-lifers would have to concede other than what we already don't have. That's why I'm speculating about what real concessions might actually be asked of us, like more liberal sex ed or government subsidies for abortion. Those are things the pro-choice side currently doesn't have, at least not as fully as they would like. And, unlike agreeing to the notion that a 7-week-old fetus need not be protected by law, some of those things might actually be worth conceding.
Joie
X-posted
Safe, Legal, and Early
The author suggests a compromise on abortion where the pro-life side concedes more freedom for early abortions and the pro-choice side concedes more restriction for late abortions.
Of course it isn't ideal by any means, but if pro-choicers would actually agree to reasonable restrictions on later abortions, well, I think that would make me feel a little better at least. However, it's not really clear to me what specific issues the author thinks we should concede. Over the counter morning-after pill, perhaps? (I would have no problem with that, personally.) Government subsidies for low-income women up through X weeks? (I would find that one harder to accept.)
I've been told by friends who live in Europe that many countries there have an abortion policy that is similar to what this article describes--very free in the first trimester, very restricted later on; as a result, abortion politics are not as divisive as they are in the US. The question is, is that really a good thing, to come to an imperfect compromise that causes the debate to lose momentum?
I don't have a solid opinion on this; I'm just offering food for thought.
ETA: Based on some of the comments, I feel the need to add that I'm looking at this from the perspective that in my country (USA), abortions are currently virtually unlimited throughout pregnancy (at least in practice). So "conceding" legal access to abortions in the first trimester doesn't seem like a big concession to me, at least not in a practical sense, because they already have that. From an ideological perspective, of course, it's a huge concession, as many of you have pointed out. And if cooperating with pro-choicers means giving up the right to that ideological position, then I agree that it's not worth it. But from a practical perspective, I don't see anything specific in the article that pro-lifers would have to concede other than what we already don't have. That's why I'm speculating about what real concessions might actually be asked of us, like more liberal sex ed or government subsidies for abortion. Those are things the pro-choice side currently doesn't have, at least not as fully as they would like. And, unlike agreeing to the notion that a 7-week-old fetus need not be protected by law, some of those things might actually be worth conceding.
Joie
X-posted