ADVERTISEMENT

What is the middle ground on - abortion

William Bonney

HR Heisman
Mar 24, 2017
7,186
3,165
113
...the issue of abortion? One side says that it's a women's choice whether, and when, to carry to term or end a pregnancy prematurely. The other side says that all life from conception to natural death is sacred. What is the middle ground? How do the two sides come together on this issue?
 
One middle ground is don't make someone perform it or make someone else pay for it. Too many of today's "rights" tend to be things where someone else has to do something for you.
 
One middle ground is don't make someone perform it or make someone else pay for it. Too many of today's "rights" tend to be things where someone else has to do something for you.
Ok, but that's not really the question. These are two diametrically opposed moral positions, how can they be reconciled.
 
...the issue of abortion? One side says that it's a women's choice whether, and when, to carry to term or end a pregnancy prematurely. The other side says that all life from conception to natural death is sacred. What is the middle ground? How do the two sides come together on this issue?
Abstinence. ;) Or, wear a glove before you love.
 
For me personally, there's no middle ground, I'm pro life from the moment of conception.

However, politically, there's a middle ground that the vast majority of the public supports...legal abortion in the first trimester, illegal after that other than the life of the mother at stake.

People like myself would not consider that "good enough" and would still like people to not get abortions, and would generally support politicians that were pro-life. But that would take almost all of the fight out of the issue on the national stage, it would essentially be settled.
 
I find myself very torn on this issue.

On the one hand I don't believe the moment of conception defines a human life . Further, I believe a woman has the right to make choices about her body.

On the other hand, you can put me in the camp that believes if a fetus has even a small % chance of being viable at the time of abortion then choosing an abortion at that point is morally wrong (barring extenuating circumstances like the mother's life being in jeopardy). I also recognize of course that the vast majority of abortions are performed prior to this point or out of medical necessity after it. So my moral "line in the sand" is seldom crossed.

Net net for me the middle ground is somewhere between the two poles of "never do an abortion or you are going to burn in hellfire" and "never criticize a woman who chooses an abortion because it's her choice". I dont know exactly where to draw the line between these two as I have no medical expertise, but from what I have read somewhere around 20 weeks would seem to define viability. This gives plenty of time for people to make a decision about the pregnancy while preventing abortions after the point of viability. It is really none of my business either way, but I do think people who willingly choose an abortion after the point of viability have crossed a line and made a bad moral choice. Prior to that point and I don't see it as immoral.
 
I find myself very torn on this issue.

On the one hand I don't believe the moment of conception defines a human life . Further, I believe a woman has the right to make choices about her body.

On the other hand, you can put me in the camp that believes if a fetus has even a small % chance of being viable at the time of abortion then choosing an abortion at that point is morally wrong (barring extenuating circumstances like the mother's life being in jeopardy). I also recognize of course that the vast majority of abortions are performed prior to this point or out of medical necessity after it. So my moral "line in the sand" is seldom crossed.

Net net for me the middle ground is somewhere between the two poles of "never do an abortion or you are going to burn in hellfire" and "never criticize a woman who chooses an abortion because it's her choice". I dont know exactly where to draw the line between these two as I have no medical expertise, but from what I have read somewhere around 20 weeks would seem to define viability. This gives plenty of time for people to make a decision about the pregnancy while preventing abortions after the point of viability. It is really none of my business either way, but I do think people who willingly choose an abortion after the point of viability have crossed a line and made a bad moral choice. Prior to that point and I don't see it as immoral.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton (if that's ok), my preference is for abortions to be safe, legal and RARE. I personally don't like the idea of abortion, but at the same time, given my life experiences - two parent household, middle class, born and raised in Iowa, I have zero personal insights into why someone might choose abortion as an option.

I fully recognize in the abstract all of the socioeconomic factors that can play a role. Additionally, at least some teens I would think would simply panic in that situation. as a result, I'm not comfortable when people try to legislate this as a black and white issue.

As others have said, I think 3rd trimester abortions should be banned, barring medical exceptions. That much, at least, I think is relatively noncontroversial.
 
I think there are very few people who are in the moment of conception camp.

Otherwise, there would be a large group of people who view a woman on birth control as the exact same thing as an abortion at nine months. And there are not a lot of people who believe that.
 
But to answer the question, I think the middle ground is not allowing late term abortions except in cases where it will put the mother at risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParkerHawk
But to answer the question, I think the middle ground is not allowing late term abortions except in cases where it will put the mother at risk.
That still isn't acceptable to those who believe life begins at conception.
 
I find myself very torn on this issue.

On the one hand I don't believe the moment of conception defines a human life . Further, I believe a woman has the right to make choices about her body.

On the other hand, you can put me in the camp that believes if a fetus has even a small % chance of being viable at the time of abortion then choosing an abortion at that point is morally wrong (barring extenuating circumstances like the mother's life being in jeopardy). I also recognize of course that the vast majority of abortions are performed prior to this point or out of medical necessity after it. So my moral "line in the sand" is seldom crossed.

Net net for me the middle ground is somewhere between the two poles of "never do an abortion or you are going to burn in hellfire" and "never criticize a woman who chooses an abortion because it's her choice". I dont know exactly where to draw the line between these two as I have no medical expertise, but from what I have read somewhere around 20 weeks would seem to define viability. This gives plenty of time for people to make a decision about the pregnancy while preventing abortions after the point of viability. It is really none of my business either way, but I do think people who willingly choose an abortion after the point of viability have crossed a line and made a bad moral choice. Prior to that point and I don't see it as immoral.

This is a reasonable conclusion to the moral issue.

Legally I don't believe there is a middle ground. As repugnant as it may be, it is ultimately the woman's' choice. It has to be that way.

That said, I support all alternatives that reduce the perceived requirements for abortion. This is where the middle ground exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkbirch
It's really simple. We make the pro-life people adopt the unwanted babies.

I also love that the pro-life crowd also happen to be the people who don't give a shit about the baby once it's born.

Oh, this kid is going to a poor single mother who is going to need more government assistance? Too bad, we need to cut entitlements!

I don't pretend to give a shit about poor people's children, therefore I will gladly pay more in taxes so these people have a safe way to terminate a pregnancy.
 
...the issue of abortion? One side says that it's a women's choice whether, and when, to carry to term or end a pregnancy prematurely. The other side says that all life from conception to natural death is sacred. What is the middle ground? How do the two sides come together on this issue?

Interesting question. I know two women that were raped and became pregnant as a result. One of them was my ex-wife. In both cases, they were from deeply religious families and they struggled with the decision. They both chose to terminate the pregnancies and I cannot find fault with them for it. I know another person that had three because she wasn't practicing safe sex. Hard for me to agree with that.
 
The Supreme Court ruled on this issue a long time ago, one side needs to let it go. Also people who are against abortion and are one issue voters can just stay home in Nov please, thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: damayason
Universal Healthcare for all and free childcare for all working parents in exchange for making all abortions illegal except in the case the mother would die.

Everyone wins or everyone loses based on your point of view.
So if you don’t support abortions, pony up $$$. I guess if many are born in your scenario it’s pay for healthcare or daycare because if not you’re going to anyways through welfare.
 
...the issue of abortion? One side says that it's a women's choice whether, and when, to carry to term or end a pregnancy prematurely. The other side says that all life from conception to natural death is sacred. What is the middle ground? How do the two sides come together on this issue?
I always thought that the current law including its regulations was middle ground. Unfortunately, it seems that there is a movement to try to do away with that. Why can those people not accept that we do have a middle ground that is well established? No one is forcing them to have abortions. They are free to choose, just like those who wish to have one.

For those who want to outlaw abortions completely, it would have a far more adverse effect on the poorest people. The wealthy could always travel to a country where abortions could be performed legally and I am sure there would be no questions asked once they returned to the US. Would the anti-abortion people accept that?

I don't like abortions, but I don't feel it is any of my business to interfere in the lives of those who choose to have a legal one, nor should those who want to do away with abortions have the right to interfere in the lives of those who choose to have one. That's my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tunadog and l.todd
It's really simple. We make the pro-life people adopt the unwanted babies.

I also love that the pro-life crowd also happen to be the people who don't give a shit about the baby once it's born.

Oh, this kid is going to a poor single mother who is going to need more government assistance? Too bad, we need to cut entitlements!

I don't pretend to give a shit about poor people's children, therefore I will gladly pay more in taxes so these people have a safe way to terminate a pregnancy.
Not all pro-life people are like that. There are plenty who adopt and/or provide foster care when they can, just not enough of them to keep up with those that don’t care about their own children.
 
There really isn’t one, which is why single issue voters suck.

Personally, I don’t think it should be legal past the first trimester. But as long as pro-lifers are: 1) anti-welfare, 2) anti-sex Ed, 3) anti-birth control, 4) anti-universal pre-K, then I’m pro choice all the way.

Pro-lifers should be the biggest advocates for birth control and yet they are the staunchest opponents. Can’t have it both ways.
 
The Supreme Court ruled on this issue a long time ago, one side needs to let it go. Also people who are against abortion and are one issue voters can just stay home in Nov please, thanks.
So, if Trump is re-elected and gets two or 3 more SC Justices and R v W is overturned, that's gonna be good enough for you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CFNiteHawk85
Force women to carry to term, and then force older men to raise the child without help for the first year of the child’s life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkbirch
ADVERTISEMENT