Is there a compromise... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-23-2007, 02:51 AM   #1
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Is there a compromise...

to make abortion legal?

I know we've talked abotion to exhaustion, and that is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to see if there is some compromise we can all agree on...

For pro-lifers; are there some issues that need to be tackled as to why abortion occurs?

For pro-choicers; are there times when it is wrong?

Is there an in between?

***I'd really like this thread to stay on topic. Please.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 03:37 AM   #2
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:49 AM
Hmm, well, I think at least that AEON and I just agreed in principle in the other thread that there could indeed be a compromise, although not necessarily on its details. You wanted to make this a wholly separate discussion for some reason? Because it seems to me like the aforementioned exchange could serve as a natural jumping-off point for this topic.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 03:42 AM   #3
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:49 AM
I'm sorry. If you don't see this being a separate thread then please close it. I just didn't want to derail any current threads with "compromise talk".
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 05:10 AM   #4
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:49 AM
I was just trying to figure out if you simply hadn't noticed the issue was raised in the other thread, or whether you felt it would be better discussed separately. Since I take it it's the latter, I don't have a problem with moving that particular discussion over here. It really doesn't matter to me.

What I was proposing was that we (US) adopt the prevalent European model which is: legal through the first trimester (12 weeks), afterwards only for medical necessity as determined by a doctor. As mentioned in the other thread, one thing I find preferable about the trajectory the discourse on abortion's legal status has taken in those countries is that it's typically not framed as a black-and-white matter of quantifying "personhood", or "privacy"; rather of balancing the state's interests in protecting the bodily integrity and legal agency of existing citizens (women) against those of the protecting the benefits to society of acquiring and supporting future citizens (babies/fetuses). I think that as a way to build consensus on the issue, this is preferable to the effectively all-or-nothing approach we tend to take.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 08:28 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:49 AM
^ I can go w/ that, though I'm still puzzled has to how this type of legislation is really a hot issue when so few women have abortions, even for medical reasons, after the first trimester. My compromise would have to include resolving this war and properly addressing health care first. Maybe more women would decide not to abort legally during the first trimester if they knew they'd be able to have the baby in a safe environment and be able to get it the right medical treatments for it throughout it's life.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 09:23 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
I was just trying to figure out if you simply hadn't noticed the issue was raised in the other thread, or whether you felt it would be better discussed separately. Since I take it it's the latter, I don't have a problem with moving that particular discussion over here. It really doesn't matter to me.

What I was proposing was that we (US) adopt the prevalent European model which is: legal through the first trimester (12 weeks), afterwards only for medical necessity as determined by a doctor. As mentioned in the other thread, one thing I find preferable about the trajectory the discourse on abortion's legal status has taken in those countries is that it's typically not framed as a black-and-white matter of quantifying "personhood", or "privacy"; rather of balancing the state's interests in protecting the bodily integrity and legal agency of existing citizens (women) against those of the protecting the benefits to society of acquiring and supporting future citizens (babies/fetuses). I think that as a way to build consensus on the issue, this is preferable to the effectively all-or-nothing approach we tend to take.
I would accept such a compromise. It is certainly better than what is in place in America today.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:28 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 04:49 AM
I think this is an incredibile thread, BVS. You don't hear this type of dialogue on this issue. Nice job.

I think the thing to focus on is (what I think is) the fact that even pro-choice people don't WANT abortions to happen. (except for this weird lady named Coral Beach who once was my editor -- she thought they were a good thing just to do) They just don't want the right to choose to be taken away. Many pro-choicers I know wouldn't even choose abortion for themselves, they just want there to be a choice for others. Therefore, if both sides can agree that it's a good move to do what we can to try to reduce the number of abortions, I think we'll make a lot of progress. It's almost like let's leave the debate on the legality aside for a minute and try to meet the real needs of people (I'm including men, too.) in this situation without them having to resort to an abortion.

The sad thing is if this is to happen, it's not going to happen with politicians. It's going to have to be a grassroots thing.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:37 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
I was just trying to figure out if you simply hadn't noticed the issue was raised in the other thread, or whether you felt it would be better discussed separately. Since I take it it's the latter, I don't have a problem with moving that particular discussion over here. It really doesn't matter to me.

What I was proposing was that we (US) adopt the prevalent European model which is: legal through the first trimester (12 weeks), afterwards only for medical necessity as determined by a doctor. As mentioned in the other thread, one thing I find preferable about the trajectory the discourse on abortion's legal status has taken in those countries is that it's typically not framed as a black-and-white matter of quantifying "personhood", or "privacy"; rather of balancing the state's interests in protecting the bodily integrity and legal agency of existing citizens (women) against those of the protecting the benefits to society of acquiring and supporting future citizens (babies/fetuses). I think that as a way to build consensus on the issue, this is preferable to the effectively all-or-nothing approach we tend to take.
I'm all for it. Now we have a choice...should we pressure yolland into picking up a law degree (I'd be willing to donate a few dollars to the cause!) and working up to Supreme Court, or do we convince her to run for president?
__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:44 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


What I was proposing was that we (US) adopt the prevalent European model which is: legal through the first trimester (12 weeks), afterwards only for medical necessity as determined by a doctor. As mentioned in the other thread, one thing I find preferable about the trajectory the discourse on abortion's legal status has taken in those countries is that it's typically not framed as a black-and-white matter of quantifying "personhood", or "privacy"; rather of balancing the state's interests in protecting the bodily integrity and legal agency of existing citizens (women) against those of the protecting the benefits to society of acquiring and supporting future citizens (babies/fetuses). I think that as a way to build consensus on the issue, this is preferable to the effectively all-or-nothing approach we tend to take.
I didn't read this all the way through earlier.

I think this would be a great step to take.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 12:57 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 04:49 AM
I've always maintained that the first trimester is a good cutoff point. I would have no issue with such a compromise.

I am not sure I would term anything past that a "medical necessity" - you'd have to use language broad enough to allow for abortions of anencephalitic fetuses, in the event such a thing is not discovered earlier on. Also another interesting thing to think about would be serious genetic disorders which would limit the child's life to a short period of time. What do you do about something like Tay Sachs, where the baby will never speak, see, recognize anyone and will live maybe 2-3 years in agony before dying? That wouldn't be a medical necessity abortion, but as a matter of public policy, could be worthy of discussion, I suppose.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 01:06 PM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
What do you do about something like Tay Sachs, where the baby will never speak, see, recognize anyone and will live maybe 2-3 years in agony before dying? That wouldn't be a medical necessity abortion, but as a matter of public policy, could be worthy of discussion, I suppose.

this is indeed an interesting question.

Melon/Ormus once brought up the condition of Harlequin-type Ichthyosis as another example.

if you knew your child would be brought into the world with a terrible, incurable condition that would limit its lifespan to a few days, or even a few years, and much of that time would be spent in physical pain, would you choose abortion?

there are some cases of this, and while most babies born die, there is a very small chance of survival to adolescence and even adulthood, and there is one adult with the condition who competes in triathalons. these are the exceptions, not the rule:

[q]United Kingdom

A Real Families documentary broadcast on ITV1 in the United Kingdom in 2005 (and later rebroadcast in other countries) showed the lives of two pairs of sisters afflicted with the condition: Lucy and Hannah Betts (aged 18 and 15), and Dana and Lara Bowen (aged 8 and 1½). The girls all went through a daily routine of getting up in the small hours of the morning and bathing for two hours to soften the skin, scrubbing hard to remove as much of the hard extra skin as possible, and then covering their entire bodies in a thick layer of moisturiser. A second and third "creaming" as they called it had to be performed in the afternoon and at bedtime to soften the skin. Even with this treatment a thick layer of hyperkeratotic skin covered them and they were plagued with infections. Scales on the inside of the eyelids had blinded one of Lucy's eyes and left the other eye with 10% vision. Hannah Betts was also a victim of cerebral palsy. Their skin was said to grow at fourteen times the normal rate. Vacuuming the carpets was necessary at least a couple of times a day to remove the shed skin.

The children were said to be four of just seven in the United Kingdom, Lucy being the longest surviving of any such child in the country ever. The chances of suffering from the condition were given as roughly one in a million in general, and exactly one in four in families already with one such child. These figures would indicate that one in 500 people have the recessive gene, giving a one-in-250,000 chance of two unrelated people bringing these genes together, and finally there being a one-in-four chance of these genes being brought together and causing the condition.

Despite the high chance of bringing forth a second baby with the painful condition, both families decided to gamble on having another baby, with the result that a second such baby was indeed born. Furthermore, despite the fact that their daughters were carrying the gene and thus had at least a one-in-2000 (instead of one-in-1,000,000) chance of having harlequin babies themselves (and also passing this increased probability to future generations), the parents of Lucy in particular were keen on her marrying and having children.

USA

In San Diego, there is a young man named Ryan González who has this condition. González has not only survived to adulthood but also thrives as a triathlete. His treatment involves dosing with isotretinoin (also known as Accutane), the constant use of lotions to keep the skin supple, and use of a very high-caloric diet of at least 7,500 calories a day, including a nightly feeding tube of pure protein due to the constant shedding of his skin, which is believed to shed seven to ten times faster than unaffected skin.

Ryan takes part in the triathlon for athletes with disabilities and swims regularly[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-24-2007, 02:08 AM   #12
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 08:49 PM
i don't agree with aborting babies who have life threatening conditions because who knows what modern miracles we can perform now adats - that case in point posted by irvine about the two sets of sisters - sure their lives are difficult but they are living surely they should be given a chance of at least experiencing the life they were given.

This doesn't extend as far as brain dead, or babies who will grow up to be complete vegetables - but then who am i to tell another mother that she should abort her mentally/physically disabled child - its all up to the individual. I know of a family who aborted a child because it had some condition (suc as cerabal palsy or downs syndrome) a condition many people areborn with, yet they felt that it was easier on them to abort - i don't agree with that, but it was their choice and they did it.

So really each to their own.
__________________

__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com