Abortion - Can we come to a bipartisan consensus?

I was just floored by a recent post in another thread regarding the abortion discussion which got me thinking about what would be a bi-partisan compromise and what has taken place along those lines.

I know this is an emotional subject, but lets try and keep it civil and have a good discourse on it.

The gist of the poster was that the left would be ready to come to compromise about banning later term abortions(16 weeks was mentioned, but later is usually what's discussed more like 20-24 weeks) The next statement was that would never happen because it's some on the right that regard it as all or nothing.

While I agree there are some on the right that take the all or nothing stance, I feel it's normally the left fighting any restrictions tooth and nail and even trying to extend existing laws that do place any restrictions.

Roe v. Wade already basically set the third trimester as off limits, so I start there. Subsequent rulings have allowed the "viable" date to basically change.

From the conservative side, I see state legislatures passing further bans on late term abortions and in many instances wanting to require additional education on the impacts and outcomes of abortion in general. However, the left screams bloody murder and fights all of this tooth and nail.

From the liberal side, I see state legislatures trying to expand options for late term abortions, etc. And the right screams bloody murder(and in my opinion it is) and fights it tooth and nail.

So, based on where we are at today, where late term abortions are in general not legal except in instances of harm to baby or mother from actually giving birth, why is there such an outcry all the time.

It's simply because it is an emotional issue that can be politicized.

Can there ever be a bi-partisan consensus?

EL - Thank You for a cogent summary of the argument. I do not feel it is possible to come to a mutually acceptable middle ground - the extremists on both sides are too loud and active.

It is unfortunate how both sides paint lies and mis-representations in the argument. The often mis-quoted

Ralph Northam statement about caring for babies after birth is an example - He is a neonatalologist and presented proper care for a baby born with underlying medical conditions - not a plea to terminate at term abortion. Mis-represented by the anti-abortion folks.

Too emotional and entrenched a subject - the argument will go on.

The standard for abortion in most states is 24 weeks.

ultimately - State legislature attempts to define a fetus as a living person will likely wind up in the SC.

i expect the argument and legal challenges from both sides to continue.

This is settled supreme court law, so any discussion is futile and stupid. The supreme court legislated. That is a fact, and undeniable. It was a discussion at complete odds with the constitution.

However, it is water under the bridge, and a decision that cannot and should not be reviewed.

The concept that the the decision that a baby is a human can be measured in centimeters ought to make oneself pause. The partial birth abortion procedure is designed such that there is no chance of the viable fetus to exit the vagina alive. Literally, they stop the birth of the viable fetus a couple of centimeters from being born, and shove a rod into its brains, and suck them out.

This is what the democrats are fighting for.

I, personally, do not think the government ought to be involved abortion decisions, and resist the imposition amoung my friends that would do so.

However, the condemnation of people(the emphatic believers are almost all women) who would codemn such practices by the democrats is truly disgusting.

The concept of a democrat having a reasonable conversation about abortion rights is so far in fantasy land as to be incomprehensible.

Killing viable, normal children days before birth or even after birth is murder. Yet some Democrats believe it is a woman's right and even sacrament.

This should be a consensus opinion, but somehow it is not.

The only way forward to a compromise is making it a states rights issue - then each state can decide for themselves whether or not to approve later and later abortions - or to allow them at all.

California is leading the way on states rights with the sanctuary cities.

This gets us closer to the founding constitutional concept of less federal power anyway. It will take away some of the power of the Supreme Court, too.

Kehaar - On Roe V Wade a Texas case decided by the SC:
January 22, 1973 - The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. 1971 - The case is filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman's life.
The Case:
The Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution embrace the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, nullifying the Texas prohibition?
The ruling allows for legal abortions during the entire pregnancy, but set up conditions to allow states to regulate abortion during the second and third trimesters.
The Decision:
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman the right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.


States can regulate abortion - and some states have tried to eliminate abortion with restrictive regulation.

Currently, the state standard restricts third trimester abortion to fetal death or significant risk to maternal health. No state permits termination of a viable term baby.

No state ever should permit such a practice, and almost universally - physicians condemn such a practice.

Only in China is that practiced.

Nothing is ever settled Supreme Court law. Otherwise, we would still have slavery, separate but equal, Plessy vs Ferguson, and Buck vs Bell. The Supremes decided upon the idea that a woman does have a right to privacy which is not in the Constitution and that a fetus does no survive if earlier than 30 weeks. That is the old standard. Nowadays, a survival rate of 50% of the time after 20 weeks. That is the viability question which the left refuses to acknowledge.
Big question, is it okay for one person to kill another person for the sake of convenience? For most the answer is NO. Self defense, yes but not for convenience but most abortions are for convenience and not protecting the "health" (not life) of the mother. That is another bugaboo of the left's position. They intentionally conflate life and health. If you accept the health argument then the question of what kind of health are we talking about; permanent physical damage, temporary physical impairment, or mental/emotional health. Women have used the argument that they can not stand the idea of having a baby as a pretext for a late term abortion. They wait and wait, which is the basis for the argument of how much this is affecting them mentally.

My hands are going numb again (diabetes) so I'll leave you with this;
Killing a viable baby is murder by whom ever participates. When do you recognize viability? When the science changes do you change your position? Do you think that term should be "health" of the mother or the "life" of the mother? Less wiggle room that way. What would be an appropriate punishment?

Nothing is ever settled Supreme Court law. Otherwise, we would still have slavery, separate but equal, Plessy vs Ferguson, and Buck vs Bell. The Supremes decided upon the idea that a woman does have a right to privacy which is not in the Constitution and that a fetus does no survive if earlier than 30 weeks. That is the old standard. Nowadays, a survival rate of 50% of the time after 20 weeks. That is the viability question which the left refuses to acknowledge.
Big question, is it okay for one person to kill another person for the sake of convenience? For most the answer is NO. Self defense, yes but not for convenience but most abortions are for convenience and not protecting the "health" (not life) of the mother. That is another bugaboo of the left's position. They intentionally conflate life and health. If you accept the health argument then the question of what kind of health are we talking about; permanent physical damage, temporary physical impairment, or mental/emotional health. Women have used the argument that they can not stand the idea of having a baby as a pretext for a late term abortion. They wait and wait, which is the basis for the argument of how much this is affecting them mentally.

My hands are going numb again (diabetes) so I'll leave you with this;
Killing a viable baby is murder by whom ever participates. When do you recognize viability? When the science changes do you change your position? Do you think that term should be "health" of the mother or the "life" of the mother? Less wiggle room that way. What would be an appropriate punishment? Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I thought Plessy v. Ferguson would have been viable with equal funding per person. Equal facilities are hard to provide over time under different circumstances.

The point was that these (right or wrong) were settled SCOTUS rulings...until they were overturned.

the heart beat law is making round in a number of state legislature.

basically if a babys heart is detected, an abortion can't take place. the length varies from 4 weeks to 6 weeks. so if the heart is not detected, abortion can take place between 1 to 6 weeks. (42 days)

I consider this to be a middle ground legislation. life begins at the heart beat.

why? both groups hate this law.

Pro-life - no abortion. life begins at conception.
pro-abortion - no limits, no restrictions.

Go look at a sonogram..

The health issue is another canard because Progtards want to consider the woman's "mental health." So the woman can decide to terminate (murder) at anytime.

I'm not totally anti-abortion but I'm antiabortion as a long term contraception device.

If the fetus has a cyst instead of brain but has a heart beat I approve of an abortion.

The point was that these (right or wrong) were settled SCOTUS rulings...until they were overturned. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Yes, and that was a good point.

medical technology has come along way since 1970s.

Killing viable, normal children days before birth or even after birth is murder. Yet some Democrats believe it is a woman's right and even sacrament.

This should be a consensus opinion, but somehow it is not. Originally Posted by gnadfly

That's way too much common sense for the lefties.