From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Compromise? (Re: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:38:56 CDT


In article <1992Apr9.195730.10916@ncar.ucar.edu>, kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
> > = bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
> >
> >   I have recently seen posts urging us to find a middle ground on
> >the issue of abortion.  The anti-abortion side seeks to pass laws
> >that would prohibit a woman's choice.  How on earth could there be
> >a middle ground between those that are for choice, and those that are
> >against choice?
> 
> There is no middle ground IF one or both sides holds an extreme position
> and refuses to accept anything except their extreme position.
> 
> Examples of extreme positions (IMO):
> 
> (1) unrestricted abortions at any time for any reason.  
>     Eg. You're due next week and there are no medical complications,
>         it's OK to change your mind, decide you don't want a child, and 
> 	abort the fetus.
>     Eg. Your wife is pregnant, even though she's due next week and there are 
>         no medical complications, you decide you don't want a child and 
>         that it's OK for your wife get an abortion.
>     Eg. You'd rather get pregnant and have an abortion than use contraceptives,
>         you knew you were pregnant but were too lazy to get an early-term 
> 	abortion, now you think its OK to abort the 8-month-old fetus.

It should be noted that 3rd trimester abortions are illegal in 29 states
(except to save the mother) and that there are only 3 doctors in the US 
that perform them.  Even the ACLU does not challenge laws prohibiting
elective 3rd trimester abortions.

I see few, if any, pro-choicers supporting unrestricted 3rt trimester abortions.

> (2) Totally forbid all abortions at any time for any reason.  
>     Eg. forbiding the abortion of a 4-week-old fetus in a 13-year-old 
>         incest victim.

The Louisiana law would allow this only if the 13-year-old reported the 
crime within 1 week and saught medical attention within 5 days of the crime.
State Rep. Woody Jenkins, floor leader of the bill, wanted a tougher bill
that suspend the excemption for rape and incest.  

>     Eg. forbiding the abortion of a 2-week-old fetus which was the result
>         of normal birth control failure.

Illegal in the Louisiana, Utah, and Guam laws.  Louisiana's law does not
allow abortion if the woman's health it threatened, only when her life is
threatened.

>     Eg. forbiding the use of the pill because it may result in the death
> 	of a fertilized egg.

The Louisiana law implies this (but does not explicitly say so).  If the 
LA law is not overturned (for violating RvW), look for a case to make
the implicit prohibition explicit.

>     Eg. Getting rid of all doctors who do 3rd-trimester abortions, so that 
> 	it's impossible for a woman to get a safe 3rd-trimester abortion 
> 	for any reason.

There are only 3 left, and they are still being harrassed and threatened.

> Middle ground is possible IFF at least one side 
> 			      doesn't hold an extreme position.
> 
> Compromise    is possible IF  at least one side is willing to accept that 
> 			      they can't have *everything* their own way.
> 
> Anybody willing to back off a little?  (I won't hold my breath)
> Think about it: maybe you can back off a little and still get 
> what you think is most important.  

It looks like few, if any, pro-choicers are taking the first
extreme position, while a significant amount of "pro-lifers" 
are taking the second extreme position.

I would like to know what you would concider a good compromise.
Pro-choicers had no significant opposition to making 3rd trimester 
abortions illegal (which were only a small percentage of abortions).
Many "pro-lifers" are willing to allow exceptions for rape/incest
(also a small percentage of abortions).  Getting compromise in areas
that are only a small part of the total number of abortions is not
too difficult.

The problem is that the vast majority of abortions are 1st trimester 
done mainly because the woman does not want to be pregnant.  The goal
of the pro-choice people is to keep these abortions legal while the 
goal of the "pro-life" people is to make them illegal.

What are the possible criteria for a compromise?  

1) Time (fetal development): pro-choicers have compromised on 3rd trimester 
abortions, but few "pro-lifers" see a difference between an early or late
abortions.

2) Cause of pregnancy: Some "pro-lifers" are willing to allow abortion
if the woman did not concent to sex (rape/incest), but few pro-choicers
are willing to make abortion illegal if the woman concented to have sex.

3) Use of birth control: Few "pro-lifers" are willing to allow abortion
in the case of birth control failures, while few pro-choicers are willing
to make abortion illegal in cases where the woman was not using birth 
control.

4) Fewer unplanned pregnancies (leading to abortions): Both sides talk
about this, but I don't think it will change the abortion debate.  Few
"pro-lifers" would feel better if there was only 250,000-500,000 abortions
a year.  

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion