[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Godular]

400 pages! Home stretch for this iteration!

NEW POLL FOR 4/15/22

So one thing that I've noticed amidst all the different iterations of this thread is that folks seem to have differing opinions on what constitutes a 'compromise', and that what seems like a compromise to one person seems wholly unacceptable to another. The abortion argument is often fraught with emotionally-charged commentary, mostly from the pro-life side but I make no claim that the pro-choice side is completely devoid of emotion or snap-judgements.

I find myself curious as to how much thought folks have given to the concept of compromise. Are they willing to consider alternatives if they understand the ramifications? Will they simply refuse to listen because it defies their preconceptions and morals?

Thus:

What would you consider to be the best 'compromise'?

This still goes with my position that compromise is always possible, and I constantly assert that it'd be easier and more cost-effective to install welfare supports and medical/social assistance for unexpected parents than it is to simply ban abortions outright. Banning abortion to me is a knee-jerk reaction that is poorly considered in terms of both execution and ramifications. I'm fine with viability as a time-limit, but emergencies can always happen and the woman should not be precluded from seeking remedy in such circumstances.

Edited for new poll.
Poll 1 question and results:

Do you consider Pro-Choice and Pro-Life to be mutually exclusive to each other?
Yes 51%
No 19%
RISE WITH THE PENGUIN REVOLUTION! 30% (Morgan Freeman would be so proud)

Poll 2 question and results:

What is your position on Government-Mandated Vaginal Ultrasounds as an abortion requirement?
For: 124 votes (27%)
Against: 265 votes (57%)
Undecided: 77 votes (17%)

Poll 3 question and results:

When it comes to abortion, is vigilantism (in the courts) justified?
Yes: 73 (28%)
No: 158 (60%)
Undecided: 32 (12%)

Poll 4 question and results:

Which of the following axioms do you agree with most?
Preserving Life is Priority: 178 (35%)
Minimizing Suffering is Priority: 168 (33%)
A Compromise is Always Possible: 58 (11%)
None of the Above/Personal Basis: 32 (6%)
Penguins are the Master Race: 78 (15%)

Interesting. The 'Preserving Life is priority' option, which would most likely be the pro-life position, actually won a plurality this go-round. I wonder if there's an explanation for the shift.

[Neutraligon]

From what I can tell there seems to be a division in the US for how to deal with omen how have an unwanted pregnancy, and that division is not necessarily pro-life versus pro-choice. A massive percentage of the women who have abortions are poor. A huge percentage (74%) say that the reason the pregnancy is unwanted is that it would interfere with education, work, or the ability to care for already existing dependents. Another massive percent (73%) say they are unable to afford the pregnancy or the resulting child. What this says to me is that if support where provided to would be mothers through things like cheap/free baby care so that they can continue their education/work as well as help in providing for food and shelter for them we would see a massive decrease in the number of women having abortions. The division I see in the US at least is between those who want these women/families provided with said things from the government and those who do not and insist that places like charities or families provide women with these things. I have seen both pro-life and pro-choice people support aiding these women.

If we could reframe the argument around these items rather then around what yo have mentioned we could probably see some progress.

[Nuroblav]

I was about to say, "hang on, don't we already have a topic about this?", but nice to see it back.

In my opinion there are things that either side may agree on, but it depends on how strict either side is on their opinion. In a discussion between a guy who believes in unlimited abortions, and another who believes in none at all, then I doubt common ground would be found. But in a discussion between a guy who believes in abortion up to...let's say 25 weeks, and another guy who only wants it in certain cases, there's going to be cases where they agree on some matters from my perspective.

[Godular]

I'm hoping that the odd form of the question for this iteration might serve to spice things up a bit, in that it will hopefully encourage folks to look at the argument in a different way.

[The Free Joy State]

The old abortion thread's gone...

Oh, well. Moving swiftly on. Interesting question, Godular.

I don't think pro-life/pro-choice are mutually exclusive. I think there is ground where the two sides could potentially agree. Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers generally want fewer abortions.

If pro-lifers and pro-choicers can come together to work on practical measures to achieve fewer abortions being necessary (better sex education, contraceptive access, more access to welfare, less stigmatisation) -- and I have seen people from both sides of the debate support these methods -- I think that it is possible for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers to share goals.

Where that becomes much more difficult is where either side aims blanket smears at the other, or where incredibly conservative pro-lifers refuse to consider methods to reduce conceptions while still wanting to see a world without abortion (of course, pro-choicers can also oppose methods of preventing conceptions and reducing the need for economic abortions, but -- in my personal experience -- this seems to be more rare).

[Slaughter None]

From what I can tell there seems to be a division in the US for how to deal with omen how have an unwanted pregnancy, and that division is not necessarily pro-life versus pro-choice. A massive percentage of the women who have abortions are poor. A huge percentage (74%) say that the reason the pregnancy is unwanted is that it would interfere with education, work, or the ability to care for already existing dependents. Another massive percent (73%) say they are unable to afford the pregnancy or the resulting child. What this says to me is that if support where provided to would be mothers through things like cheap/free baby care so that they can continue their education/work as well as help in providing for food and shelter for them we would see a massive decrease in the number of women having abortions. The division I see in the US at least is between those who want these women/families provided with said things from the government and those who do not and insist that places like charities or families provide women with these things. I have seen both pro-life and pro-choice people support aiding these women.

If we could reframe the argument around these items rather then around what yo have mentioned we could probably see some progress.

If we provide financial aid to pregnant women then the no. of abortions should drastically decrease as I think that Pro-life and Pro-Choice will agree that the concept of abortion is morally wrong( I love that we can agree on this). The only problem left would be women who want to have abortions despite being financially capable to do so but we can deal with that in the future.

[The New California Republic]

So, due to unfortunate happenstances from on-high, it appears that I must re-construct the Abortion Megathread. I'm fine with this, as it gives me an opportunity to re-frame the discussion.

Wait what, what happened?
Actually scratch that, I think I know why the thread disappeared. I flagged up a problem that I spotted in the thread to the Moderation team. I can't go into details, but it was so bad that I needed to file a GHR instead of letting folk see it by filing a report in the Moderation subforum. There obviously must have been no way to fix it other than throwing the thread in its entirety into the evidence locker. But trust me, it was more than bad enough to warrant them doing it if there was no other way to fix it.

[Oscana]

If we provide financial aid to pregnant women then the no. of abortions should drastically decrease as I think that Pro-life and Pro-Choice will agree that the concept of abortion is morally wrong( I love that we can agree on this). The only problem left would be women who want to have abortions despite being financially capable to do so but we can deal with that in the future.

I don't think we can agree on this.
I don't find anything morally wrong with the concept of abortion. I think you'll find that a majority of the pro-choice community is the same.

As to the OP. Yes, I think they are mutually exclusive.
There is probably some common ground to be found if you "reframe" the question. Both sides would probably say that yes, it would be good if there were less abortions.
But ultimately no matter how much debate and agreement you have around that new question, no matter what incentives you offer, eventually some woman is going to decide that she doesn't want to be pregnant, and you are still left with the original question. '"Can the state prevent a woman from getting an abortion?"

[Nobel Hobos 2]

From what I can tell there seems to be a division in the US for how to deal with omen how have an unwanted pregnancy, and that division is not necessarily pro-life versus pro-choice. A massive percentage of the women who have abortions are poor. A huge percentage (74%) say that the reason the pregnancy is unwanted is that it would interfere with education, work, or the ability to care for already existing dependents. Another massive percent (73%) say they are unable to afford the pregnancy or the resulting child. What this says to me is that if support where provided to would be mothers through things like cheap/free baby care so that they can continue their education/work as well as help in providing for food and shelter for them we would see a massive decrease in the number of women having abortions. The division I see in the US at least is between those who want these women/families provided with said things from the government and those who do not and insist that places like charities or families provide women with these things. I have seen both pro-life and pro-choice people support aiding these women.

If we could reframe the argument around these items rather then around what yo have mentioned we could probably see some progress.

If we provide financial aid to pregnant women then the no. of abortions should drastically decrease as I think that Pro-life and Pro-Choice will agree that the concept of abortion is morally wrong( I love that we can agree on this). The only problem left would be women who want to have abortions despite being financially capable to do so but we can deal with that in the future.

The assumption that most women who have abortions are poor ... well you should check for yourself before someone does that for you.

Providing financial aid is the right thing to do. The financial aid which all parents should get until the child is 18, starting when the female parent (or parent to be) first discovers she is pregnant, is a quite acceptable extension of said payment and does not in my view grant any personhood to the embryo/fetus. Unfortunately, I think some pro-choicers would hold that it does.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If we provide financial aid to pregnant women then the no. of abortions should drastically decrease as I think that Pro-life and Pro-Choice will agree that the concept of abortion is morally wrong( I love that we can agree on this). The only problem left would be women who want to have abortions despite being financially capable to do so but we can deal with that in the future.

I don't think we can agree on this.
I don't find anything morally wrong with the concept of abortion. I think you'll find that a majority of the pro-choice community is the same.

As to the OP. Yes, I think they are mutually exclusive.
There is probably some common ground to be found if you "reframe" the question. Both sides would probably say that yes, it would be good if there were less abortions.

Pro-life believe that explicitly. Not all of them are keen on the obvious solution: more contraception. Even fewer like my solution: free contraception.

Pro-choice usually agree with "less abortions". But some think that is just code for denying abortion; that it could be a way of saying "let's close abortion clinics everywhere but California, bingo, less abortions"

But ultimately no matter how much debate and agreement you have around that new question, no matter what incentives you offer, eventually some woman is going to decide that she doesn't want to be pregnant, and you are still left with the original question. '"Can the state prevent a woman from getting an abortion?"

Very late term abortions should be allowed only for certain reasons. There, that's as far as I'm prepared to compromise. I am quite strongly pro-choice, but not extremely, and I think it unlikely anyone will move me more towards what I see as a false compromise. The other side accuse us of killing people. It's pretty hard to compromise with that: like I'm supposed to say "well I'll only half-kill the fetus then, happy?"

[Agarntrop]

No they're not.

You can be personally opposed to abortion yet not support criminalising it.

[The Free Joy State]

If we provide financial aid to pregnant women then the no. of abortions should drastically decrease as I think that Pro-life and Pro-Choice will agree that the concept of abortion is morally wrong( I love that we can agree on this). The only problem left would be women who want to have abortions despite being financially capable to do so but we can deal with that in the future.

The assumption that most women who have abortions are poor ... well you should check for yourself before someone does that for you.

Providing financial aid is the right thing to do. The financial aid which all parents should get until the child is 18, starting when the female parent (or parent to be) first discovers she is pregnant, is a quite acceptable extension of said payment and does not in my view grant any personhood to the embryo/fetus. Unfortunately, I think some pro-choicers would hold that it does.

I would personally hold the view that providing a pregnant woman free prenatal healthcare, prenatal maternity payments, and other prenatal support does not entail conferring personhood on the foetus (in the UK, there is a law that criminalises the act of attacking a woman so she loses a foetus capable of being born alive -- it is called Child Destruction and also does not confer personhood or conflict with abortion law). I would view it, in the immediate term, as support for the woman's life, health and wellbeing, and -- if she would prefer to keep the pregnancy, but for financial worries -- an empowerment to support that choice.

I certainly think it would be nice if both sides could come together to support measures like that.

[Oscana]

Very late term abortions should be allowed only for certain reasons. There, that's as far as I'm prepared to compromise. I am quite strongly pro-choice, but not extremely, and I think it unlikely anyone will move me more towards what I see as a false compromise. The other side accuse us of killing people. It's pretty hard to compromise with that: like I'm supposed to say "well I'll only half-kill the fetus then, happy?"

Pretty much me.
Abortions should only be prevented IF termination of the pregnancy would recommend/require delivery of the fetus in such a way that it has a high likelihood of surviving, and in that case the baby should immediately become a ward of the state (put up for adoption with no further obligations imposed on the mother). [edit... and maybe not even then]

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No they're not.

You can be personally opposed to abortion yet not support criminalising it.

"Personally opposed" means you would never have one yourself? Nobody could object to that.

Do you support any restrictions or bans, short of criminalizing it? How about no public money to be spent?

[The Free Joy State]

No they're not.

You can be personally opposed to abortion yet not support criminalising it.

"Personally opposed" means you would never have one yourself? Nobody could object to that.

Do you support any restrictions or bans, short of criminalizing it? How about no public money to be spent?

I favour public money being spent on abortion -- how else are the financially vulnerable to obtain the treatment they need quickly and effectively, before it becomes too late? However, I do think the current restrictions on late-term abortions are about right (but that's such an infinitesimally small part of the debate, they barely enter into it).

But I like the OP's attempt to look at what unites the camps, rather than divides them. I think it's a much more positive approach to the debate.

[Agarntrop]

No they're not.

You can be personally opposed to abortion yet not support criminalising it.

"Personally opposed" means you would never have one yourself? Nobody could object to that.

Yes, generally

Do you support any restrictions or bans, short of criminalizing it?

Most countries have time limits on the procedure, and for good reason. I think after around 18 weeks' gestation when the fetus is developed to an extent that it can sense pain or survive outside of the womb, I think at that stage it's not unreasonable to consider the fetus no longer a part of the woman's body and restrict the abortion procedure to emergencies.

How about no public money to be spent?

I don't support this. I think that abortion should be accessible and as a result public money should be spent on it when neccesary.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The assumption that most women who have abortions are poor ... well you should check for yourself before someone does that for you.

Providing financial aid is the right thing to do. The financial aid which all parents should get until the child is 18, starting when the female parent (or parent to be) first discovers she is pregnant, is a quite acceptable extension of said payment and does not in my view grant any personhood to the embryo/fetus. Unfortunately, I think some pro-choicers would hold that it does.

I would personally hold the view that providing a pregnant woman free prenatal healthcare, prenatal maternity payments, and other prenatal support does not entail conferring personhood on the foetus (in the UK, there is a law that criminalises the act of attacking a woman so she loses a foetus capable of being born alive -- it is called Child Destruction and also does not confer personhood or conflict with abortion law).

It makes sense to me, though it might be controversial, to consider the fetus a temporary extension of the woman's own personhood. Not in any way a person in it's own right. But having protections of law identical to the mother: she can harm or kill that part of herself, but without her permission nobody else can.

So that law in the UK is fine, better than nothing, but I feel it doesn't go far enough. The qualification "capable of being born alive" is hard to define. I can't think of any other line to draw. "When she first becomes aware she is pregnant" I want to say, but that is even more variable between women.

Are there other lesser penalties for treating a woman in a way that causes her to miscarry, or the fetus die inside her ... but at an earlier stage? A lesser penalty at earlier stage would make the "capable of being born alive" line less troublesome.

I would view it, in the immediate term, as support for the woman's life, health and wellbeing.

I certainly think it would be nice if both sides could come together to support measures like that.

Just about the first thing I said about it, was that it would be consistent with parenting payments to the age of 18. Not having that, or the principle of that (ie the woman is being supported not from charity, but as payment for the socially-valuable but unpaid work of being a parent), giving up that principle is already a compromise for me. But yes, I would support govt assistance to any pregnant woman without any strings attached.

[The Free Joy State]

I would personally hold the view that providing a pregnant woman free prenatal healthcare, prenatal maternity payments, and other prenatal support does not entail conferring personhood on the foetus (in the UK, there is a law that criminalises the act of attacking a woman so she loses a foetus capable of being born alive -- it is called Child Destruction and also does not confer personhood or conflict with abortion law).

It makes sense to me, though it might be controversial, to consider the fetus a temporary extension of the woman's own personhood. Not in any way a person in it's own right. But having protections of law identical to the mother: she can harm or kill that part of herself, but without her permission nobody else can.

So that law in the UK is fine, better than nothing, but I feel it doesn't go far enough. The qualification "capable of being born alive" is hard to define. I can't think of any other line to draw. "When she first becomes aware she is pregnant" I want to say, but that is even more variable between women.

It's defined as post medical viability (as in, if it were born that day, it would likely live). I don't think it's vague at all.

I think it's a solid law. The deliberate, non-legal (i.e. not an abortion, which is hard to obtain at that stage of pregnancy in the UK) death of a foetus that is capable of an independent existence is an offence.

Are there other lesser penalties for treating a woman in a way that causes her to miscarry, or the fetus die inside her ... but at an earlier stage? A lesser penalty at earlier stage would make the "capable of being born alive" line less troublesome.

I think it would be treated as an assault against the woman.

I would view it, in the immediate term, as support for the woman's life, health and wellbeing.

I certainly think it would be nice if both sides could come together to support measures like that.

Just about the first thing I said about it, was that it would be consistent with parenting payments to the age of 18. Not having that, or the principle of that (ie the woman is being supported not from charity, but as payment for the socially-valuable but unpaid work of being a parent), giving up that principle is already a compromise for me. But yes, I would support govt assistance to any pregnant woman without any strings attached.

I think assistance to pregnant women without strings, to empower them (which I do think will help reduce the number of abortions due to economic hardship), will reduce concerns among pro-choicers who worry about the risks of the appearance of awarding personhood to foetuses.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

"Personally opposed" means you would never have one yourself? Nobody could object to that.

Yes, generally

Do you support any restrictions or bans, short of criminalizing it?

Most countries have time limits on the procedure, and for good reason. I think after around 18 weeks' gestation when the fetus is developed to an extent that it can sense pain or survive outside of the womb, I think at that stage it's not unreasonable to consider the fetus no longer a part of the woman's body and restrict the abortion procedure to emergencies.

Well I'm sorry, but I DO think that is unreasonable.

I consider the fetus a part of the woman's body until it is born, or of course, with her consent, aborted.

So why would I limit the woman's right to abortion ever, at all? Well it's somewhat related to your idea "can survive outside the womb" but putting that definition at a (to me) more reasonable time. Say, whatever point 95% of neonatal births survive. Or 75% of births that don't need neo-natal care.

Setting it at the earliest age recorded for any neo-nate to survive, is going to require the law to be changed every few years, as neo-natal care gets even better, so it's 16 weeks, then 15 weeks ... at some point it hits an age when most women don't even know they're pregnant (even with a home test) and ah-hah, it's no longer possible for a woman to get an abortion at all.

Neo-nates that do survive, often incur lifelong disability from being born so young. That's not to say they should never have been born at all, it's more to point out that "born at 18 weeks" the fetus still needed it's mother for something that nurses and machines cannot (yet) provide.

How about no public money to be spent?

I don't support this. I think that abortion should be accessible and as a result public money should be spent on it when neccesary.

Excellent. Now that we've established you are more pro-life than pro-choice, you at least don't have the moral aversion to abortion which stops extreme pro-lifers wanting anything to do with it. Or to do anything about it, other than make it stop.

Some of them, geez, all they know about women or their business is what they've read in the bible.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It makes sense to me, though it might be controversial, to consider the fetus a temporary extension of the woman's own personhood. Not in any way a person in it's own right. But having protections of law identical to the mother: she can harm or kill that part of herself, but without her permission nobody else can.

So that law in the UK is fine, better than nothing, but I feel it doesn't go far enough. The qualification "capable of being born alive" is hard to define. I can't think of any other line to draw. "When she first becomes aware she is pregnant" I want to say, but that is even more variable between women.

It's defined as post medical viability (as in, if it were born that day, it would likely live). I don't think it's vague at all.

You have an autopsy, to determine whether the dead fetus would have survived. You don't think there's some margin of error in that?

And, is that surviving with neo-natal care, or without?

I think it's a solid law. The deliberate, non-legal (i.e. not an abortion, which is hard to obtain at that stage of pregnancy in the UK) death of a foetus that is capable of an independent existence is an offence.

When you put it like that, I suddenly get suspicious of this law. Does the woman have any say in whether the assailant is charged?

Are there other lesser penalties for treating a woman in a way that causes her to miscarry, or the fetus die inside her ... but at an earlier stage? A lesser penalty at earlier stage would make the "capable of being born alive" line less troublesome.

I think it would be treated as an assault against the woman.

So, treated the same as if she wasn't pregnant at all.

Just about the first thing I said about it, was that it would be consistent with parenting payments to the age of 18. Not having that, or the principle of that (ie the woman is being supported not from charity, but as payment for the socially-valuable but unpaid work of being a parent), giving up that principle is already a compromise for me. But yes, I would support govt assistance to any pregnant woman without any strings attached.

I think assistance to pregnant women without strings, to empower them (which I do think will help reduce the number of abortions due to economic hardship), will reduce concerns among pro-choicers who worry about the risks of the appearance of awarding personhood to foetuses.

Yes, I agree. I don't guarantee all pro-choicers will. As soon as a Republican says "pregnancy" the Democrats are going to think "this is about abortion". And they'll be damn suspicious that out of nowhere Republicans want to give money to welfare queens ...

Are you familiar with the term "a motherhood statement"? It used to be that politicians could make themselves look good without losing a single vote: all they had to do was say something in praise of motherhood. Everyone likes motherhood! But I wonder what would happen now if a politician got up and gave a rousing but vague speech about "the virtues of motherhood" ...

[The Free Joy State]

It's defined as post medical viability (as in, if it were born that day, it would likely live). I don't think it's vague at all.

You have an autopsy, to determine whether the dead fetus would have survived. You don't think there's some margin of error in that?

And, is that surviving with neo-natal care, or without?

In the UK, it's apparently 28 weeks of pregnancy (sorry for the link).

Which I don't think is too early. It's four weeks after the cut-off point for a non-emergency abortion, survival is between 80 and 90% and it increases the chance the foetus would having a better chance of a reasonable quality of life.

I think it's a solid law. The deliberate, non-legal (i.e. not an abortion, which is hard to obtain at that stage of pregnancy in the UK) death of a foetus that is capable of an independent existence is an offence.

When you put it like that, I suddenly get suspicious of this law. Does the woman have any say in whether the assailant is charged?

As far as I can tell, it's most general use is against fathers-to-be who deliberately caused late stillbirths. I don't think the woman has a say in charging; it's whether the CPS thinks they'll be able to get a conviction.

I think it would be treated as an assault against the woman.

So, treated the same as if she wasn't pregnant at all.

I'm not sure if that would be mentioned in the victim impact statement, to try and get the attacker a harsher sentence.

I think assistance to pregnant women without strings, to empower them (which I do think will help reduce the number of abortions due to economic hardship), will reduce concerns among pro-choicers who worry about the risks of the appearance of awarding personhood to foetuses.

Yes, I agree. I don't guarantee all pro-choicers will. As soon as a Republican says "pregnancy" the Democrats are going to think "this is about abortion". And they'll be damn suspicious that out of nowhere Republicans want to give money to welfare queens ...

Are you familiar with the term "a motherhood statement"? It used to be that politicians could make themselves look good without losing a single vote: all they had to do was say something in praise of motherhood. Everyone likes motherhood! But I wonder what would happen now if a politician got up and gave a rousing but vague speech about "the virtues of motherhood" ...

Depending on the speaker, "Conservatives want to get women barefoot and pregnant"/"Liberals want to give women money for nothing", most likely. That is the problem with tribal politics.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You have an autopsy, to determine whether the dead fetus would have survived. You don't think there's some margin of error in that?

And, is that surviving with neo-natal care, or without?

In the UK, it's apparently 28 weeks of pregnancy (sorry for the link).

Which I don't think is too early. It's four weeks after the cut-off point for a non-emergency abortion, survival is between 80 and 90% and it increases the chance the foetus would having a better chance of a reasonable quality of life.

Thanks. There's quite a difference between 18 and 28 weeks, the fetus grows a lot in that time.

When you put it like that, I suddenly get suspicious of this law. Does the woman have any say in whether the assailant is charged?

As far as I can tell, it's most general use is against fathers-to-be who deliberately caused late stillbirths. I don't think the woman has a say in charging; it's whether the CPS thinks they'll be able to get a conviction.

I'm seeing a law that probably isn't abused so much (in that a woman going to a back-door abortionist would be hard to charge, since she wouldn't give evidence against herself ... so she's unlikely to be charged, lack of evidence). "Abused" in my mind, is the law being used to go after illegal late-term abortions when that's not the stated purpose. To nail it down though, I would still want full veto power for the woman.

But probably the law isn't used as often as it should be. For the same reason women often don't want to give evidence against a rapist. I mean, it's horrible, but some women will stay with a "boyfriend" even after he does that to her.

I'm not particularly critical of this law. As with any law, you've got to look at a few cases to see how it actually works.

Depending on the speaker, "Conservatives want to get women barefoot and pregnant"/"Liberals want to give women money for nothing", most likely. That is the problem with tribal politics.

(I think I snipped some out of your post; that was an accident)

I've read that before 1973 the A word wasn't even a point of contention between the parties, but then it grew and grew. I'm not sure it's still growing. There's trouble brewing at the state level but it's almost as though the religious right would rather just wait until after Trump's time before pressing their favorite button in Washington. Afraid Trump might take the wrong side, perhaps?

[Dogmeat]

They are functionally mutually exclusive.

They would not be if artificial womb technology were to be further developed. Unfortunately the pro-life crowd doesn't actually seem interested in doing this, and spends all their money on billboards instead.

[The New California Republic]

They are functionally mutually exclusive.

They would not be if artificial womb technology were to be further developed.

...on previous occasions in the previous threads that has actually been one of the only—if not the only—real points of collimation between the two sides: that artificial wombs would be one of the only things that would by and large end the debate once and for all.

[Slavakino]

To an extent they could be mutually exclusive. Because you got different levels of pro-life or pro-choice. For example, you got people who are opposed to abortion but may allow it for certain cases same with pro-life people. You also have people who completely oppose or completely support. Personally, I'm more of the "If you have a REALLY good/genuine/valid reason for an abortion then it's legal" sort of stance (And no the reason "I don't want a baby" is not valid)