The Case for a National Compromise on Abortion

Guest poster proposes a compromise to put the national debate permanently behind us

This is a guest post by Twitter pal RandomSprint. Enjoy!

I wouldn’t be so audacious to say that I can change your mind on abortion. But I will boldly suggest a national compromise that puts the issue behind us. I will also suggest something even more audacious.

Fable Part I

But first, a fable.

In Norse mythology, Loki once lost a bet to some dwarves. As punishment, the master craftsmen earned the right to remove the trickster god’s head.

“Yes,” Loki conceded, “you do get to remove my head, but you may not remove my neck.” Because the dwarves could not determine where the head ended and the neck began, there was nowhere they could safely cut that would only remove the head. The dwarves remained locked in a debate until Ragnarok, and Loki kept his head.

The True Believers

Twenty to twenty-five percent of Americans reject any limitations on abortion, and twenty percent feel abortion should be illegal in all cases. Both camps represent genuine convictions grounded in good-faith reasoning. Just in case you live under a rock, ensconced in a political bubble, it is worth sketching a picture of the True Believers no one will persuade.

The pro-life True Believer sees abortion as our nation’s greatest sin. They see raising babies as a sacred, necessary, virtuous pursuit and abortion as being tantamount to murder if not murder itself. The CDC estimates six hundred thousand abortions every year, and pro-life True Believers are horrified.

The pro-choice True Believer sees abortion as an essential healthcare service. They believe body autonomy and financial independence are sacred, necessary, virtuous pursuits, and someone being forced to raise a child is tantamount to slavery.

I can sympathize and respect both of these views, and I do not expect to change the minds of True Believers. If I have not stated either True Belief strongly enough, please correct me in the comments below!

The Moderates

The remaining 55-60% of Americans are unled on abortion and reject both extremes. That is a stunning figure. There are political machines that direct dollars, marshal marches, and ply propaganda, but the majority of Americans remain unpersuaded. It is difficult to think of other contentious issues with this fact pattern! I think it is likely the case that if a political leader made a credible case for the moderate position, the percentage would increase even further.

Through the power of introspection, I will now say what moderates likely believe:

• Abortion should always be legal when the health of the mother is potentially at stake. I cannot ask a potential mother to risk her life for her unborn child, and I imagine most moderates feel the same way.

• Abortion is more merciful in cases where the child is destined to live a short, painful life.

  • As an example, Tay-Sachs is a genetic condition that progressively destroys nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. After the condition is made manifest, often at 3-6 months of age, most children do not survive past 4-5 years, and those five years involve loss of senses, motor skills, muscle control, spasms, etc. It is most likely to be found in populations that have undergone a genetic bottleneck, such as the Jewish or Cajun populations.

  • Raising a child with Tay-Sachs can be deeply meaningful for the parents, but if an unborn child is determined to be genetically fated for that end, it is hard for me to say that abortion is not a less bad option.

• Women deserve bodily autonomy. Preferably, they would select other birth control options, but it should be an option as a last resort. However…

• If one is to receive an abortion, there is a moral obligation to perform it as soon as possible. I am most comfortable with a pill that prevents implantation. Infanticide is, both legally and ethically, murder. I don’t know where that transition lies, but it is best for everyone to perform the procedure as soon as possible.

All of this gestures to the Clinton-era framing of "safe, legal, and rare."

With the above clues, we can hopefully help determine what is the head and what is the neck.

The Status Quo is Eternal Oscillation

An interesting dynamic of this debate is that the unled moderates cause the abortion debate to oscillate between extremes. When the True Believers of either side score major victories, the moderates turn against them, leading to similar overreaches.

When a Virginia bill attempted to loosen restrictions on third-trimester abortions, many moderates backed pro-life candidates. Most recently, pro-lifers overturned Roe v. Wade, listened to their most energetic supporters, and triggered a backlash with moves that threatened IVF access -- as seen in Alabama, where a court ruling briefly shut down fertility clinics by treating embryos as children. The idea of restricting IVF is deeply unpopular with almost all of the country.

So now, the pro-choice True Believers enjoy temporary allies from the unrepresented moderates who will stay until the pro-choicers inevitably overreach.

The silent majority does not donate to political causes, but they do vote. And without an intentional compromise, the abortion debate will oscillate indefinitely like dwarves trying to figure out where to cut.

Part of the Case for Compromise is that Compromise is the only way for the debate to end. If you are a True Believer reading this essay, I am not asking you to trade eventual victory for compromise. I am asking you to trade stalemate for compromise. You will never win, and…

The abortion debate uniquely damages the nation

When we debate a topic, it takes on greater focus in our minds. The abortion debate threatens to drive those who participate in it insane to the detriment of us all.

Harm of Pro-Choice Discourse

Currently, Pro-Choice True Believers attempt to rally moderates to their cause by exaggerating the Pro-Life overreaches. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, many conservative states rushed to enact abortion restrictions.

I know a conservative doctor in a conservative state (not Texas) who performed an abortion for the health of the mother. At the time, he thought he was committing a crime, and I showed him a Google search that confirmed the procedure was legal. I'm not a lawyer, but his actions seemed clearly legal to me.

From what I can tell, my friend is not alone.

• "Doctors worried about getting sued under Texas’ restrictive abortion law have delayed treating pregnancy complications until patients’ lives were in danger, according to a paper from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project."

• "When abortion was legal in Texas, the rate of sepsis for women hospitalized during second-trimester pregnancy loss was relatively steady. Then the state’s first abortion ban went into effect and the rate of sepsis spiked."

To grant Pro-Life activists as much grace as possible, these doctors were all confused by Pro-Choice propaganda on abortion. (We must rectify this with a national compromise that uncenters the abortion debate.)

To grant Pro-Choice activists as much grace as possible, perhaps some state laws are so vaguely worded that even medically necessary procedures become legally questionable or are delayed. (We MUST rectify this with a national compromise that uncenters the abortion debate.)

If a conservative doctor is confused about the state of medical care, then imagine the unnecessary fear and stress forced upon liberal women. I have met liberal women who are afraid to travel to certain states while pregnant or even inform their California employers they are pregnant.

This confusion about legality is not healthy for anyone. Doctors should be able to perform necessary care with confidence, and mothers should not be startled with unnecessary risks.

Pregnant women should be shopping for onesies, not living in fear of legal risks. The abortion debate must be sidelined.

Harm of Pro-Life Discourse

Unifying political messages often rely on identity. As Obama often put it, "that's who we are."

If you live in a Pro-Choice bubble, you may have never experienced the cynicism with which Pro-Life True Believers respond to this style of argumentation.

• "You want me to care about immigrants? In a country where mothers can murder their own children?"

• "You claim to care about the pain felt by chickens when you don't even care about third-trimester fetuses?"

The lack of a national compromise on abortion means that the True Believers marinate in this resentment. The Pro-Life worldview is rooted in a belief in inherent dignity. Without a national compromise, it transforms into bitterness and moral alienation. The abortion debate must be sidelined.

Fable Part II

"Aye, I ken this bit’s the heid, and that bit’s the neck," the gruffest, strongest dwarf said. "Ye tell me where tae cut. Draw the line. I don't much care."

A Proposed National Compromise

The abortion debate has paralyzed American politics for decades. The extremes have hardened. The courts have spoken. But Congress has mostly sat on its hands.

The most audacious part of my essay is that I will ask for the federal legislative branch to do something constructive for the first time in my life. Imagine if a bipartisan congress passed the following national laws in a single bill:

• Unambiguously define what procedures protect the life and health of the mother, and mandate this medical care is legal in all states.

• Allow abortion for fatal genetic fetal conditions like Tay-Sachs, regardless of any state's rules.

• Guarantee national access to abortion up to 15 weeks.

• Prohibit abortion after 25 weeks, except as excepted above.

• For states with no clear laws, default to 20 weeks.

Within this framework, individual states can be more or less permissive. True Believers can fight to make California have more permissive laws than Mississippi. At this point, moderates won't care, and the True Believers will struggle to raise interest away from the default. Meanwhile, the worst cases from either extreme will be avoided.

If you are a True Believers from either camp, you can feel free to pick nits about my 20-week parameter, but consider the following:

• 20-weeks limit matches the legal limit in Texas from 2013 through 2021 (when it was moved to six weeks).[3](https://www.aclutx.org/en/recent-history-restrictive-abortion-laws-texas)

• A fetus is viable at roughly 24-weeks, so by default no abortions will occur after this point.

• Most European countries including France, Germany, and Italy have limits of 12-14 weeks.

• You can feel free to make a moral case against abortion or for adoption in your personal life.

• You can feel free to debate that the law should be different in your state.

• You can feel free to debate that the law should be different in the comments.

• You can also use the comments to say, "Great suggestion, RandomSprint. I'll send a message to my senators and representative."

Hold Politicians Accountable

Depending on who you ask, we are facing a looming debt crisis, demographics crisis, environmental crisis, and/or inequality crisis. We are entering a new AI age which could either be a destabilizing threat or an unprecedented opportunity. America is coming to terms with her place in a multi-polar world.

I am sure it must be very nice to be a politician pledged to True Believers on this 20th century question, but we need to resolve this issue and direct our attention to 21st century challenges. Ideally, our political machines should work harder than endlessly repeating yesterday's debates.

They owe us solutions on other problems. Let's clear the decks so they can focus on those.

RandomSprint usually writes short fiction. Visit his substack Tales From the Void to check out his writing.