Hypothetical question

[Lursa]

Part of the purpose of this hypothetical was to determine if abortion proponents are willing to accept restrictions on the practice - in this case, when there are no health problems, no poverty problems, and the child is advanced in development.

I accept only legal regulations that ensure no pain for the unborn and minimize such for the woman, and focus on the woman's safety.

Is that clear enough for you?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Part of the purpose of this hypothetical was to determine if abortion proponents are willing to accept restrictions on the practice - in this case, when there are no health problems, no poverty problems, and the child is advanced in development.

As I explained, it is impossible to get a black and white answer. If I said no, I would be lying. If I said yes, I would be lying.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes in many states.

Did you not know that? I'm guessing you are desperately attempting to set up a 'gotcha' here? It's pretty obviously that your entire OP is supposed to be such. (And failed)

Well, you object to the OP hypothetical, so I'm trying to get you to take each step, one acceptable hypothetical at a time, until you get to the original hypothetical.

So since it's legal, my wife could plausibly stroll into an abortion clinic right now, at 8 months pregnant, and procure an abortion without having to justify her reasoning. Correct?

 

[Lursa]

Well, you object to the OP hypothetical, so I'm trying to get you to take each step, one acceptable hypothetical at a time, until you get to the original hypothetical.

So since it's legal, my wife could plausibly stroll into an abortion clinic right now, at 8 months pregnant, and procure an abortion without having to justify her reasoning. Correct?

Yup.

Except that no Dr would be forced to give her one. Also, not many Drs are qualified to do such a late term procedure, and there only a few facilities in the US where they do them. But yes.

Let's cut to the chase tho: you're going to say she has no reason. And I'm going to say, AGAIN, that of course she does. No woman has a painful and dangerous procedure 'for no reason.' And esp. not when she could get ~$20,000 for the baby in a private adoption.

That is where your hypothetical goes into fantasy, riding unicorns, territory.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Atreus21]

As I explained, it is impossible to get a black and white answer. If I said no, I would be lying. If I said yes, I would be lying.

Yet you answered no in the poll. Why?

 

[Atreus21]

Yup.

Alright. So despite how far-fetched it might be, the hypothetical in the OP could plausibly happen, correct?

 

[Lursa]

Alright. So despite how far-fetched it might be, the hypothetical in the OP could plausibly happen, correct?

You clipped my post, here you go:

Except that no Dr would be forced to give her one. Also, not many Drs are qualified to do such a late term procedure, and there only a few facilities in the US where they do them. But yes.

Let's cut to the chase tho: you're going to say she has no reason. And I'm going to say, AGAIN, that of course she does. No woman has a painful and dangerous procedure 'for no reason.' And esp. not when she could get ~$20,000 for the baby in a private adoption.

That is where your hypothetical goes into fantasy, "riding unicorns," territory.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[maquiscat]

Stupid question. Aborting a child is obviously impossible.

If I was a dictator, every kid in America, including Catholics, would be required by federal law to learn everything about sexual intercourse, contraception, Plan B, sexual assault, pregnancy, and human development fro zygote to birth that they are mentally able to understand at the high school level in health classes. No woman in that scenario would have an unwanted pregnancy.

I have to assume that you are going with the usual argument that the child stage doesn't occur until after birth. However, since the OP doesn't seem to be trying to manipulate the word for emotional swaying, but instead, is simply using the colloquial, the argument of impossible is moot.

As to the bold, while it would be very rare, I would shy away from saying never. A possible scenario I can think of is if the woman found out that the man was cheating on her, and no longer wanted to have his baby. Unlikely as it may be, it is possible, and as such, are you saying that she should not have the right to seek an abortion at that late date?

 

[maquiscat]

How about you show a case of this ever happening instead... then I will answer.

Hypotheticals don't have to have already happened, or even be possible to happen under present circumstances. That's why they are hypotheticals.

 

[maquiscat]

:lol: Babies can't articulate speech like that!!

Well he is Jesus, AND coming straight down from Heaven, instead of through a womb this time, so who knows what kind of extra powers he has?

 

[maquiscat]

Should we have laws that say it's illegal to ride unicorns when unicorns dont even exist? Yes or no? That's about as rational a scenario as you posted.

If the hypothetical started with, "Assume unicorns exist." then it doesn't matter if unicorns are real or not, for the hypothetical, they are. Hence, hypothetical

 

[maquiscat]

Mandating birth control for others is an interesting statement for someone who claims to be a libertarian.


If you don't get a elective abortion in the first 20-22 weeks then abortion should only be permitted in a medical situation where the life of the mother or the child is at risk unless there are extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest or the person was not permitted to make that decision because of the actions of others.

I would rather the state pay for elective abortions than to force any women to carry the fetus to term and be required to raise a child that isn't want or she cannot afford because the costs of an abortion is much cheaper than 18+ years of the social safety net. . Id much rather that effective artificial birth control be provided at no cost to those who cannot afford it than abortion but birth control is not 100% effective so abortion must always be an option to any women who would choose it.

You actually contradict yourself. You don't want to woman to be forced to carry to term, yet you said that she should not be permitted to get an abortion after 22 weeks. What if she decides that she wants an abortion at 28 of the 40 weeks? She's forced to carry to term unless there are "extenuating circumstances", as you put it?

 

[maquiscat]

Right. Suppose her exact purpose was that the child not survive, and thus she consents to an abortion but not induced labor or a C-section so as to save the baby.

It's her body, and her choice. Her choice is to abort, not give birth to a live baby. Do we honor her choice?

So given this, does the dictator, in choosing to allow her to get the abortion, forcing a doctor to perform it, or is that a separate hypothetical?

 

[maquiscat]

My wife is 8 months pregnant. If she went to an abortion clinic capable of such a procedure to acquire an abortion, she'd be within her legal rights to do so, correct?

Actually, maybe not. As noted earlier, states can restrict abortions after the point of viability, as long as conditions exists to allow for abortions for medical necessity, i.e. the physical or mental health of the woman.

 

[Atreus21]

You clipped my post, here you go:

Except that no Dr would be forced to give her one. Also, not many Drs are qualified to do such a late term procedure, and there only a few facilities in the US where they do them. But yes.

Let's cut to the chase tho: you're going to say she has no reason. And I'm going to say, AGAIN, that of course she does. No woman has a painful and dangerous procedure 'for no reason.' And esp. not when she could get ~$20,000 for the baby in a private adoption.

That is where your hypothetical goes into fantasy, "riding unicorns," territory.

No doctor would be forced to give her one, but would also not be legally prohibited from it. I said earlier that she would go to one of the few clinics capable of performing late term abortions like this.

I didn't say she has no reason. I'm saying we don't know her reasons, and unless I'm mistaken she's not legally obliged to disclose her reasons.

So, couldn't the hypothetical plausibly happen?

 

[Atreus21]

Actually, maybe not. As noted earlier, states can restrict abortions after the point of viability, as long as conditions exists to allow for abortions for medical necessity, i.e. the physical or mental health of the woman.

If the mother cites depression, does that meet the mental health standard to abort after viability?

 

[Atreus21]

So given this, does the dictator, in choosing to allow her to get the abortion, forcing a doctor to perform it, or is that a separate hypothetical?

The doctor in this case is not considered, but suppose for the purposes of this hypothetical that he or she has the competence to perform it, and is willing to do so.

 

[Lisa]

You actually contradict yourself. You don't want to woman to be forced to carry to term, yet you said that she should not be permitted to get an abortion after 22 weeks. What if she decides that she wants an abortion at 28 of the 40 weeks? She's forced to carry to term unless there are "extenuating circumstances", as you put it?

How is that a contradiction, unless you are ignoring the core legal concept of fetal viability?

1.) The window for elective (non-medical or non-criminal) abortions ends at 22-24 weeks. If you cannot make the choice to terminate the pregnancy for 4.0-4.5 months then you are forced to carry the fetus to term. That is the first half of the gestation period. I support the state paying for the abortions so one of her reasons cannot be that she cannot afford the cost. If she had been held against her will when she did want to terminate before that period then that would fall under the extenuating medical/legal circumstances.

2.) At 28 weeks the fetus would be viable, soo unless there is a medical circumstance that her life is at risk, the fetus life is at risk or the fetus is not viable, then she must carry to term or another 8 and possible be induced at 36 weeks

 

[maquiscat]

If the mother cites depression, does that meet the mental health standard to abort after viability?

She would have to be diagnosed by a doctor. The law however, cannot require other doctors to verify it afterwards. So, no, according to current law (with the caveat of varies by state), just walking in and claiming depression is not sufficient for an abortion at that late a stage. That is before we consider the willing abortion performer aspect.

 

[Lisa]

If the mother cites depression, does that meet the mental health standard to abort after viability?

Not if depression or other mental health issues can be treated.

 

[Lursa]

If the hypothetical started with, "Assume unicorns exist." then it doesn't matter if unicorns are real or not, for the hypothetical, they are. Hence, hypothetical

He didnt start with 'assume she had no reason.' And that is where his hypothetical fails.

If he did start with that, I wouldnt play...it's as ludicrous as 'assume unicorns exist.'

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[maquiscat]

How is that a contradiction, unless you are ignoring the core legal concept of fetal viability?

1.) The window for elective (non-medical or non-criminal) abortions ends at 22-24 weeks. If you cannot make the choice to terminate the pregnancy for 4.0-4.5 months then you are forced to carry the fetus to term. That is the first half of the gestation period. I support the state paying for the abortions so one of her reasons cannot be that she cannot afford the cost. If she had been held against her will when she did want to terminate before that period then that would fall under the extenuating medical/legal circumstances.

2.) At 28 weeks the fetus would be viable, soo unless there is a medical circumstance that her life is at risk, the fetus life is at risk or the fetus is not viable, then she must carry to term or another 8 and possible be induced at 36 weeks

Ok I see. I misread. You were saying that you didn't want to see a forced to term because of an inability to pay for the procedure earlier on. But then it seems that you are willing to force her to carry to term if she waits till beyond the viability point. So why does bodily autonomy suddenly fail to be the woman's right?

 

[Lursa]

No doctor would be forced to give her one, but would also not be legally prohibited from it. I said earlier that she would go to one of the few clinics capable of performing late term abortions like this.

I didn't say she has no reason. I'm saying we don't know her reasons, and unless I'm mistaken she's not legally obliged to disclose her reasons.

So, couldn't the hypothetical plausibly happen?

Asked and answered.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lisa]

Ok I see. I misread. You were saying that you didn't want to see a forced to term because of an inability to pay for the procedure earlier on. But then it seems that you are willing to force her to carry to term if she waits till beyond the viability point. So why does bodily autonomy suddenly fail to be the woman's right?

Elective abortion has a limit that closes at the point of viability because it must be balanced at some point. The vast majority of women know that we are pregnant between 6-8 weeks, so there are another 10-12 weeks (2 months) of the window to choose to have an abortion that is not because of a medical need. That window also includes one or more doctors' appointments as a checkup on the progression of the pregnancy. Most women know whether they want to terminate within a few days of a postive pregnancy test.

 

[maquiscat]

Elective abortion has a limit that closes at the point of viability because it must be balanced at some point. The vast majority of women know that we are pregnant between 6-8 weeks, so there are another 10-12 weeks (2 months) of the window to choose to have an abortion that is not because of a medical need. That window also includes one or more doctors' appointments as a checkup on the progression of the pregnancy. Most women know whether they want to terminate within a few days of a postive pregnancy test.

Some women never know till the moment their water breaks. So should a woman who doesn't find out she's pregnant until week 28 be forced to carry to term? Why does bodily autonomy go away?