Hypothetical question

[maquiscat]

No women have abortions of 8 month old healthy fetuses.

Of course they would have it. And perhaps they would have a C-section. And get $20,000 for a private adoption...or not. Or give it her sister or...there are many many options a woman WOULD take rather than killing the fetus.

But that is not the OP question and I have focused on that in my answers.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, because it just keeps passing over heads. I am not interested in what is the most likely choice a woman would make. I am interested in which choices she has the right to make. As noted, even if only one woman ever had an abortion once in a decade, the right for her to have one would still be important.

So let's try again. Does the woman have a RIGHT to have an abortion (regardless of whether she can find a doctor to perform it) at the 8 month point?

 

[Lursa]

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, because it just keeps passing over heads. I am not interested in what is the most likely choice a woman would make. I am interested in which choices she has the right to make. As noted, even if only one woman ever had an abortion once in a decade, the right for her to have one would still be important.

So let's try again. Does the woman have a RIGHT to have an abortion (regardless of whether she can find a doctor to perform it) at the 8 month point?

I've always been clear on that...she has the right to make whatever decision she wants. That's also the law, at least in some states.

And I dont worry about 'how I feel about such abortions' because they dont take place. I dont believe in useless feel-good legislation. I dont believe in laws for things that dont occur. For ex. I dont believe in a law that says it's illegal to ride unicorns, **because there are no unicorns.**

There is no way anyone else can tell a woman, no matter how late, that 'if she decides abortion is what she needs,' that she is wrong. :shrug: You dont know. Strangers dont know. Only she knows that need.

I've posted this many many times, I dont know why you act like you've never seen it.

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]

I've always been clear on that...she has the right to make whatever decision she wants. That's also the law, at least in some states.

So then you do not support laws that restrict abortions in the third trimester? The unicorn example is not a comparable one. For such to be a concern, there would have to be a potential right to be violated. If a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, then she has that right at ALL times. There is nothing about her right that infringes upon other's rights. A law that would prevent riding a unicorn would not infringe upon a right regardless of the existence of a unicorn or not. A law restricting a woman from getting an abortion in the third trimester IS a restriction upon a right. And because there is a right, there is no law needed to protect the right. Any law in existence would be in restriction of that right. And there currently are such restrictions. How many people actually use a right is irrelavant. Any argument towards that point is a red herring. A right needs to be protected in case anyone ever wishes to exercise it, maybe for the first time ever in history.

 

[Lursa]

So then you do not support laws that restrict abortions in the third trimester? The unicorn example is not a comparable one. For such to be a concern, there would have to be a potential right to be violated. If a woman has a right to bodily autonomy, then she has that right at ALL times. There is nothing about her right that infringes upon other's rights. A law that would prevent riding a unicorn would not infringe upon a right regardless of the existence of a unicorn or not. A law restricting a woman from getting an abortion in the third trimester IS a restriction upon a right. And because there is a right, there is no law needed to protect the right. Any law in existence would be in restriction of that right. And there currently are such restrictions. How many people actually use a right is irrelavant. Any argument towards that point is a red herring. A right needs to be protected in case anyone ever wishes to exercise it, maybe for the first time ever in history.

Wow. Asked and answered.

Unicorns have as many rights as the unborn. "Potentially."

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]

Wow. Asked and answered.

Unicorns have as many rights as the unborn. "Potentially."

Strawman. I haven't addressed any rights of the unborn. I am addressing the rights of the already born woman.

 

[Lursa]

Strawman. I haven't addressed any rights of the unborn. I am addressing the rights of the already born woman.

Asked and answered. Very very clearly.

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

 

[Scrabaholic]

The right to do something is independent from finding one to aid you. I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean anyone is required to listen to me. The topic has been about her rights and when people would seek to limit them. Even among the pro-choice people, there seems to be a large number that say that she has no right to an 8th month abortion.

A true pro choicer does not want govt imposed limits at any time, IMO. Edit: I would probably call someone who wants some restrictions as pro limited choice, or pro choice w/ limits.

 

[maquiscat]

A true pro choicer does not want govt imposed limits at any time, IMO. Edit: I would probably call someone who wants some restrictions as pro limited choice, or pro choice w/ limits.

I would hope that means within the bounds of not imposing on anyone else's rights.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I would hope that means within the bounds of not imposing on anyone else's rights.

A woman having an abortion does not impose on anyone's rights.

 

[maquiscat]

A woman having an abortion does not impose on anyone's rights.

Believe it or not, I have encountered people who would say that a right to health care means it has to be given to you, even it it means making a doctor provide it.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Scrabaholic]

Believe it or not, I have encountered people who would say that a right to health care means it has to be given to you, even it it means making a doctor provide it.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

A doctor who is against abortion would not be trained in how to do one.

 

[maquiscat]

A doctor who is against abortion would not be trained in how to do one.

A doctor who is trained in abortions might refuse to do a late term because there is no medical threat to the woman's life or the rape/incest condition. Many a doctor in various fields have refused to perform procedures that their patients want and have a right to have, simply because the doctor did not feel right doing it. A doctor has as much right to refuse to do a procedure as a patient has a right to the procedure.

 

[Scrabaholic]

A doctor who is trained in abortions might refuse to do a late term because there is no medical threat to the woman's life or the rape/incest condition. Many a doctor in various fields have refused to perform procedures that their patients want and have a right to have, simply because the doctor did not feel right doing it. A doctor has as much right to refuse to do a procedure as a patient has a right to the procedure.

Agreed. I have been on the receiving end of a doctor refusing to do something I wanted (and have had done before) when he felt the risk was too great, even though I told him I'd sign a form taking full responsibility. I had to respect his right to say no, I will not do it right now.

 

[maquiscat]

Agreed. I have been on the receiving end of a doctor refusing to do something I wanted (and have had done before) when he felt the risk was too great, even though I told him I'd sign a form taking full responsibility. I had to respect his right to say no, I will not do it right now.

My point had been that there are those who claim that their right to health care means that the doctor has to do it. So I asked about that clarification because I wasn't sure where you landed along the line, although my suspicions turned out to be true.

 

[Lursa]

My point had been that there are those who claim that their right to health care means that the doctor has to do it. So I asked about that clarification because I wasn't sure where you landed along the line, although my suspicions turned out to be true.

Where has anyone ever said that their right to a medical procedure demanded that someone perform it?

My right to own a firearm doesnt mean someone must provide me with one.

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]

Where has anyone ever said that their right to a medical procedure demanded that someone perform it?

My right to own a firearm doesnt mean someone must provide me with one.

In other threads and other forums on the topic. It was an especially common argument back when ACA was being debated.

 

[year2late]

You are the dictator. You have the power to make law and have it enforced on your say so.

A woman is 8 months pregnant. Both she and the child are quite healthy. She is happily married to a loving and stable husband, has a supportive extended family, and is well-off financially. There is every reason to believe that both she and the child will prosper and flourish.

The mother wants to abort the child.

Would you, as dictator, allow her to abort?

If I was dictator, I would abort you from all internet forums.

 

[Scrabaholic]

My point had been that there are those who claim that their right to health care means that the doctor has to do it. So I asked about that clarification because I wasn't sure where you landed along the line, although my suspicions turned out to be true.

I believe doctors have the right to refuse to do any procedure they feel is not in the patient's best interest.

 

[Bodi]

You are the dictator. You have the power to make law and have it enforced on your say so.

A woman is 8 months pregnant. Both she and the child are quite healthy. She is happily married to a loving and stable husband, has a supportive extended family, and is well-off financially. There is every reason to believe that both she and the child will prosper and flourish.

The mother wants to abort the child.

Would you, as dictator, allow her to abort?

As the Dictator I just banned you from the Internet.

 

[Bodi]

If I was dictator, I would abort you from all internet forums.

Oh man! I just noticed that you copied me.... why?

 

[year2late]

As the Dictator I just banned you from the Internet.

Oh man! I just noticed that you copied me.... why?

Nah.....you only banned him.....

 

[Dacke]

You are the dictator. You have the power to make law and have it enforced on your say so.

A woman is 8 months pregnant. Both she and the child are quite healthy. She is happily married to a loving and stable husband, has a supportive extended family, and is well-off financially. There is every reason to believe that both she and the child will prosper and flourish.

The mother wants to abort the child.

Would you, as dictator, allow her to abort?

Yes, why not?

 

[weaver2]

Yes, why not?

Here's why not. There are always going to be stupid people. Just because you are stupid doesn't mean you get to abort a healthy, normal fetus that would actually survive. So, after the 25th week abortions should be illegal and not performed unless the woman is about to die or the fetus has been discovered to be non viable after birth or so genetically deformed that it's life will be nothing but chaos and pain. The fact is an abortion on or after 25 weeks would be classified as infanticide in most states and doctors are simply not going to do a abortion in that case because they would never practice again.

The problem is that if a law is passed establishing a legal cut off date for abortion the anti-abortion movement will keep changing that law to be more and more restrictive on abortion just as they do with abortion clinics so the pro-choice movement has fought a cut-off date for abortions.