A Slightly DIFFERENT Abortion Question

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

You know, I have an idea that will rid the world of nuclear weapons forever...

Well, seriously: would it be a good idea? Should we do it? Let's say that we can keep nuclear reactors for power, and let's say that we aren't ending all radioactive processes (which would cause the earth's core to cool off suddenly, leading to catastrophes later...) Hey, here's a startling idea: let's take the hypothetical at face value.

Should we? Would it lead to a new round of big conventional wars? It might... Is the insanity of MAD better than the insanity of one blitzkrieg after another?

I don't know...but I lean slightly in favor of trying out this new idea. I don't leap at it as the greatest thing ever, but I also don't reject it.

Originally Posted by Miller

I didn't realize "And the pro-life side just gives up," was part of your hypothetical. . . .

Not exactly; they just lose. They no longer have any way to use the government to obstruct the right to abortion. The debate is over. I cited fifty-four forty or fight. It's over, dude.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Well for the purposes of the thought experiment, I would say "It depends". Roughly speaking, I would trade zeroing out governmental funding of all abortions for an end to the debate and permanent legalization of abortions through the third trimester. I'm not sure why anti choicers would credibly agree to that, but hey it's a thought experiment.

I'm almost certain that (if you will pardon me for using the term I'm more comfortable with) the pro-life side would never agree to it. But would the pro-choice side? You seem to be saying you'd favor the deal, but maybe not enthusiastically; you say "It depends," but add, "I would trade..."

This is how I had thought all pro-choice advocates would feel, but I seem to have been wrong!

(Oops; I do not want to presume that you are on the pro-choice side; I'm trying to keep the main debate out of this thread.)

I don't see this thought experiment as especially interesting or relevant.

It has helped me, because it has let me work through a false assumption on my part. Thought experiments, by grievous simplification, sometimes shine light. It's like converting a picture from color to black-and-white. It ceases to be a "true picture," but sometimes, you can see certain things more clearly. Obviously, such an approach must be used judiciously; I've never denied the question involved a "magic wand."

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

But does the Federal government or any state or local government actually fund abortions, e.g. through welfare benefits like Medicaid? I don't see many moms with kids moaning about how they didn't want to be a parent but they couldn't afford an abortion and thus had to take the kid to term.

As I understand it, right now, by the Hyde Amendment and other laws, the Federal government funds almost no abortions. The exceptions are the very extreme emergency situations -- horrible medical complications -- where an abortion is an inescapable part of a life-saving procedure. Even most people in the heart of the pro-life camp agree that this is necessary: if the unborn can't be saved in any case, but the mother can be saved, then she should be.

In my hypothetical, would this change? I guess so... Technically, the question involved total non-involvement either way. I don't know about the "emergency room" approach. I'm guessing that no one would be forcibly turned away from an emergency room, but I can't say for sure. This is a detail of the premise I haven't thought about. Let's say that the emergency medical care is provided, but is billed for afterward.