Democracy demands that we consider the hypotheses – all of them

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guests comments online and in print every day. To contribute, Click here.

There is an imaginary woman who is eight months pregnant and wants to terminate the pregnancy for reasons outside the common exceptions to the prohibition of abortion (to prevent the death of the pregnant person, to preserve the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when the embryo or fetus presents lethal anomalies incompatible with life). An imaginary doctor is willing to terminate the pregnancy.

These false humans are highly considered in abortion politics. Some of us find debating fake people, along with the whole notion of “abortion politics,” repugnant.

However, American-style democracy requires lawmakers to put out lies all the time. When legislators draft written laws, they have to think about how they will be applied in real life, and that means looking to the future, which only exists in the imagination.

When I was a human rights lawyer, judges constantly asked me about hypothetical people and situations and how the rule I wanted the court to adopt would apply in these fictional scenarios.

A mentor advised me that a good way to test whether something is the right thing to do is to take it to its logical extreme. In the case of complete bodily autonomy, the logical extreme might look like something like a very late abortion, unrelated to the common exceptions to abortion prohibitions. I mentioned this scenario and people told me I was bad for thinking about it. They shamed me, shut me down, and canceled me on the spot. They said my thoughts were insulting.

Policing the opinions of others is not helpful. So it’s not smart.