The Roe Countdown

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Paul2

It's the trolley problem, in part. Lack of action (not donating bone marrow) is seen as more morally acceptable than taking an action (getting an abortion).

You're taking an action either way with the trolley problem (flipping a switch vs. pushing fatso off the bridge). The difference in intuitions probably comes from a greater sense of involvement.

There is something to the idea that people view omission and commission differently, but there's also something to the idea that we shouldn't. There are plenty of examples where we see omission leading to death as unacceptably negligent (caring for children is an obvious one).

Personally, I don't see much moral difference between killing someone and not saving them when you can. Much has been made in this thread about the fact that a fetus is "uniquely" dependent on its mother, but why is that relevant? What is it about the fact that other people could donate a kidney (but generally don't, and certainly not in sufficient numbers to meet the need) that frees those of us who can from the obligation to do so?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Do you happen to have any data on the number of abortions performed every year, on patients who did not understand how they got pregnant?

I suspect it is not a case of "I did not know sex leads to babies" and more a case of people having wrong information about birth control. (E.g. I didn't think you needed birth control the first time, this used McDonald hamburger wrapper can be used as a makeshift condom, etc)

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I suspect it is not a case of "I did not know sex leads to babies" and more a case of people having wrong information about birth control. (E.g. I didn't think you needed birth control the first time, this used McDonald hamburger wrapper can be used as a makeshift condom, etc)

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

Okay, so do you have any data on that?

[Skeptical Greg]

Oh, how these discussions evolve.. keeps me coming back.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

You're taking an action either way with the trolley problem (flipping a switch vs. pushing fatso off the bridge). The difference in intuitions probably comes from a greater sense of involvement.

There is something to the idea that people view omission and commission differently, but there's also something to the idea that we shouldn't. There are plenty of examples where we see omission leading to death as unacceptably negligent (caring for children is an obvious one).

Personally, I don't see much moral difference between killing someone and not saving them when you can. Much has been made in this thread about the fact that a fetus is "uniquely" dependent on its mother, but why is that relevant? What is it about the fact that other people could donate a kidney (but generally don't, and certainly not in sufficient numbers to meet the need) that frees those of us who can from the obligation to do so?

There's a version of the trolley problem in which 1 victim dies if you throw the railway track switch, and multiple victims dies if you don't throw the switch (IIRC). That's the first one outlined at Wikipedia.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Paul2

There's a version of the trolley problem in which 1 victim dies if you throw the railway track switch, and multiple victims dies if you don't throw the switch (IIRC). That's the first one outlined at Wikipedia.

Right. And people overwhelmingly feel that throwing the switch is the right thing to do when surveyed. Meaning the problem doesn't really have much to do with omission vs. commission.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Right. And people overwhelmingly feel that throwing the switch is the right thing to do when surveyed. Meaning the problem doesn't really have much to do with omission vs. commission.

Except for those who are not in the 90% who would take the action to save more people. But point taken.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Okay, so do you have any data on that?

You're either being deliberately disingenuous or outright trolling.

We know from decades of experience across multiple countries and continents that the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is education and access to birth control.

[cosmicaug]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're either being deliberately disingenuous or outright trolling.

We know from decades of experience across multiple countries and continents that the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is education and access to birth control.

There's also a connection between abortion restrictions and increased maternal mortality around childbirth. Of course, correlation does not imply causation & the causality here is more likely that the same "pro-life" forces that capture state governments to lead to increasing abortion restrictions are also hostile toward the provision of other types of health care for women.

https://www.salon.com/2021/04/19/the-link-between-americas-rising-maternal-mortality-rates-and-abortion/:

Quote:

The authors of the Contraception paper stressed to Salon that it's not as simple as women dying because they wanted an abortion and couldn't get one, though there is strong evidence that women in this situation suffer worse health outcomes than women who are able to abort unwanted pregnancies. It's also likely that, as the paper explains, "states that restrict abortion may have broader hostility towards women's health."

Dr. Amy Addante, an OB-GYN and co-author of the paper, explained to Salon that "they are not prioritizing things that have been demonstrated to lower maternal mortality." Instead of "improving access to care, not just, obstetrics care, but contraceptive care," Addante noted, the legislatures are "really prioritizing passing anti-abortion legislation."

Indeed, the same legislatures that are keen on gutting abortion access are also happy to make birth control harder to get, even though, as Addante noted, "unplanned pregnancies are at increased risk of adverse outcomes." In Texas, for instance, the anti-abortion legislature has also spent years slashing family planning programs, and even redirected funds that used to go to birth control services to shady anti-contraception groups. Texas also happens to be one of the states that has rising maternal mortality rates.

As Dr. Hoofnagle pointed out, restrictions on abortion close down clinics that were part of the larger "safety net" offering affordable services like birth control and other reproductive health care. For instance, the Donald Trump administration cut funding to 900 reproductive health care clinics, using the fact that those clinics acknowledge that abortion is legitimate health care as an excuse. Similar assaults on abortion access have shuttered Planned Parenthood and other low-cost clinics across the country.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.03.018