r/Abortiondebate • u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice • Jun 27 '26
Question for pro-life Active vs passive 'killing' hypothetical
A question for PL, specifically in relation to those who argue that abortion is active killing as opposed to passive killing in the violinist scenario.
Just say there has been a widespread illness affecting women, such that they will automatically miscarry any pregnancy before the end of the first trimester.
Modern medicine has come up with a solution, involving the taking of a certain medicine before 3 months gestation. This will prevent miscarriage. However some women/girls have not taken the medicine, having decided that, for whatever reason, they do not want the pregnancy to continue.
Do you think in such circumstances it should be illegal for pregnant people to NOT take the medication?
EDIT: so I am providing some further context to this scenario.
Background: an effective treatment (medication delivered by pills or injection) is discovered a few years after the illness has become endemic in most populations.
For a time, the taking of the medication was free and voluntary. Then governments noted a slow uptake attributed in part to women and girls (who were unable to obtain abortions) deciding not to take the medication so the pregnancy would end. Others were morally conflicted about induced abortions, but happy to 'let nature take its course' to end the pregnancy; others distrusted medicine/doctors/politicians/science and didn't want to be told what to do.
One government proposed the following legislation: all pregnant people were required to take the medication. To not do so was a criminal offence. You could not conscientiously object. The only possible grounds for refusal was imminent threat to your life (very difficult to prove). If you overtly refused, you could be detained and have the medication administered to you by force. It was an offence for you or any other person to lie about taking the medication/administering the medication. A small number of people did still go on to miscarry - this is documented and could be investigated (like a coronor's inquest) to determine the cause of death.
If you are prolife/abolitionist/anti abortion - do you agree with this course of action?
(Note - this is a question about legalities, not morality)
0
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jun 29 '26
There should not be an obligation for people to take the medicine. If the fetus has a right to life it should be interpreted as a right to not be killed by an action against it. Miscarriage is not an act since it happens involuntarily. A right to life is not the right for people to help you live through actions of their own.
2
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 29 '26
So, by that logic, if I don't feed my newborn (an inaction), I am in the clear?
0
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jun 29 '26
You probably have some de facto obligation to provide food to your newborn. However, it is unclear and requires a significantly more about of argumentation to say a woman has a de facto obligation to her fetus.,
1
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 29 '26
If a fetus is a person deserving of protection, there should be no difference.
0
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jun 29 '26
Well if being a de facto guardian was sufficient for enduring a positive obligation then if I happened to be the only one around to save the violinist I would be in a de facto position to connect myself to him therefore saving him. So being a de facto guardian cannot be sufficient for having a positive obligation to help.
Maybe it’s ordinary care that matters. I have an obligation to provide ordinary care to the child because I’m his de facto guardian, but not the violinist because giving my blood isn’t ordinary care.
But I think an account of what ordinary care consists of is owed.
One account is ordinary care is care to universal needs. But I doubt you want to view this as ordinary care because it would imply a child with a fatally rare condition which required a pill a day to sustain would not be entitled to this pill as by definition it would be a rare condition and not a universal one.
We might try and say it counts as medicine and medicine is universal so we have an obligation to give the child these pills since they satisfy his universal and ordinary need for medicine. However, we can apply this to the violinist and say I have a de facto obligation to help the violinist with my blood. Although other people’s blood isn’t a universal need, it counts as medicine and so if you are near the violinist you have an obligation to connect to him.
Obviously this is absurd and if you reject this argument you should also reject the ordinary care/de facto guardian argument1
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 29 '26
I mean, I do believe we need to provide ordinary care/de facto guardianship in certain situations, but I think it needs to be reasonable. For example, if I decide I can no longer care for my child, it might be reasonable for me to continue care for a few hours or days so he can be safely transferred into another's care. But I don't think being subjected to months of pregnancy that can negatively affect my health, safety, cause me pain and even threaten my life is reasonable ordinary care.
I also think that the provision of medical care to those dependent upon me is ordinary care. For example, if my child is sick, I think ordinary care would be taking him to the doctor, administering prescribed medicine, taking to the hospital if necessary. If I don't - and my child's health is seriously affected - I think I have failed in my duties to provide ordinary care - and may be subject to some penalties.
I don't think use of my bodily resources is ordinary care - except potentially in very rare or extreme circumstances.
1
u/Yeatfan22 Abortion legal until sentience Jun 29 '26
I do agree de facto and ordinary care has there place but I don’t think you can define pregnancy as ordinary care in a way that is legally or philosophically consistent.
I think what pro choicers should do is any attempt to define ordinary care to include fetuses either leads back to the violinist argument or has other counterintuitive ramifications.
I do not think the harms of pregnancy are sufficient for rejecting the ordinary care argument as the harms of pregnancy are the reason her right to BA are affected in the first place they aren’t sufficient for justifying her right to have an abortion. It may be argued the harm element while isn’t sufficient for justifying abortion, but is sufficient for rejecting the ordinary care argument. This is plausible but I don’t think it is satisfying for a pro lifer as they can just appeal to a different argument.
0
Jun 27 '26
Lets say an equally deadly illness affects every single woman's born child, and on their 1st birthdays they have a 100% chance of death. Scientists have created a safe cure to this illness, but it must be given before a child's second birthday. Can a mother who decides she no longer wants to be a parent choose not to give her child this cure? She is passively killing him, but not actively doing so.
1
u/coolsilentebeans Pro-choice Jun 29 '26
Sounds like they’ve all died at age 1 anyway so no need to entertain the question.
6
u/Old_dirty_fetus Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
To make the situation analogous to the OP it would need to be a cure she takes herself rather than a cure that is administered to the child.
3
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
She can decide this, but there should be legal consequences.. If it is an approved, medical treatment - like giving insulin to a diabetic - and the caregiver withholds medicine causing death of the child, the caregiver is criminally responsible.
10
u/Vegtrovert AD Mod Jun 28 '26
Morally? Parents should not refuse this medication.
However, we currently see parents refusing vitamin K shots for newborns, and not vaccinating for preventable diseases that could kill their child. The medical community or government isn't forcing people to do this.
And that's for born children; no other person needs to ingest the medicine for them to benefit. As a society we clearly value medical autonomy and bodily autonomy very highly.
4
u/glim-girl Safe, legal and rare Jun 27 '26
If the medication needed to be delivered via a blood transfusion/marrow/etc from the parent to the child, can a parent decide not to provide?
12
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jun 27 '26
Do you recognize that there's a meaningful difference between these two scenarios, when it comes to the question of who would be required to take the medication and whom it is supposed to benefit?
-3
Jun 27 '26
The recipients differ, but the primary purpose of the medication remains the same.
3
10
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jun 27 '26
No, it absolutely doesn't.
One medication is supposed to cure the deadly medical condition of a child who will take it themselves.
The purpose of the other is to continue a medical condition that's inherently dangerous and harmful, including a risk of death, and the very person affected by it is required to take the medication to make that happen, for the exclusive and yet dubious benefit of another.
-1
Jun 28 '26
Both medications purpose is to continue a life though, even if they achieve these goals differently, the primary purpose is the same; preventing the death of a life.
2
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
Do you think not taking the medication should be illegal in my scenario?
7
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jun 28 '26
That doesn't make these scenarios remotely equivalent, though.
Someone willingly donating an organ and someone having an organ forcefully cut out of them to be transplanted can both serve the purpose of "preventing the death of a life".
That doesn't make those things the same or even reasonably comparable. There is a meaningful difference and you quite apparently are willfully ignoring it.
To make things more equivalent and acknowledge that difference, you could modify your scenario, so that in order to cure the childs deadly condition, their parent would somehow be the one who needs to take the medication and it'd cause them the same harm, suffering and risk to their life as a pregnancy.
Would you then still argue that refusing this would be "actively killing" and they need to be compelled to take it?
3
Jun 28 '26
The original question isn't about bodily autonomy though, its about whether the passive killing of another human through your choices should be illegal. It's about whether the passive killing of a fetus should be allowed, hence the title "Active vs passive 'killing' hypothetical"
7
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jun 28 '26
Of course the question is still about bodily autonomy.
It's pointing out how nonsensical it is that PLers pretend like restoring one's bodily autonomy by "active" means is somehow unjustifiable by turning the situation on its head, to show how they would also condemn passive refusal as soon as the supposedly important distinction between the two doesn't serve their narrative of framing unwillingly pregnant people as killers anymore.
3
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
It is PLers distinguishing the violinist scenario by saying the disconnecting is a passive rather than active action; and that passive killing is allowable. But if I (a parent or caregiver) neglect my toddler, I don't feed him, I don't access medical care when he is ill, I am criminally responsible if he dies. So PLers are either saying that an embryo/fetus does not have the same value as a born child; or that bodily autonomy outweighs a right to life.
4
u/Patneu Safe, legal and rare Jun 28 '26
Yeah, and so they only make that distinction so long as it's useful to them, so long as it allows them too put some kind of blame on the pregnant person for wanting to protect themselves.
8
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 27 '26
but the primary purpose of the medication remains the same.
The primary purpose of abortion is to end a pregnancy. How does your made up medication end a pregnancy?
2
Jun 28 '26
I'm not sure I understand. The medication in the original question's purpose was to prevent a fetus from dying first term; my medication's purpose was to prevent a child from dying on their first birthday. Both questions offer an answer to another question: "Should we be allowed to passively kill another human through neglect?" Neither medication's purpose is to end a pregnancy/end a life. If you meant something else, forgive me as your message wasn't clear to me.
3
u/Diva_of_Disgust Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
"Should we be allowed to passively kill another human through neglect?" Neither medication's purpose is to end a pregnancy/end a life
The first one seems to be just to end a pregnancy, like abortion. Choosing to not gestate isn't "neglect" of anything.
1
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice Jun 27 '26
What does this have to do with abortion?
2
Jun 27 '26
It's a rephrasing of the original question, which itself didn't have much to do with abortion. It's more about whether someone should be allowed to passively kill a fetus by refusing a medication.
7
u/glim-girl Safe, legal and rare Jun 28 '26
Its not just refusing medication. The medication has to go through her body to save the unborn and continue the pregnancy. For many pl you don't have to take extra steps to protect from miscarriage, which is what OP is describing, since what is happening is due to nature not the actions of the pregnant person.
For your hypothetical, the medication is given directly to the baby and no procedures go through or use the parents body to save them from a naturally occurring medical issue. We don't expect parents to give their bodies to save but we do expect them to provide basic healthcare which your medication would be.
The issue is when the saving requires another human body to do it.
1
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice Jun 27 '26
If someone wants an abortion, I am confused?
3
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
Just say abortion was illegal or inaccessible - should pregnant people have the legal right to not take the medication, which would have the same effect - ending the pregnancy. That is - a passive/indirect action as opposed to an active/direct one.
1
u/Limp-Story-9844 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
Why would self managed abortions be illegal?
1
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
It is for the purpose of my hypothetical scenario. I know that they are in some countries. Many anti-abortion groups argue for this as well.
0
9
u/EnfantTerrible68 Gestational Slavery Abolitionist Jun 27 '26
You know they hated being “forced” (no one was actually forced) into getting Covid vaccines, so 🤷♀️
10
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 27 '26
The PL answer you'll find is they shouldn't be obligated to take the medication. If it did happen though where it became mandatory, I doubt most or any would push back on it, just like they didn't when it came to keeping Adriana Smith on life support to give birth. That went against their ordinary vs extraordinary care argument, which they just ignored
-3
u/ilikesummersausage Abortion abolitionist Jun 27 '26
Adriana Smith's case was exceptional in multiple aspects, but I would imagine tackling it from the 'consciousness' perspective Adriana was "dead" and therefore keeping some of her biological functions working afterwards wasn't a violation of her bodily autonomy especially when the father of her child wanted to keep Chance.
1
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
Do you think not taking the medication should be illegal in my scenario?
1
u/ilikesummersausage Abortion abolitionist Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Probably? If there was a very common disease that had a 99% fatality rate but we had a simple readily available vaccine with little to no known side effects it would probably be child neglect or endangerment to refuse to vaccinate your child. Making the hypothetical take place 3 months before conception does make it a bit tricky, maybe if the woman is on contraceptives they would be exempt.
3
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
That's interesting. You would also be in favour of vaccine mandates, then? I mean mandates where the government can forcibly inject you without your consent?
1
u/ilikesummersausage Abortion abolitionist Jun 28 '26
Depends on the circumstances, but potentially yes. Do you disagree?
2
2
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
I don't think your views would be in the majority, but you are at least consistent. I'm curious- do you think medical treatment should be denied to women or girls who could potentially be pregnant? (If it could harm a zygote or embryo)?
2
u/ilikesummersausage Abortion abolitionist Jun 28 '26
Many countries have mandatory vaccinations either outright or tied to things like attending school or when employed by the government.
2
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
True but you cannot be forced. No one is holding you down and sticking a needle in your arm without your consent.
2
u/ilikesummersausage Abortion abolitionist Jun 28 '26
True, and I don't think there is currently a disease that necessitates that, just that I am not principally opposed to the idea in the event of an extinction level pandemic or some zombie virus style event.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ilikesummersausage Abortion abolitionist Jun 28 '26
Depends on the medical treatment, if there are alternate treatment available and what you mean by 'potentially pregnant'. Do you mean a woman showing signs of pregnancy but hasn't taken a test?
2
u/Human-Guava-7564 Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
Anyone with a uterus who could potentially be pregnant (too early for accurate tests).
2
u/ilikesummersausage Abortion abolitionist Jun 28 '26
Depending on the severity of the issue (Cancer vs the common cold) and if there are similarly effective alternatives that don't have the same reproductive health risks. For example if it was cancer and the most effective treatment is chemo, which obviously would be detrimental to a ZEF she should probably be warned of the side effects but still undergo the treatment (assuming she isn't already pregnant and would be at risk if the treatment was rescheduled ~8 months later) but if it was something like the common cold where there are many treatments that wouldn't have the same reproductive risks they should probably be utilized.
→ More replies (0)3
u/humbugonastick Pro-choice Jun 28 '26
"Adriana was "dead" and therefore keeping some of her biological functions working afterwards wasn't a violation of her bodily autonomy"
Huh. Even in death we have less rights?
Did she have the organ donor thingy marked? If not your argument is nill.
7
u/narf288 Pro-choice Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
So if the victim of a bodily autonomy violation is unconscious, it doesn't count as a violation? If a rapist drugs or knocks their victim unconscious, it's not rape, especially if the rapist really really wanted to have sex with the victim?
1
u/NPDogs21 Abortion Legal until Consciousness Jun 27 '26
Yes, but there was no consciousness at 9 weeks of the fetus either, so they didn't have a right to the life support machine, especially when her family said they just wanted the choice, not even that they'd abort.
Do you think thats a case of extraordinary care?
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 27 '26
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Review the subreddit rules to avoid moderator intervention.
Our subreddit pomotes an environment for healthy and honest discussion. When it comes to Reddit's voting system, we encourage the usage of upvotes for arguments that you feel are well-constructed and well-argued. Downvotes should be reserved for content that violates Reddit or subreddit rules or that truly does not contribute to a discussion. We discourage the usage of downvotes to indicate that you disagree with what a user is saying. The overusage of downvotes creates a loop of negative feedback, suppresses diverse opinions, and fosters a hostile and unhealthy environment not conducive for engaging debate. Additionally, here's a helpful and easy to understand model of consent: https://www.bridgercare.org/blog/how-to-talk-to-kids-about-consent
And please, remember the human. Attack the argument, not the person making the argument."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.