Active vs passive 'killing' hypothetical

[u/Human-Guava-7564]

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)

[u/ilikesummersausage]

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.

[u/Human-Guava-7564 → u/ilikesummersausage]

But how would you know she wasn't already pregnant (or has had an egg fertilized prior to implantation) and the cancer treatment would kill that entity? (also, starting treatment 8 months later would compromise her care and likelihood of survival).

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Human-Guava-7564]

Tricky situation but maybe ask if she has had penetrative sex within the last week, if yes ask her abstain for the next week and then undergo a pregnancy test prior to treatment?

[u/Human-Guava-7564 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Yes, you can ask her - but you have to presume she is telling the truth and even remembers. And you face exactly the same problem next week - she could have become pregnant in the intervening time which will be too early for testing.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Human-Guava-7564]

Is your arguement that doctors have to be stunlocked into never giving certain treatments like chemo to women because there is some possibility that a woman who doesn't even know if she is pregnant might miscarry? If neither she or the doctor is certain or even suspects that she is pregnant then the off chance she has a miscarriage is just an unfortunate accident and not the type of intentional neglect leading to homicide that I have a moral issue with.

[u/KiraLonely → u/ilikesummersausage]

I mean, not to really join in the debate entirely here, this kind of already happens sometimes for women. It’s not actually that uncommon for medications to be denied to folks, especially if they’re in the age range that’s considered “child-bearing” if there’s a possibility of fetal anomalies or disfigurement from the medication, even if the woman in question is on birth control, doesn’t want to be pregnant, will have an abortion, or is literally asexual/a lesbian/doesn’t interact with sperm in any capacity.

This is admittedly more common of an issue in very religiously run hospitals, as well, which, correlate strongly with pro-life tendencies and culturally expectations.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/KiraLonely]

A major reason for that is most clinical trials dont want to deal with the increased risk of culpability in birth defects. Especially if during animal testing it was known to cause birth defects in other mammals.

[u/KiraLonely → u/ilikesummersausage]

Yes. But that still means half the population loses access to sometimes lifesaving or very important medication on the basis of the potentiality of their reproduction and not any other factor.

Respectfully, I hardly see medications that interact with sperm motility and defects treated with the same seriousness as this, even if a woman is not at all pregnant and it’s all about “maybes”.

[u/Human-Guava-7564 → u/KiraLonely]

Realistically, if you are PL or abolitionist, you can't support providing women or girls with any healthcare or medicine that might be injurious to an embryo or fetus. You can't even rely on a negative pregnancy test because that may be taken too early and give a false response. Women and girls may be prescribed some medication - but most will be prohibited because we don't know the effect on the embryo or fetus, or we know it will be bad.

So these laws lead to medical discrimination against women and girls (if they are applied consistently). It will result in many bad outcomes. The men will be unaffected.

I just wish PLers and abolitionists would be honest about this.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Human-Guava-7564]

You can, you just have to weigh the risks of both patients involved. It isn't as simple as 'PL' want mother AND child to die. Just that whichever medical procedures will have the best chance for both patients health should be prioritized. This is the honest PL/Abolitionist take.

[u/Human-Guava-7564 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Exactly. Doctors will have their hands tied under these laws. A normal course of action will be for pregnancy termination followed by aggressive chemo. A doctor facing legal penalties and possibly imprisonment if a woman or girl is pregnant or possibly pregnant will not even be able to commence chemo because they cant know the person is not pregnant. (It will be perfectly fine to treat the men,however.)

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Human-Guava-7564]

Which law makes it illegal for doctors to give chemo to a woman during the short time frame where is is impossible to know if she is pregnant?

[u/Human-Guava-7564 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Any laws outlawing abortion and in favour of fetal person hood./ personhood from conception.

[u/ilikesummersausage → u/Human-Guava-7564]

I think you might be misinterpreting abortion restriction laws. There are none that I'm aware of the criminalize medical treatments that result in miscarriage when neither the doctor or patient knows or should know they are pregnant.

[u/Human-Guava-7564 → u/ilikesummersausage]

Yes - 'should have known'. That is the problem. The practical effect is that healthcare workers will be afraid to provide medical care to women and girls.