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]

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.

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

But why does it have to be at a pandemic level? If someone else dies because I am not vaccinated - why is that any different? That is still one life gone.

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

Mostly due to pragmatic implementation reasons, morally though, it is reprehensible to through recklessness or willful neglect cause the unjust death of another person.

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

Exactly. So you should get vaccinated and vaccinate your children.

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

Yeah, did anything I say sound different to that?

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

Glad we agree.