[nineplay]

Pregnant women are dying because they are not getting appropriate medical care.

Doctors are unwilling to give pregnant women appropriate care because they may face criminal charges.

This is happening directly because of legislation that has been pushed forward exclusively by one political party in this country.

So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm flabbergasted that I know parents of daughters who support these policies.

[bombcar]

More women will die today from vehicle related injuries than will die all year from prevented abortions.

But one topic is at the top of all the news, the other is ignored, because it's so common.

[bruce511]

In absolute numbers, your statement is true. But the deaths are not equivalent because of agency.

Road deaths are "random". Obviously each one has a specific cause, but we're all equally at risk. We're all in agreement that they should be avoided, and we have significant legislation to improve safety (no one is advocating for drunk driving.)

The issue either abortions is not the death part, but the agency part. Those lives -could- be saved, but aren't, because the law provides reasons for not saving them.

To make things worse, only one half of the population is subject to this risk. So it can feel kinda targeted.

Fundamentally death is not an issue. We have plenty of people. We could lower the speed limit, we could ban alcohol, or guns. All that would drive up life expectancy. We don't do that because there would be consequences and effects from those changes. And life expectancy is not the primary metric.

Abortion is a complex topic, with some people holding very strong opinions. The pendulum has swung to the point where simple medical interventions to save lives are being denied. That's what makes the topic newsworthy.

It's not the death part that matters, it's the preventable part.

[tticvs]

> Road deaths are "random". Obviously each one has a specific cause, but we're all equally at risk. We're all in agreement that they should be avoided, and we have significant legislation to improve safety (no one is advocating for drunk driving.

This is not true at all. Auto accidents are not random and we have significant policy levers that we could pull to drastically reduce them but it's politically controversial to do so.

Simple example would regulating the height of the nose of trucks so that F-150 drivers can see pedestrians easier and make impacts less deadly. Obviously policy, politically impossible.

[bruce511]

The cause of an accident is not random. There are lots of causes and we have lots if regulations around that.

The victim if an accident is the random I'm referring to. There's no reason an F-150 driver hits one pedestrian over another.

Naturally there are lots more regulations we could add - but that progresses slowly, and with regard to the parties involved (manufacturers, owners, cities etc.)

By contrast anti-abortion legislation has been enacted quickly, without much (if any) consultation with the electorate or medical fraternity. This has resulted in poorly thought out laws in some cases.

[ethanpailes]

Since the pandemic, enforcement of traffic laws has fallen off a cliff, with a corresponding increase in traffic deaths. That is the result of a specific policy choice. Women who get pregnant experience potentially fatal complications somewhat randomly, just like victims of driving accidents are killed somewhat randomly. You probably can’t eliminate either category of death entirely with policy, but it is clear that there are policy levers that could reduce deaths in both categories. They actually seem almost exactly equivalent.

[lotsofpulp]

> but the agency part.

Yes, the agency of a woman and her doctor to do what they feel is necessary for the woman.

> Those lives -could- be saved

No, they cannot be saved.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abor...

> So it can feel kinda targeted.

Because it is.

> Abortion is a complex topic, with some people holding very strong opinions.

It is not a complex topic. A woman’s body is her body, and decisions about her body are between her doctor and her. And a doctor should never be doubting their decision in split second decisions because they think they might get prosecuted.

[MeetingsBrowser]

This is not good logic.

If the government announced tomorrow they will pick 5 people a year at random to be executed for no reason, it would also be at the top of all the news, despite being many fewer deaths than vehicle related injuries.

It’s at the top of the news because it is easily preventable, yet some choose to let people die anyway.

[pjc50]

> If the government announced tomorrow they will pick 5 people a year at random to be executed for no reason

This is basically the police execution - sorry, "officer involved shooting" policy.

[mint2]

With the abortion thing, it’s not pick people completely at random - It’s arbitrarily pick x number of women, of child bearing age, at random and make them die or suffer grievously.

I don’t think the predominantly male lawmakers in those states would have made the same choices had it been men not women who would be affected.

[HDThoreaun]

Society has decided that car crashes are a worthy trade off for having cars. Its not in the news because the vast majority of americans agree that cars are good even if they have downsides.

[shiroiushi]

Exactly. The large majority of Americans do NOT want to live in walkable cities or towns; they love using cars to get everywhere, even across the street, and get angry at any suggestions that challenge their car-based lifestyle. Car crashes are simply a necessary cost to this lifestyle that most Americans prefer.

[sixothree]

It's not ignored. Democrats have been pushing automobile safety since the 1970's, uphill the entire time against republican opponents.

[pjc50]

Weirdly, one of the key people, the author of Unsafe at any speed, ended up as a crank accelerationist third-party presidential candidate.

[rightbyte]

I think it is a quite common fate for these 'see ignored problems clearly' types to go insane.

[danaris]

This is a common way to try to shut down discussion of genuinely important topics: "Why are you complaining? This isn't as bad as $OTHER_ISSUE!"

The issues are independent. We can try to deal with each in their own way. If we were only ever trying to reduce the primary cause of death, and paying no attention to anything else, we would have all kinds of terrible problems running rampant.

Furthermore, the problem with abortions is not just preventable deaths. It's the massive emotional and psychological toll unwanted pregnancies take, and the women left with chronic health issues for the rest of their lives, either because of the pregnancy itself and complications thereof or a failed DIY abortion, and the doctors who are put in prison or who lose their medical licenses for trying to save a woman's life even if the fetus is already guaranteed not to survive.

Ultimately, it's about treating women as whole and complete human beings who have agency over their bodies the same way men do, and not as walking incubators who have less bodily autonomy than a corpse.

[olalonde]

> So I find it hard to understand how someone can care about women's health and support these policies. I'm flabbergasted that I know parents of daughters who support these policies.

Do you really not know the reason? They believe fetuses are humans and that killing them is akin to murder, just as killing a baby would. It's as simple as that.

[KittenInABox]

Have you read "the only moral abortion is my abortion"?

https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-...

[olalonde]

Interesting, no I hadn't. It's a bit like how criminals find ways to justify their crimes. Some people have very flexible morality.

[KittenInABox]

Simply put, condemnation is easy when it isn't you.

[olalonde]

Indeed.

[MeetingsBrowser]

> They believe fetuses are humans and that killing them is akin to murder,

Unlike the woman carrying the fetus.

In my state, abortion is illegal even if not aborting may cause the mother to die.

This is pro life.

[s1artibartfast]

That's the thing- Imagine you think killing fetuses is akin to murder. What response would you give to your own point?

There is a huge list of counteragents someone could make if they start from that basis, and your counterpoint does nothing to impact them.

Everyone is talking past each other with arguments which make sense to them, but are largely off target for the other person.

[deathanatos]

… really? Let's say, for sake of argument, that a fetus is a life, equal in rights to that of a human.

What counterpoint is there to support the argument that 2 dead is better than 1 dead?

[s1artibartfast]

If you were faced with the choice of strangling a 2 year old or someone would kill you both, what would you choose?

There are lots of ethical frameworks where it is better to both die than murder the child.

That said, the situation posed by the OP was the the mother may die (e.g. there are risks).

What percent shared risk of death do you think would justify strangling a 2 year old child?

personally, Im pretty middle of the road on abortion and can understand where each side is coming from.

[HDThoreaun]

This has been thought about quite a bit. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

[somerandomqaguy]

I suppose if would depend on whether you believe that inaction leading to more death is more ethical then actively choosing to murder one life to save the other.

Let's look at the same problem but swap out the actors. Say you have one man with a mortal wound to his heart, and another man with a mortal wound to his lungs. Both will probably die, both men have families, and neither wants to die. Is it ethical to murder one man without his consent and harvest the deceased's organs to save the other?

[s1artibartfast]

I would say no. Most religious moral systems would say no, as well as Kantian ethics.

The only moral framework I know that would accept that is the strongest form of utilitarianism.

[shiroiushi]

That's a bad analogy. Let's change it: the man with a mortal lung wound could use the lungs from the man with the mortal heart wound, but the reverse is not true for some reason involving tissue compatibility. So if nothing is done, both men die. If the heart man is killed and his lungs harvested, the lung man will live. If the lung man is killed, both men die. So either both men die, or the lung man lives. On top of all of this, the heart man is braindead, so he has no opinion and no ability to make a decision, and no real chance at a future anyway.

I'd say it's perfectly ethical to kill the man with the mortal heart wound and take his lungs.

[olalonde]

Technically, "not aborting" may always cause the mother to die since childbirth always carries some risk. But if you mean a case where the fetus is already dead, I doubt many people would oppose the abortion? What are their arguments? I genuinely can't think of any. Maybe this is just a case of the law being ambiguously written and doctors erring on the safer side?

[MeetingsBrowser]

In my state abortion is illegal no matter the circumstances.

[mike_hearn]

Which state is that? I thought the strictest laws at the moment were in Alabama, which does allow abortions in the case of a serious risk to the mother's life.

[wil421]

Do you have a source for your claims? I’d like to use them in future, in person, conversations.

[nineplay]

"source for your claims" sounds pretty hand-wavey. So far as I can tell, neither side disputes this.

Will a supreme court opinion do?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf

[orionsbelt]

I’d be curious (although you don’t have to answer and we can leave it rhetorical if you prefer) - how much is your health really directly at risk here? Are you a woman in a red state planning to have children soon? Or are you in a blue state, and perhaps have already had children? Even if you were in a red state - would you have the means, and would, travel to a blue state if you had an issue? And if not, really, what’s the magnitude of the likelihood this would ever impact you personally?

My point here is that I find one of the reasons political disagreement is so bad in the US is the amplification of the media with respect to policies that don’t directly impact you to the degree that some people make it seem like, based on their emotional response. One tends to get more emotional when their safety is directly at risk, as you yourself stated it could harm your safety. But the people I have personally seen express this viewpoint in my life are almost exclusively blue state residing liberal women, many of whom are not going to have more children. Of course, one can feel bad for those that might end up directly affected by these policies and generally decide to support pro abortion candidates, but I think it would perhaps be easier for people to discuss and disagree on the merits of policies if people did not always believe it was a truly personal material policy to them — for example, would you feel the same emotional response debating a Polish person about Polish abortion policies?

I also find that many people disagree poorly because they don’t acknowledge that there are pros and cons to almost all policies. You state good reasons to support liberal positions on abortion policies, and I agree with you on those and would prefer the same policies that you do. However, I can understand the following can lead someone to a different view:

1. If you truly believe life begins at conception, then one must weigh the harms to the fetus. Many liberals don’t, and that’s fine, but it’s intellectually dishonest to act like a conservative doesn’t care about pregnant woman and their safety just because they weight the fetus’ life more than you do.

2. The overturn of Roe v Wade was primarily about letting the states decide. Why is that a bad thing? Where do you live? If you have liberal views on this, live in a liberal state. The ones at risk would generally be in the red states, and activists can focus on shifting public opinion in the red states so that local legislatures change their local laws. Enforcing policies across the entire US is also an aspect leading to political division, as people don’t want to do the hard work of changing people’s views and local laws. If you want to argue that Roe v Wade was the right way to advance abortion rights in the US — how would you feel if a Republican court in 4 years made abortion illegal country wide?

[nineplay]

I hardly know what to make of this. If I was a wealthy woman in a blue state than it is wrong of me to give a damn about what happens to poor women in red states? That is a unique POV.

I can't imagine how a hypothetical Polish person got into this. I cannot cast a vote in Poland so their politics are outside of my control.

> they weight the fetus’ life more than ....

They weight the fetus's life more than its mothers life.

> The overturn of Roe v Wade was primarily about letting the states decide.

I'm paraphrasing something I read somewhere else, but I don't think it could be put better

- Why leave it up to the federal government and not the state? - Why leave it up to the state and not the counties? - Why leave it up to the counties and not the cities? - Why leave it up to the cities and not the neighborhood? - Why not just leave it up to the women herself?

I think it nicely reduces it down to the absurdity of the whole. Why exactly is it up to my neighbors whether or not I can get an abortion?

[orionsbelt]

I didn’t say it’s wrong for you to give a damn - I said the opposite, that you can certainly give a damn and support pro abortion policies. But you said it was a direct threat to YOUR health — is it really? Are you a poor woman in a red state? If not, while you can give a damn, my point was that people are unable to disagree these days because they make everything so personal - as if you are in direct serious threat - when perhaps that is an exaggeration that is being caused by our media.

The Poland example: sure, you have no vote there. But do you feel the same DIRECT THREAT? Are you any more likely to need an abortion in Alabama than Poland? While perhaps you have more of an ability to impact Alabama policies by voting, is it really more of a threat? And how much does your vote even matter; are you talking about a national election and live in a non swing state? If so, your money and activism could probably be spent just as well influencing Alabama or Polish views.

On the weighting of the fetus’ life - let’s say it had equal weight (and ignore the question of when life starts)? Wouldn’t the abortion certainly kill the fetus and only possibly kill the mother? Isn’t it the therefore liberals who weight the mother’s life more?

On your last point, it’s up to your neighbors whether you get an abortion because that’s how government works. If, solely for the sake of argument, you concede that a fetus is a real life the same as a baby, can you not see why a government should have a say over abortion? There are two competing lives at stake.

[bruce511]

There are obviously two sides to the abortion question, and we're not going to "solve" it here, but I think at least discussing it is healthy.

The pendulum has swung a lot in the last couple years, and I'd argue it has swung a bit too far. All laws have unintended consequences, and we're seeing the out-working of some of that now.

Right now the law is dictating to medicine - laws written by activists and politicians, not doctors. Placing legal liability on doctors as to who they can help, and when. That seems to me to be too far.

Equally the pendulum has swung to a point which is not the viewpoint of the majority. Not even in red states. When on the ballot pro-abortion positions are consistently winning. IVF is under threat (not by accident.)

Moving the law back to the states is a cop out. It creates inequality among citizens of the same country. Which in turn creates a divisive discourse between people who are now forced into one or other position.

Pro choice is not the same as Pro abortion. It moves the choice to the patients and doctors involved. Personally, for reasons, I'm not a fan of abortion. But I can see there are cases every it is appropriate. I support the notion that the right people to make that choice are the people involved.

Lots of people feel differently to me. Perhaps they're in the 50% who will never have to make that choice. Perhaps they are in the 99.99% who will not experience a loved one dying in a preventable way.

[deathanatos]

Some of us care about harms to our fellow citizens, too? Just because a law might not impact me personally[1] doesn't stop me from going "no, this law is a bad law because it tramples on people's civil liberties."

The Golden Rule.

> it’s intellectually dishonest to act like a conservative doesn’t care about pregnant woman

No, it isn't. Several states have passed total abortion bans that have included, or end up effectively including, abortions for complications in which the pregnancy isn't viable, at all. This ends up harming the mother, for nothing. Cf. [2], [3].

> Why is that a bad thing? Where do you live? If you have liberal views on this, live in a liberal state.

Because fundamental human rights should be secured for all citizens, not just citizens of some states here or there. People should not be forced out of their home, uprooted for their families, just to secure basic rights, or worse, to simply remain alive.

> people don’t want to do the hard work of changing people’s views

The majority of Americans favor abortion.

> If you want to argue that Roe v Wade was the right way to advance abortion rights in the US — how would you feel if a Republican court in 4 years made abortion illegal country wide

Flipping judicial decisions is something that should be inherently done rarely and only with the utmost consideration — when we're certain the precedent is wrong. Otherwise, how can you argue that the system is just?

(The majority of Americans also disagree with Dobbs.)

[1]: They do impact me personally, but I do not think that is a requirement for people to engage in debate. Certainly, more people have a vote than are impacted by some policies, so it practically behooves me to engage them in debate, since their vote will indirectly determine whether such policies pass.

[2]: https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(22)00536-1/fulltext

[3]: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/12/29/1143823...

[jcranmer]

> They do impact me personally, but I do not think that is a requirement for people to engage in debate.

To emphasize this point:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[A famous quote by a German after the Holocaust, lamenting his inaction during the Nazi regime.]

I think it is incredibly crass and craven to assert that one needs to be personally affected by an issue to speak out on it.

[zero-sharp]

>one needs to be personally affected by an issue to speak out on it.

I don't think the poster is making that point. Did you see the response?

Look: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=41805263&goto=item%3Fi...

[jcranmer]

The reply said:

> If not, while you can give a damn, my point was that people are unable to disagree these days because they make everything so personal - as if you are in direct serious threat - when perhaps that is an exaggeration that is being caused by our media.

Which rather strikes me as finding it inappropriate to vociferously speak on an issue that doesn't directly affect them.

[orionsbelt]

Again, I wasn’t suggesting that one needs to be personally or directly affected to speak out about an issue. I was suggesting that it’s harder to have a reasoned debate on an issue when you are directly affected — emotions just run too high. So, my theory for why Americans are so divided and unable to have political disagreements these days is in part because the media is highjacking people’s emotions by making EVERY issue feel that way.

I always support people being passionate and vocal about what they believe in if it’s productive. If you want to go campaign or be an activist and support changes to abortion laws, great! But if you are unable to have a discussion or disagreement with your friend or neighbor, who is not making policy or effecting anything, without potentially getting so heated that you blow up the relationship, and doing that for every single political issue, then perhaps something is wrong in America and it’s worth examining what that is.