[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.