The Roe Countdown

[mumblethrax]

It's the trolley problem, in part. Lack of action (not donating bone marrow) is seen as more morally acceptable than taking an action (getting an abortion).

You're taking an action either way with the trolley problem (flipping a switch vs. pushing fatso off the bridge). The difference in intuitions probably comes from a greater sense of involvement.

There is something to the idea that people view omission and commission differently, but there's also something to the idea that we shouldn't. There are plenty of examples where we see omission leading to death as unacceptably negligent (caring for children is an obvious one).

Personally, I don't see much moral difference between killing someone and not saving them when you can. Much has been made in this thread about the fact that a fetus is "uniquely" dependent on its mother, but why is that relevant? What is it about the fact that other people could donate a kidney (but generally don't, and certainly not in sufficient numbers to meet the need) that frees those of us who can from the obligation to do so?

 

[Segnosaur]

Do you happen to have any data on the number of abortions performed every year, on patients who did not understand how they got pregnant?

I suspect it is not a case of "I did not know sex leads to babies" and more a case of people having wrong information about birth control. (E.g. I didn't think you needed birth control the first time, this used McDonald hamburger wrapper can be used as a makeshift condom, etc)

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

I suspect it is not a case of "I did not know sex leads to babies" and more a case of people having wrong information about birth control. (E.g. I didn't think you needed birth control the first time, this used McDonald hamburger wrapper can be used as a makeshift condom, etc)

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

Okay, so do you have any data on that?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Oh, how these discussions evolve.. keeps me coming back.

 

[Paul2]

You're taking an action either way with the trolley problem (flipping a switch vs. pushing fatso off the bridge). The difference in intuitions probably comes from a greater sense of involvement.

There is something to the idea that people view omission and commission differently, but there's also something to the idea that we shouldn't. There are plenty of examples where we see omission leading to death as unacceptably negligent (caring for children is an obvious one).

Personally, I don't see much moral difference between killing someone and not saving them when you can. Much has been made in this thread about the fact that a fetus is "uniquely" dependent on its mother, but why is that relevant? What is it about the fact that other people could donate a kidney (but generally don't, and certainly not in sufficient numbers to meet the need) that frees those of us who can from the obligation to do so?

There's a version of the trolley problem in which 1 victim dies if you throw the railway track switch, and multiple victims dies if you don't throw the switch (IIRC). That's the first one outlined at Wikipedia.

 

[mumblethrax]

There's a version of the trolley problem in which 1 victim dies if you throw the railway track switch, and multiple victims dies if you don't throw the switch (IIRC). That's the first one outlined at Wikipedia.

Right. And people overwhelmingly feel that throwing the switch is the right thing to do when surveyed. Meaning the problem doesn't really have much to do with omission vs. commission.

 

[Paul2]

Right. And people overwhelmingly feel that throwing the switch is the right thing to do when surveyed. Meaning the problem doesn't really have much to do with omission vs. commission.

Except for those who are not in the 90% who would take the action to save more people. But point taken.

 

[The Atheist]

Okay, so do you have any data on that?

You're either being deliberately disingenuous or outright trolling.

We know from decades of experience across multiple countries and continents that the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is education and access to birth control.

 

[cosmicaug]

You're either being deliberately disingenuous or outright trolling.

We know from decades of experience across multiple countries and continents that the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is education and access to birth control.

There's also a connection between abortion restrictions and increased maternal mortality around childbirth. Of course, correlation does not imply causation & the causality here is more likely that the same "pro-life" forces that capture state governments to lead to increasing abortion restrictions are also hostile toward the provision of other types of health care for women.

https://www.salon.com/2021/04/19/the-link-between-americas-rising-maternal-mortality-rates-and-abortion/:

The authors of the Contraception paper stressed to Salon that it's not as simple as women dying because they wanted an abortion and couldn't get one, though there is strong evidence that women in this situation suffer worse health outcomes than women who are able to abort unwanted pregnancies. It's also likely that, as the paper explains, "states that restrict abortion may have broader hostility towards women's health."

Dr. Amy Addante, an OB-GYN and co-author of the paper, explained to Salon that "they are not prioritizing things that have been demonstrated to lower maternal mortality." Instead of "improving access to care, not just, obstetrics care, but contraceptive care," Addante noted, the legislatures are "really prioritizing passing anti-abortion legislation."

Indeed, the same legislatures that are keen on gutting abortion access are also happy to make birth control harder to get, even though, as Addante noted, "unplanned pregnancies are at increased risk of adverse outcomes." In Texas, for instance, the anti-abortion legislature has also spent years slashing family planning programs, and even redirected funds that used to go to birth control services to shady anti-contraception groups. Texas also happens to be one of the states that has rising maternal mortality rates.

As Dr. Hoofnagle pointed out, restrictions on abortion close down clinics that were part of the larger "safety net" offering affordable services like birth control and other reproductive health care. For instance, the Donald Trump administration cut funding to 900 reproductive health care clinics, using the fact that those clinics acknowledge that abortion is legitimate health care as an excuse. Similar assaults on abortion access have shuttered Planned Parenthood and other low-cost clinics across the country.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.03.018

 

[Suddenly]

I suspect it is not a case of "I did not know sex leads to babies" and more a case of people having wrong information about birth control. (E.g. I didn't think you needed birth control the first time, this used McDonald hamburger wrapper can be used as a makeshift condom, etc)

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

Also the demystifying of sex. Having out in the open can help teens make better choices, understand the emotional impact, etc. Being clear about the necessity of consent and discussion of same rather than the coercive behavior we've seen as normal would do a whole heap of good.

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's an interesting angle...

From: Yahoo News
Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Sunday hinted at retribution for Indigenous Oklahomans should doctors readily perform abortions on tribal lands if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Well, I guess that is one way for Indians to get back at the white man. Kill them in the womb when nobody else will? Kind of creepy implications to that, tbh.

How would they be "getting back" at the white man? They would be providing a service that the majority of the population thinks should be available. Rather than being "creepy", they'd be seen as heros.

Also, is abortion law more relaxed or more stringent on reservations than what we see now, generally?

The article suggests that in most states, tribal lands have the right to decide what laws to enforce and what ones not to enforce.

Like, what would be their motivation to become a massive abortion hub?

Motivation?

How about being seen as heros by a huge segment of the population (i.e. the ones who don't get their legal/moral guidance from people who actually executed people for which craft?) So much for "noble savage"... they would be seen as more enlightened than the average red-state voter.

How about the ability to use infrastructure created for abortion services to also be used for general health care within their own population?

How about doing it because its the morally right thing to do?

 

[Segnosaur]

Republican governor: "Ooops, we went to far".

from: CNN
Arkansas' near-total abortion ban should be "revisited" to provide exceptions for instances of rape or incest should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the state's Republican governor (Asa Hutchinson) said...Signed in March 2021 by Hutchinson, Arkansas' abortion ban would go into effect if Roe is reversed. The law would ban providers from performing abortions "except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency" and makes no exceptions for instances of rape, incest or fetal anomalies.

This is a sad reminder about just how much republicans are scumbags. I had a tiny bit of sympathy for Hutchinson because he seen as an anti-Trumper. But here is proof that even when a republican disavows Trump, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

I have absolutely no respect of sympathy for Hutchinson here. I suspect his sympathy for rape/incest victims is false, and he is really only interested in trying to appear less extreme for political purposes. Hutchinson was under no real pressure to sign the bill as presented... he could have vetoed it and challenged the legislature to come back with a bill that contains the exceptions he claims to favor. And there was no rush to get the law passed.... it was a trigger law (i.e. wouldn't have come into effect immediately anyways) so they had time to get it "right". But he signed it, and now fears political backlash.

I hope he is reminded ever time he campaigns about how he signed a law that forces rape victims to carry the fetus to term.

 

[Bob001]

wrong thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

George Carlin on the anti-abortion evil*:

Warning NSFW

I heard about this on Jon Stewart's podcast. It did not disappoint.


*For lack of a better word.

 

[Upchurch]

I have no idea why this came to mind recently*, but given that this decision is putting unenumerated rights created by court decisions into question, does this mean the precedent created by the wrongly decided DC v Heller is also available for review and possibly being overturned?

Interesting.


* Clearly, I know exactly why

 

[tyr_13]

Above the Law notes another attempt at Cancel Culture. (No, I'm not posting in the wrong thread.)

 

[Upchurch]

Above the Law notes another attempt at Cancel Culture. (No, I'm not posting in the wrong thread.)

Seems like a problem to have a judge, let alone a justice, on anyone’s payroll outside of their government salary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Old research being brought back to life (light).

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime over the Last Two Decades

Abstract

Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s. That paper concluded with a strong out-of-sample prediction regarding the next two decades: “When a steady state is reached roughly twenty years from now, the impact of abortion will be roughly twice as great as the impact felt so far. Our results suggest that all else equal, legalized abortion will account for persistent declines of 1% a year in crime over the next two decades.” Estimating parallel specifications to the original paper, but using the seventeen years of data generated after that paper was written, we find strong support for the prediction and the broad hypothesis, while illuminating some previously unrecognized patterns of crime and arrests. We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.

Here's the full paper: pdf from a link in the paper in case it doesn't open for you.

There was some criticism of it which the authors acknowledged and corrected. It didn't change the conclusions.


Then there is this study:
Abortion access tends to lower child poverty rates, economists say


And this:
The Turnaway Study: What The Research Says About Abortion

For answers, we turned to Dr. Diana Greene Foster, the lead researcher on the interdisciplinary team behind The Turnaway Study. For over a decade, she and her fellow researchers followed just under a thousand women who sought an abortion across 21 states. These data may give us insight into pregnant people's lives in a post Roe v. Wade United States.

The rest is an interview on audio only.

More on the above study's findings

The study finds that many of the common claims about the detrimental effects on women’s health of having an abortion are not supported by evidence. For example, women who have an abortion are not more likely than those denied the procedure to have depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation. We find that 95% of women report that having the abortion was the right decision for them over five years after the procedure.

The Turnaway Study does find serious consequences of being denied a wanted abortion on women’s health and wellbeing. Women denied a wanted abortion who have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term have four times greater odds of living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). ...

In addition, women denied abortion are:

More likely to experience serious complications from the end of pregnancy including eclampsia and death.
More likely to stay tethered to abusive partners.
More likely to suffer anxiety and loss of self-esteem in the short term after being denied abortion.
Less likely to have aspirational life plans for the coming year.
More likely to experience poor physical health for years after the pregnancy, including chronic pain and gestational hypertension.
The study also finds that being denied abortion has serious implications for the children born of unwanted pregnancy, as well as for the existing children in the family.​

 

[gnome]

I read about that possible effect, and there may be something to it... but I've also heard the same drop in crime attributed to efforts to remove lead and other toxins from indoor environments paying off a generation later. I wonder which has the greater impact?

 

[d4m10n]

I can hear the Republicans chortling with glee from here as they dictate what women may and may not do with their bodies.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/oklahoma-abortion-bill_n_62868898e4b0edd2d01310f7

But hey, there is an upside - more white kids, making it harder for the dagos, spics, coons and ragheads to take over.

Don't think you've really done the math on this one. Oklahomans who can afford to take a week or two off in Kansas or Colorado will be fine, so the law will disproportionately affect economically marginalized groups (e.g. Latin American immigrants to south OKC).