What if i aborted baby hitler
Okay but think of how many abortions Hitler prevented
what if your mom aborted you
god I wish
Someone once asked me that question, and I had the fun opportunity to let them know that my mom did in fact get several abortions before me, which is what allowed her to get to a better place in her life before having me and my sister, giving us a better life than if she’d had a kid in her teens.
Plus, if that first pregnancy had come to term, she never would’ve had me and my sister, so ehy does the first pregnancy get more right to live than the potential second?
Primogeniture /s
So, uh, fun(?) fact, the trolley problem was originally formulated in a paper about abortion: https://web.archive.org/web/20240712123155/https://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ362/Hallam/Readings/FootDoubleEffect.pdf
For anyone looking for it:
A party of potholers has imprudently allowed the fat man to lead them as they make their way out of the cave, and he gets stuck, trapping the others behind him. Obviously the right thing to do is to sit down and wait until the fat man grows thin; but philosophers have arranged that flood waters should be rising within the cave. Luckily (luckily?) the trapped party have with them a stick of dynamite with which they can blast the fat man out of the mouth of the cave. Either they use the dynamite or they drown. In one version the fat man, whose head is in the cave, will drown with them; in the other he will be rescued in due course. Problem: may they use the dynamite or not?
Nope:
To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed.
In the case of the riots the mob has five hostages [demanding a judge to name and hang an offender when the judge has no evidence], so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man’s life for the lives of five. The question is why we should say, without hesitation, that the driver should steer for the less occupied track, while most of us would be appalled at the idea that the innocent man could be framed.
It may be suggested that the special feature of the latter case is that it involves the corruption of justice, and this is, of course, very important indeed. But if we remove that special feature, supposing that some private individual is to kill an innocent person and pass him off as the criminal we still find ourselves horrified by the idea. The doctrine of double effect offers us a way out of the difficulty, insisting that it is one thing to steer towards someone foreseeing that you will kill him and another to aim at his death as part of your plan.
Moreover there is one very important element of good in what is here insisted. In real life it would hardly ever be certain that the man on the narrow track would be killed. Perhaps he might find a foothold on the side of the tunnel and cling on as the vehicle hurtled by. The driver of the tram does not then leap off and brain him with a crowbar. The judge, however, needs the death of the innocent man for his (good) purposes. If the victim proves hard to hang he must see to it that he dies another way.
But TBH reading the introduction text about the doctrine of double effect is potentially more interesting. We always just reference the trolley problem as a hypothetical, but the doctrine of double effect actually basically ‘solves’ the trolley problem, in that it answers why we’re fine with a bad effect in exchange for a good effect in some cases, but not in others.
Babe wake up, psych there’s no baby to wake up to go back to bed lmao
I wonder how many abortions a woman can get before the abortion clinic starts sending angry messages to the contraception clinic for doing a bad job.
That’s why most abortion clinics also do contraception, counseling, and other family planning: to cut down on back and forth paperwork.
That’s the ONLY reason why.
That sounds like a conflict of interest. Charge for contraception, use shit contraception, get a repeat customer for abortion… Repeat. Literally printing money.
They… don’t charge if someone is broke, though, or has no insurance or a host of other reasons.
A lot of abortion services and a lot of contraceptive services are donation-driven.
I give to planned parenthood, for example, to help lower income women get care as well as the planned parenthood action fund to help with legal battles.
When I’ve gone to planned parenthood myself, I qualified for free care, and it helped me substantially as a young woman.
Oh dear, you thought I was serious. I thought the blatantly absurd bullshit content of every comment I’ve made in this thread would make it clear that I’m talking shit. Sorry to mislead and deceive.
Ah no, too many people genuinely share that view or something likt it that I never assume something like that is a joke. There was no indication.
It’s also really easy to gloss over usernames in threads like this with multiple tangents.
“…so I said it sounds like she’s just feeding fetuses to the abortion clinic and then Jesus started crying”
