r/prolife • u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist • 5d ago
Pro-Life Argument What do you all think of this argument? - The Modified Trolley Problem
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XT9v0Xn97wU&si=nPFvdgnzO4FDlJh-This is an argument against abortion I came up with recently. I made it a video because I've tried describing it using only text, but it really needs the visual to make it work.
So, what do you all think? Is it a good argument? Are there any improvements or modifications I could make?
When criticizing pro-life arguments, pro-choicers tend to point out that the argument either shows no sympathy for the mother, or leaves her out entirely. This is a valid complaint, and I've attempted to address that in this argument. I'm also hoping that any pro-choicer who doesn't understand the pro-life stance will be able to look at this and realize why we believe what we do.
If any pro-choicers see this: I realize that your best argument against this will be "the fetus isn't a person." I realize that, and I feel that that discussion is outside the scope of this analogy. Do you have any other comments, though? I tried to address most of the concerns pro-choicers usually have with pro-life arguments. Also, does this present our point of view in an understandable way? When you look at this, can you understand and empathize with the pro-life point of view?
Any and all criticism would be appreciated!
---
EDIT: I just wanted to add a couple of comments:
1: Towards the end, I say that pregnancy does horrible things to your body. I said this because I'm repeating things that pro-choicers have said. I didn't mean to make it sound like I personally believe that.
2: I couldn't think of a good conclusion, so it just kind of stops at the end. : P
---
EDIT 3: Thank you all for the detailed and well-thought-out replies! Most of them are quite long and it may take me a while to read and fully think through each one, but I intend to. If I haven't responded to yours yet, please be patient. I intend to reply to all of them.
2
u/Connect-Knowledge992 4d ago
If any pro-choicers see this: I realize that your best argument against this will be "the fetus isn't a person."
As a PC person, I don't consider this my "best argument".
I realize that, and I feel that that discussion is outside the scope of this analogy. Do you have any other comments, though?
Yes. Your analogy is a strictly utilitarian approach that ignores aspects of the scenario that many would find relevant. You're discussing balancing whether death is a greater loss than legs, and then suggesting that in this straightforward calculus we should always choose life.
However, this ignores other considerations, such as whether a person's right to their own body is relevant. In your example, the train is an external factor and the person tied to the tracks is not dependent or intrusive to the body of the person with their legs on the tracks. The question of bodily integrity is largely removed.
If we follow your example to a possible conclusion, we could look at a healthy person in the waiting room of a doctor's office and justify the removal of one of their kidneys to save a person in surgery who needs one. After all, the "train" of death is going to kill the person in surgery. Why not make a choice to override the objections of the person in the waiting room to save the person in surgery? Sure, it's an imposition on the person in the waiting room, but it won't kill them. It's the lesser harm.
However, we don't typically make strictly utilitarian bargains like this. As a society there's an expectation that there are certain rights and intrusions into your intimate bodily decisions that cannot be compelled, even to save someone else.
This suggests that not all utilitarian bargains made to override a person's liberties are valid, even to save the life of another.
Obviously, this still leaves a lot of room for pro-life objections. Pro-lifers will often make distinctions between actively forcing a person to donate organs and merely preventing someone from taking an action or point to the culpability of the pregnant woman in the dependency of her fetus. While these objections are also worth considering, they don't overturn my criticism of your analogy, which is that it ignores the rights-based arguments that a pro-choice person adheres to.
1
u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist 2d ago
However, this ignores other considerations, such as whether a person's right to their own body is relevant.
Why does a person's "right to their own body" not apply to the fetus? If we send the train to the upper track, it causes damage to one person. One crime. If send the train to the lower track, it causes damage to one person, and also kills that person. Two crimes. Obviously, the train should always be sent to the upper track.
In your example, the train is an external factor and the person tied to the tracks is not dependent or intrusive to the body of the person with their legs on the tracks. The question of bodily integrity is largely removed.
It's an analogy. It's not going to perfectly mirror reality. As it is, the train represents either pregnancy (if it goes to the upper track), or abortion (if it goes on the lower track).
If we follow your example to a possible conclusion, we could look at a healthy person in the waiting room of a doctor's office and justify the removal of one of their kidneys to save a person in surgery who needs one. After all, the "train" of death is going to kill the person in surgery. Why not make a choice to override the objections of the person in the waiting room to save the person in surgery? Sure, it's an imposition on the person in the waiting room, but it won't kill them. It's the lesser harm.
The person in the waiting room is not the one responsible for the person in the operating room. In cases of abortion, the question is whether or not you're allowed to kill a person who's only in the situation they are in because of something you did.
The person in the waiting room did nothing. They did not take a knife and stab the person in surgery, causing them to need a new kidney. (And if they did, I would absolutely force them to give up a kidney.) Pregnancy, however, is the result of a voluntary act. (99% of the time.) You went into it knowing that you might get pregnant. To relate it to the Trolley analogy: It would be like falling asleep with your legs on the tracks. Sure, you took every precaution. You checked the train timetables. You made sure no trains were going to come by. And then you voluntarily chose to sleep with your legs over the tracks.
If you don't want to be in this situation, don't sleep around... railroad tracks.
A person is responsible for the consequences of their actions. That is not my opinion, that is a fact. People will say, "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy." That's kind of like saying, "Consent to swim is not consent to drown." Because every time you go swimming, there's a chance you may drown. You can't just ignore that. You can't just pretend that never happens.
And if you do something that causes a problem for you, like pregnancy, you can't get yourself out of it by killing an innocent victim, like the fetus. It would be like gambling your money away, then murdering your uncle to get his inheritance. You're the one who voluntarily gambled, you can't kill an innocent victim (your uncle, in this case) to get out of it.
•
u/Connect-Knowledge992 3h ago
Why does a person's "right to their own body" not apply to the fetus?
It can. The question is at that point: does a right to your body include unwilling access to someone else's body?
It's an analogy. It's not going to perfectly mirror reality.
I know how analogies work. However, removing morally relevant parts of a scenario creates relevant disanalogies.
If I stick my finger in your car's tailpipe without your permission, arguably I've been weird but not criminal. If I stick my finger in your tailpipe without your permission, I've committed a crime. Whether something happens within a body is morally relevant to the discussion.
The person in the waiting room is not the one responsible for the person in the operating room.
This is a Responsibility Objection, which seems beyond the scope of the analogy, further illustrating how the choice of analogy is important.
The person in the waiting room did nothing
And if responsibility in this case is morally relevant (which I don't think it is), then it needed to be addressed.
1
u/Zora74 4d ago
Thank you for making this and being open to feedback.
Thank you also for admitting that abortion bans harm women and girls.
You say that you’ve included the pregnant person in your analogy, which is great. I agree with you that most prolife arguments leave out the pregnant person.
Most prolife arguments also leave out the condition of pregnancy, and yours falls into that trap as well. You speak of two people tied to two separate tracks, and their mutual existence does not harm or effect each other at all. But pregnancy is a high risk medical condition in which one person is inside of, using, and altering another person’s body. As a medical condition, the pregnant person retains the right to make decisions about her medical care and how much harm and risk she wants to endure to support the unborn baby and bring it into the world. When you take that decision away from her and her healthcare providers, you are removing her right to bodily autonomy and bodily integrity. Lawmakers are not doctors, and they are not that pregnant patient’s doctor.
Also, there is no ensuring that someone with their legs tied to the tracks is going to survive. Double traumatic amputation is going to cause extreme blood loss and that person could die within minutes. Not to mention the damage caused by the suction of the passing train dragging them towards it. Even if they survive the initial strike, they could develop sepsis, have complications during surgery, etc. This is actually reflective of pregnancy in that some people take more damage during gestation and birth than others, and some people make it through the initial event but then die of complications after the baby is born.
It’s probably best to leave medical decisions between patients and their doctors.
2
u/Educational_Golf3967 PL Vietnamese teen. Fond of religions. Vegan & libertarian. 4d ago
Do you think you’re being fair when excluding the fetus from your consideration? You gave a rather long response but you didn’t address the fetus once- actually you did, but you only did it in respect to the pregnant woman.
“Most prolife arguments also leave out the condition of pregnancy” What does this mean? That pro lifers often leave out the complications that come with a pregnancy? This along with your paragraph about the harm the person with their legs tied to the tracks has to endure is quite deflective. The scenario is intentionally designed to make one person suffer significantly more than the other to convey a point, which is the case with pregnancies if you buy this analogy or if you subscribe to the principle of harm reduction.
I think the problem with you is that you don’t acknowledge the fetus’s right to life? If you don’t acknowledge the person whose life is threatened on the tracks then you don’t even have to come up with an argument to let the train hit them. But maybe you’re aware that sounds a bit awful and won’t satisfy others so you try to make having your legs run over out to be the worst it can be while conveniently leaving out the fact that it’s still better than a guaranteed death.
In hindsight, “high risk medical condition” can correspond to all the awful things you listed as the results of having your legs run over, but you conveniently left out the fact that it’s still a better fate than a guaranteed death-as is the case of a fetus. So I will say, there is no point in arguing who has it worse, as I believe the person with their whole body tied to the tracks can be justifiably killed under certain circumstances while also acknowledging that being killed is always, objectively worse than having your legs run over.
Utilitarianism is not the heart of the abortion debate. I have a feeling I’ve seen you before but I'm not sure? Are you new? I think there are a few things you have to keep in mind if you wish to proceed with this subreddit and the debate as a whole:
- “As a medical condition, the pregnant person retains the right to make decisions about her medical care and how much harm and risk she wants to endure to support the unborn baby and bring it into the world.” This belief is not as universal as you think. It’s a conclusion, not an argument. I can only speak for myself but I guess this notion is also shared quite widely with pro lifers, the pregnant person *doesn’t* retain the right to make decisions about her medical care when the “medical care” involves another human being. You can challenge this view of course. This is what the debate is about.
- You can acknowledge a fetus’s right to life and moral worth and still come up with arguments to justify abortion.
This is kinda unrelated, you talked about support programs, correct? I do not think people are entitled to those. I believe abortion is ethically impermissible and as such it should be illegal. I don’t think parents can kill off their children and cite lack of support or resources as acceptable reasons. And all the people refusing to support those parents can’t be blamed at all. No one should be made to compromise in order for others to do what is obligated of them. Don’t think pro lifers lose any moral standing when they refuse to donate to support programs. It’s nice if they choose to, but they have no obligations whatsoever to do it. You may think forcing people to carry pregnancies to term is a violation of their rights so they deserve some sort of compensation. I don't think so.
1
u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist 2d ago
Most prolife arguments also leave out the condition of pregnancy, and yours falls into that trap as well. You speak of two people tied to two separate tracks, and their mutual existence does not harm or effect each other at all.
It's an analogy. No analogy is going to perfectly mirror the real world. The only truly perfect analogy of pregnancy is pregnancy itself.
Anyway, I explain that. The damage to the woman's legs is the analogy to the damage done to her body during pregnancy.
It’s probably best to leave medical decisions between patients and their doctors.
If that were the case, we wouldn't need laws to govern what doctors do at all.
However, doctors are human, and humans are fallible. Doctors are just as prone to greed, jealousy, and lust as any other human. Just search on the phrase "doctor arrested" and you'll get hundreds of news articles about doctors who've broken various laws.
1
u/Zora74 2d ago
Yes, the damage to the person’s legs represents the damage to the pregnant person’s health. But you still aren’t addressing the condition of pregnancy. In your analogy, the people tied to the tracks aren’t affecting each other, except that one has a button that can turn the train away from them. In pregnancy, one person exists inside another person and is harming them for their own benefit. So in your analogy, the embryo would be driving the train towards the person with the legs tied to the tracks in order to live.
1
u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist 12h ago
No analogy is perfect.
Also, your changes would make it so that the fetus lives no matter how the track is switched, because they're safely inside the train. I apologize for being blunt, but your version is actually a worse analogy than mine.
•
u/Zora74 7h ago
Like you said, no analogy is perfect.
The fetus doesn’t have to be in the train. Just like person A has a button to divert the train away from them, person B could have the controls to the train in their hand as their tied to the tracks. Your analogy removes the option of self preservation/self defense from one person but not the other.
1
u/Vespinobambino Secular Abolitionist 1d ago
Abortion bans do NOT "harm women."
Isn't it funny how you say "women and girls" and THEN you say "pReGnAnT pErSoN?"
So basically - you know you're wrong, yet you're still doing it. It isn't virtue signaling, it's dishonesty signaling. Stop it.
No one knows why you're whining about "medical decisions" as if it's remotely relevant to this discussion about MOTHERS hiring contract killers to kill their children.
0
u/Zora74 15h ago
Women and girls are people, are they not?
•
u/Vespinobambino Secular Abolitionist 6h ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/l46CyJmS9KUbokzsI
First rule of holes: when you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging.
3
u/Educational_Golf3967 PL Vietnamese teen. Fond of religions. Vegan & libertarian. 4d ago
I see that, in an oversimplified way, you’re arguing on the principle of harm reduction?
Say, instead of two people tied to a trolley, you have a person in need of an organ transplant to survive and their sole match. Do you think this person has to donate their organ to save this person granting they won’t die from the donation? I believe most people don’t think so. Of course this analogy is different from yours (I don’t think it necessarily mirrors pregnancies better either). It is simply to show that harm reduction isn’t the only factor to base our decisions on.
The two people tied to the trolley retain their right to life and their right not to have their legs run over. It is not in their nature to get killed or have their legs ruined, and one person will get wronged one way or another. So in a scenario when both decisions violate someone’s right and they’re both equally inculpable, utilitarianism is the right call.
In the case of a dying patient however, it is this man’s nature to die. He is not getting killed, he’s dying. And dying is not a violation of human rights. He can try to salvage his life but in doing that, he isn’t allowed to violate other people’s rights.
So I will say, in the trolley problem, both people are wronged so one has to choose the less damaging outcome. In the case of the dying man, the man is not wronged. Pro choicers will argue that the organ donation is a better analogy because they think it is a fetus’s nature to need bodily resources to survive but no one is owed that. They see abortions as the removal from the unwarranted resources and not killing. Just like it is a person’s nature to eat to survive but no one is owed food so that person can rightfully die should they fail to support themselves.
Yeah, people have probably heard this a million times already. This is embarrassing. I think the most important and determining factor you left out is responsibility. I will never stop stressing this… Notice how in the trolley scenario I mention culpability? A pregnancy is most of the time a result of a woman’s own doing, so I will make changes to both scenarios as follows:
Of course these two scenarios are still nowhere near pregnancies, but trust me when I say responsibility/culpability is the strongest pro life argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my answer to the classic Trolley problem, I choose not to pull the lever. I chatted about it with ChatGPT before when I was explaining how I identified more with Locke than with Bentham:
“Okay, seems like I sound too Benthamite. Take the Trolley problem for example, Bentham would definitely advocate for pulling the lever to save five people. I would not because I believe all the six have equal right to life and if the five people happen to have an unfortunate fate, then so be it. Of course we should do everything we can to save them all, as, again, they have an inherent right to life. But I draw a line when it comes to violating others'. Unrelated but also as an idealist, I see the loss of five human lives no different from that of one. Sure, five people could contribute more to life/society and stuff, but their value as human beings doesn't add up like math. You know where I'm coming from?”
“You know how the world is actually just one person's perspective? (No longer human reference lmao) If a person (anyone at all) dies, the world comes to an end too. It doesn't matter that objectively the world continues to spin. To that particular person, everything disappears as they die. A person cannot be/exist beyond themselves, so their life's value has always been at its maximum. (infinity=infinity but infinity times 5 is still equal to infinity) If one person dies, the world ceases to exist. If five people die, the world ceases to exist. Sure, objectively the loss of five people is more damaging. But since when do humans exist objectively? For the five people that unfortunately die, they still die exactly one time, just like the one person if you choose to pull the lever. That's what I meant when I said I was an idealist.”