New Iowa Law Restricts Abortion To Before Most Women Know They're Pregnant

[RoadRunner79]

The trolley problem is never easy.  However it does point out the distinction between not saving another human, and actively causing them violence resulting in death. I would say that your bodily autonomy ends with your body, and when you start talking about killing another.   This would be the difference between a lack of saving, vs killing.   For instance, if someone instead of not saving the dying man, shoots them, it is still murder.

No, it doesn't actually point that out. It shows that in the trolley problem, for some reason we don't understand, one action is viewed differently from another. We have no conscious introspection as to the reason why, and no principle derived from ethics seems to point the way to an answer. We don't know why we have an intuition that one instance has a significant moral distinction to the other. You're simply trading on our ignorance to make a claim that you cannot justify by an appeal to any moral theory. Regardless, the case in question does not parallel the one at issue, as you would be equally outraged if instead of killing the fetus, doctors simply removed the fetus and allowed it to die of natural causes. So you're simply being disingenuous by claiming that the difference lies in the act of terminating the life. That's not your real sticking point. And since it isn't, you're once again faced with providing a justification for treating the two cases differently, the case of being forced to give up a lung or a kidney, and that of being forced to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

So do you not think that doctors removing the baby, and letting it die, is killing it? Do you think it is wrong to intentially harm and kill another without some moral justification? I don’t think that if a person locked someone in a room and let them die from “natural causes” would be any less murder; do you?