Thinking Critically About Abortion: begging the question

Showing posts with label begging the question. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Is abortion "healthcare"? What if it often is not?

@nathan.nobis It's not true, wise, or necessary to claim that all abortions are "healthcare." #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy #bioethics ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

"Abortion is healthcare" is a slogan that's popular with some pro-choice people. Indeed, it's used as something of an argument for, or defense of, abortion:

"Abortion isn't wrong; it's healthcare!"

Here are two fair questions of this claim:

Is is true?
Is it useful?

How should these questions be answered?

To determine out whether abortion is indeed "healthcare", we'd need to know what "healthcare" is. What's the definition?

Unfortunately, there is no definitive definition of the word "healthcare." (Look it up!)

However, certainly, some abortions are indeed healthcare: abortions needed to save a woman's life (and where the fetus will also die if she doesn't have the abortion) are healthcare. Even people who generally oppose abortions are willing to call agree: they'd be willing to call these abortions "healthcare."

What about other abortions, most abortions, "elective" abortions? Are they healthcare?

Really, they don't fit any common definitions of healthcare. (Again, look them up!).

So, they aren't healthcare, at least how it's ordinarily understood.

By now some people are surely upset.

But why?

It's not like this is true:

Doing something is morally OK and should be legal only if it's "healthcare."

And it's not like even this is true either:

Doing something medical-ish is morally OK and should be legal only if it's healthcare.

For example, it's a stretch to call, say, many instances of cosmetic surgery "healthcare" even though they are done in healthcare settings by healthcare providers (or people who could provide healthcare).

So it's not like anything hangs on abortion being healthcare: it's not like abortion must be healthcare or else it's wrong or should be illegal. That's absurd.

So then what's the deal with the insistence, in some circles, with calling all, or nearly all, abortions "healthcare"?

I think it's just this: first, they assume that all healthcare is morally permissible and is or should be legal.

Indeed, that healthcare is permissible and is or should be legal is pretty much assumed by any definition of healthcare. Ask anyone what they mean by healthcare: they are going assume that healthcare isn't wrong: that's just part of the concept. So this is a good assumption.

The next step though is the problem: it's that people who claim that abortion is healthcare are "begging the question," or assuming what's at issue.

Those who "argue" that abortion is healthcare seem to be reasoning like this:

Abortion is not wrong because it is healthcare, namely something done by doctors and nurses and healthcare providers that's not wrong. And so if they perform abortions, that's healthcare, which isn't wrong.

This comes to this:

Abortion is not wrong because healthcare providers perform them and they aren't doing anything wrong.

Ultimately, this comes to this:

Abortion is not wrong because abortion is not wrong.

This is begging the question, which is circular reasoning. It involves your reason for your conclusion being that conclusion itself (e.g., "eating meat is wrong because it's not right to eat meat!"). It's bad reasoning, always.

Here, of course, it involves assuming that abortion is not wrong and should be legal. And that's can't be merely assumed: reasons have to be given, and saying "abortion is healthcare" doesn't provide those reasons. (It's worth noting that even if there are great arguments in defense of abortion [and there are!], that doesn't mean that abortion is healthcare either).

So, to return to our questions above:

Is "abortion is healthcare" true?

It depends on the abortion, but in most cases this is false.

Is "abortion is healthcare" helpful?

No, not at all.

This claim is going to be entirely unhelpful to anyone who doesn't already believe that abortion is permissible and should be legal. To anyone who doesn't already believe that, they are going to react that this slogan assumes that abortion is not wrong: it assumes that any arguments against abortion are unsound. (Maybe they are, but, again, that can't be merely assumed).

These assumptions are unhelpful: merely assuming this gives no reason for anyone to change their mind, or even give anything new to consider. And, for people who say "abortion is healthcare," this slogan doesn't do anything to help them better understand the issues and the why behind their perspective.

So, why do people say things like this?

One set of answers relates to groupthink and "virtue signaling": people say what sounds good to their own in-group, without thinking about how outsiders would respond, and people say these things to show people in the group that they are part of the group.

Is this good? No.

So, another answer is that many people say these things because of a lack of training and education in what makes for good arguments, both in terms of providing evidence for conclusions and in terms of persuasiveness.

What's then the solution here? Training and education about arguments and critical thinking. And that would be good not just for these issues, but all others too. Right?

All other blog posts are available here: here are some of them:

Friday, September 18, 2020

"Force birther"-ism and Virtue Signaling

There's seems to be an increasingly popular "move" online of calling people who think abortion is wrong and should be illegal "force birthers."

The thought is that these are people who want to, and would, force women to give birth because they would force women to not have abortions if they could and that's their goal.

Here I want to observe that calling someone a "forced birther" is just silly.

So, here's the dialogue:

A. "You're a 'forced birther'!"
B. "Why's that?"
A. "You would force women to not have abortions, and so force them to have birth!"
B. "Yes, I think abortion is wrong and should be illegal."
A. "So you are "forced birther"!"
B. "Well, yes, I think abortion is wrong and should be illegal. So, yeah, you are observing that I do indeed believe what you are accusing me of believing: that's what people who think abortion is wrong and should be illegal think: do you have any reason to think this position is mistaken?"

So, what's happening is that the pro-choice finds someone who they (correctly or incorrectly) believes abortion is wrong and should be illegal. They then angrily call them a "forced birther" which basically amounts to saying "They think abortion should be wrong and should be illegal!!"

Now, isn't it just obvious to everyone that this person thinks abortion is wrong and should be illegal?

Of course.

Is telling something who thinks that abortion is wrong and should be illegal that "You think abortion is wrong and should be illegal!!" giving them any new information or arguments to think about it? Might it in any way going to change their minds (for the better)? Does telling anyone this give them any reason to think that they are perhaps mistaken in their views?

No, not at all.

So then why do people say things like this, since it's obviously not going to persuade anyone, give them any kind of reasons to consider that might lead to their changing their mind, or "shore up" any pro-choice persons' views on the issues?

Seems like the answer is this: saying this (and things like it) amounts to "virtue signaling," which is this:

virtue signaling
[ vur-choo sig-nl-ing ]
noun Sometimes Disparaging.
the sharing of one's point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media, in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view, or to passively rebuke those who do not:The virtue signaling of solidarity with the victims can be a comforting affirmation of community.Their outraged virtue signaling comes across as contrived.

Why do people say things like this and other soundbites?

On the theory of virtue signaling, they say this to try to fit in with their crowd. To try to show that they are true believers. To be part of a . . cult?

While there's maybe a time and a place for that, it's surely worth asking if this move is helpful in any way.

Surely it isn't.

And it isn't because it does nothing to engage any arguments or concerns of people who oppose abortion. All it says is "You oppose abortion! Boo to that!" which is not productive in any way.

What would be productive, for pro-choice people and organizations?

One suggestion - beyond voting and engaging in relevant lawsuits - is to see all the types of things that anti-abortion people and organizations do, in terms of trainings and "educational" activities and think tanks, and matching those activities.

Pro-choice people being more informed on the issues, and so better able to engage other people on these issues by not relying on unpersuasive slogans based on bad arguments, would be very good, indeed a true virtue. Given the urgency of these issues, that's what's needed, not virtue signaling.

P.S. People who think abortion is wrong and should be illegal get called called "forced birthers," but sometimes people who observe that some reasons given to think abortion is not wrong and should be legal are bad arguments that will convince nobody also get called "force birthers." Anyone critical about any arguments in favor of abortion can get called this, even if they think abortions are generally not wrong, should be legal and even write books arguing that! (How do I know this??)

P.P.S. Sometimes observations of virtue signaling are themselves virtue signaling. Is that relevant to this post? If so, how? How is the group who shares the view expressed here best described?