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? 

1. 

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.  

2.

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). 

3.

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:

• "Fetuses are human beings; all human beings are equal in dignity & worth; so abortion is wrong." Good or bad argument?

• Pro-life virtues and vices? Pro-choice virtues and vices? On sex/gender and arguments

• "Force birther"-ism and Virtue Signaling

• Is the "bodily autonomy" argument for abortion *that* simple?

• Are you part of a cult about abortion, or anything else?

• Trent Horn on "The Problem of Personhood"

• 'Yes, "a person is a person, no matter how small," but . .'

• "If abortion is not wrong, then it's OK to kill sleeping people??!"

• "When does life begin?' and 'Are fetuses human?': Two bad questions to ask about abortion"

Are you part of a cult about abortion, or anything else?

How people engage the issue of abortion can be indicative of general patterns of inquiry, thinking and communicating about controversial and challenging issues. Some of these patterns of response are good but others are bad.

One bad response to issues like these is to engage in what can be called "cult-like" thinking and behavior. To be part of a cult is similar to being part of an "echo chamber" or - a newer related term - an "epistemic bubble."

So if someone engages in cult-like thinking, or is part of an echo chamber or an epistemic bubble about abortion, what's likely true of that person? 

1. they tend to enthusiastically affirm just about anything and anyone that agrees with their own position, without asking whether that source of potential support is a good one or not; 
2. they generally don't engage with people they disagree with on the issue, and these people are often "demonized": they are called stupid, or dumb, or evil or worse, although not in any kind of direct engagement that might wind up being productive;
3. if they engage with people who they disagree with, it's from a distance and doesn't involve an attempt to reach out in good-will to increase understanding and have productive engagement: they are "drive-by critics";
4. they don't really engage the materials (writings, videos, etc.) that people who disagree with them produce;
5. they are unaware of questions and objections that other people have about their own views: that is, they are unaware of what their critics say, much less whether their critic's objections have any merit;
6. sometimes their engagement of the issue is mediated through someone that they view as an expert or "prophet" on the issues: they agree with this person's conclusions on the issues, but aren't really up on the support for those conclusions, and so they leave it to this person to do that thinking and engagement for them;
7. in that way, their position on the issue is driven by the conclusions they antecedently accept, not so much their own reasoning towards that conclusion that starts from a place of neutrality or lack of bias (or at an attempt at seeing things from this neutral starting point, as best they can). This relates to the "If you agree with me (on the correct conclusion on this issue), then I agree with you, no matter what!" attitude mentioned above. 
8. likewise, they are generally unable to distinguish rejecting a conclusion on an issue from rejecting a reason or argument given for a conclusion on an issue: so, e.g., someone (even a pro-choice person) who says "This one reason is not a good reason to think that abortion is OK (although there are other good reasons to think that abortion is OK)" somehow gets seen as a threat by some pro-choice people, even though they are both pro-choice;
9. they consider themselves very knowledgable on the issue, despite not having read widely on the issues, taken classes on the issues, or engaged with a variety of potential experts on the issues: so they think they are experts when they are not; they do not know that there is a lot they do not know about the topic;
10. they think the issues are simple, when the experts know that there are genuine complications, challenges, and subtleties to be addressed;
11. they do not wonder about whether there is any "common ground" between them and the people they disagree with to use to make progress on the issues; 
12. there is often an unwillingness to "compromise" on anything, even when that compromise is reasonable. So this involves "black and white" thinking: it's either "all this" or "all that." Now, sometimes this response is appropriate - there are many things we shouldn't compromise on and there are not legitimate different perspectives on! - but compromises are sometimes reasonable and justified; 
13. people in cults and echo-chambers don't allow any member of their own insider group to question any aspect of the group's beliefs or ideology: you are either all for it or not and, if not, well, you aren't "one of us": self-critique isn't allowed. This is related to the phenomena of "groupthink."

This is just an incomplete and quickly-made list of some common features of this type of engagement. (What is missing?)

Looking at this list, do these seem to be good ways of engaging issues, or not? Are many issues engaged this way? Why is this?

Finally, do many people exhibit these tendencies in how they engage the topic of abortion, both people who are pro-choice and people who are critical of abortion?

If so, why is this? And, more importantly, what can be done about it, on this issue and any other? 

All other blog posts are available here; here are some:

• Trent Horn on "The Problem of Personhood"
• Yes, "a person is a person, no matter how small," but . .
• A Not Optimally Honest Abortion Debate: A Response to Alexandra DeSanctis’s "An Honest Abortion Debate" in The National Review
• Thank you notes!
• If abortion is not wrong, then it's OK to kill sleeping people??!
• When does life begin?' and 'Are fetuses human?': Two bad questions to ask about abortion
• "Public Philosophy on abortion"