Introductory videos on abortion from YouTube now on TikTok

 A series of introductory videos on abortion from 2020 from YouTube is now on TikTok:

@nathan.nobis Defining "Abortion" Video 1 of 5. From a presentation 4 years ago about Thinking Critically About Abortion at www.AbortionArguments.com #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Question-begging arguments on abortion. Video 2 of 5. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #criticalthinking #fallacies #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Common, "everyday" ethical arguments about abortion. Video 3 of 5. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Some philosophical arguments against abortion. Video 4 of 5. Based on "Thinking Critically About Abortion" at www.AbortionArguments.com #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Philosophical arguments that abortion generally isn't wrong. An overview of Thinking Critically About Abortion at www.AbortionArguments.com Part 5 of 5. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #bioethics #philosophy ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

ChatGPT on "Thinking Critically About Abortion"

Please summarize the book "Thinking Critically About Abortion" and outline its strengths and potential weaknesses.  

Summary of "Thinking Critically About Abortion"

Preface: The authors, philosophy professors Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob, aim to improve discussions on abortion by applying critical thinking skills. They believe that reasoned, systematic engagement with the topic can lead to better understanding and potential resolution.

Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter introduces the controversy surrounding abortion, emphasizing the need for better discussions. The authors highlight recent legislative changes and frame the book's objective: to provide a reasoned examination of the moral and legal issues related to abortion.

Chapter 2: Defining “Abortion” This chapter discusses the importance of defining abortion accurately. The authors explore various definitions, such as "murdering babies," "termination," and "killing," to clarify the debate's terms and implications.

Chapter 3: Fetal Consciousness & Facts about Abortions

• 3.1 Fetal Consciousness: Examines the development of consciousness in fetuses and argues that early fetuses lack the characteristics that make killing wrong.
• 3.2 When Most Abortions Occur: Provides data on the timing of most abortions, emphasizing that they occur before fetuses develop consciousness.
• 3.3 Why Most Abortions Occur: Discusses the reasons women seek abortions, including socio-economic factors and personal circumstances.

Chapter 4: Bad Arguments: “Question-Begging” Arguments & “Everyday” Arguments

• 4.1 “Question-Begging” Arguments: Identifies and refutes arguments that assume their conclusions without providing genuine reasons.
• 4.2 “Everyday” Arguments: Addresses common arguments against and for abortion, examining their logical flaws and lack of evidence.

Chapter 5: Better Arguments: Philosophers’ Arguments

• 5.1 Arguments Against Abortion: Analyzes philosophical arguments that claim fetuses have moral status and refutes them based on lack of consciousness and other factors.
• 5.2 Arguments that Abortion is Often Not Wrong: Presents positive arguments for why early abortions are not morally wrong and discusses the right to life versus the right to bodily autonomy.

Chapter 6: Conclusion Summarizes the arguments presented and reiterates the authors' position that most abortions are not morally wrong and should be legal.

Chapter 7: For Further Reading Lists additional resources for readers interested in exploring the topic further.

Chapter 8: Discussion Questions Provides questions to stimulate critical thinking and discussion about the arguments presented in the book.

Strengths and Potential Weaknesses

Strengths:

1. Clear Definitions: The book takes care to define key terms clearly, which helps clarify the debate.
2. Systematic Analysis: The authors provide a systematic analysis of common arguments, identifying logical flaws and providing counterarguments.
3. Focus on Critical Thinking: The emphasis on critical thinking skills helps readers approach the topic in a reasoned and respectful manner.
4. Empirical Data: The use of empirical data on fetal development and abortion statistics strengthens the authors' arguments.
5. Accessible Writing: The book is written in an accessible style, making complex philosophical arguments understandable to a broad audience.

Potential Weaknesses:

1. Philosophical Bias: As the authors are philosophy professors, their arguments may reflect a particular philosophical bias that some readers might not share.
2. Lack of Emotional Consideration: The book's focus on rational argumentation may overlook the emotional and personal aspects of the abortion debate, which are significant for many people.
3. Potential Controversy: The authors' strong stance in favor of abortion rights might alienate readers who hold opposing views, potentially limiting the book's impact on fostering open dialogue.
4. Limited Scope: While the book provides a thorough analysis of philosophical arguments, it may not fully address all the social, cultural, and political dimensions of the abortion debate.

Overall, "Thinking Critically About Abortion" aims to improve the quality of discourse on abortion by applying critical thinking skills and providing reasoned arguments. Its strengths lie in its clear definitions, systematic analysis, and focus on critical thinking, while its potential weaknesses include philosophical bias and a limited consideration of emotional aspects.

4 year anniversary!

The freely available introductory book Thinking Critically About Abortion, by Kristina Grob and me, came out 4 years ago today!

It's usually unclear what kind of "impact" a book might have--especially a philosophy-ish book--but the book's webpage hit 350,000 views the other day: each day there are at least a few hundred views, sometimes thousands, and at least some percent of that is downloads from many sources. And there are 38 Amazon reviews, and 6 reviews of the Spanish version, 1 of the Italian and 0 of the French version.

This book has led me to meet many people all around the world, who are now my friends and has brought many other opportunities my way. And I know that it has helped some people think better about this, and other, controversial issues. And it's been a chance to model some what I hope is genuinely fair and balanced, moderation in many things, kinds of thinking and engagement.

While this book has not (yet) saved the world and solved all the problems, all and all this is NOT TOO SHABBY!

All available here: www.AbortionArguments.com

"Human" (adjective) and "human" (noun)

 It is not uncommon for anti-abortion people to not understand that the word "human" has multiple meanings.

One meaning is just "biologically human," as in, for example, some biologically human skin cells. On this meaning, "human" is an adjective, and just because something is human--biologically human--doesn't mean it's wrong to kill that thing: for example, it's not wrong to kill some random skin cells.

Another meaning of "human" is a noun: "a human" or "humans." This use of human amounts to saying something like "person" or "human persons." Humans, on this meaning, are usually wrong to kill.

(There are complications though in that humans, on this meaning, don't usually seem to have a right to other humans' bodies, even if that means they will die; it is at least unclear what sacrifices anyone must make for other humans, meaning other people).

It's easy to see how these meanings differ. Consider a permanently comatose body, say of a beloved relative at the end of their life: we might say, "This body is human, but the human we knew is gone." The first use of "human" is an adjective; the second is a noun and we are referring to the person that used to be "in" in that body.

Perhaps this post and this graphic will help people better understand what "human" can mean and why the different definitions matter.

P.S. This was all reviewed in the classic 1973 article "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion," so this type of distinction has been known for at least 50 years. Almost any ethics class on abortion will review this article:

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Warren.pdf

Embryos and fetuses are biologically alive: duh?

It is said that some people--some pro-choice people--deny that embryos and fetuses are biologically alive. 

I don't believe it. I think that when these people are asked about this issue, whether embryos and (beginning) fetuses are "alive" they are not thinking of "alive" in biological terms. 

They are thinking of "alive" in a manner akin to "alive in a morally significant way" or "living a life, with experiences": for example, "This man's body was biologically alive for 73 years, but his life ended decades before that: he was alive only for 34 years."

That "life" has multiple meanings or senses is well known to philosophers and healthcare providers who focus on end of life issues. I wrote about that in "When does life begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean."

Anyway, I did a poll that suggested, contrary to what some pro-choice folks insist, few people deny that embryos and beginning fetuses are biologically alive. While 5% claimed they are not, nobody explained why they thought that, despite my asking. 

So, no, it does appear that most people agree that embryos and (beginning) fetuses are biologically alive. Does that make killing them wrong? No, of course not. 

Embryos are biologically alive: they aren't dead, they aren't rocks, they aren't somehow neither biologically alive nor not alive.

*But just because something is biologically alive doesn't mean it's wrong to kill it: mold, fungus, etc.*

But they are biologically alive. Right?

— Nathan Nobis . com (@NathanNobis) April 30, 2024

@nathan.nobis Embryos are biologically alive, right? They aren't rocks, they aren't corpses, they aren't zombies. But just because something is biologically alive doesn't at all mean it's wrong to kill it. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #life ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

@nathan.nobis Replying to @nathan.nobis Yes, embryos are biologically alive. Duh? #abortion #prochoice #prolife ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

Must we agree that embryos and early fetuses are "babies" or "children"? No.

@nathan.nobis Must anyone agree that embryos & fetuses are "babies" & "children"? No. #abortion #prochoice #prolife #babies #children #miscarriage #embryo #fetus ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis

Engage arguments: don't just respond, "Who cares???"

A tip: About abortion, engage the arguments instead of just appealing to bodily autonomy. Is what's said true or false? What does what's said mean? How do you get to what's said to an anti-abortion conclusion?

#abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy #ethics #logic #reproductiverights #criticalthinking

@nathan.nobis A tip: About abortion, engage the arguments instead of just appealing to bodily autonomy. Is what's said true or false? What does what's said mean? How do you get to what's said to an anti-abortion conclusion? #abortion #prochoice #prolife #ethics #philosophy #ethics #logic #reproductiverights #criticalthinking ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis