Abortion: Introduction

Summary

The speaker discusses their dissertation on abortion, which became relevant again after the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They emphasize the importance of ethical debate over legal issues in an academic setting, highlighting the need for respectful discourse. The speaker, who identifies as pro-choice, stresses the class's focus on examining arguments from both sides, aiming to show that smart and sincere people can hold opposing views. They caution against conflating agreement with a conclusion with the quality of the argument and encourage critical thinking about the empirical data that underpins moral disagreements on abortion.

Takeaways

• 📜 The speaker began working on their dissertation on abortion around 2006-2007, initially concerned about its relevance given the long-standing Roe v. Wade decision.
• 🔄 The topic of abortion has regained relevance due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court, leaving the legality of abortion to state decisions and leading to its reclassification as illegal in many states.
• 🏫 The focus of the class is on the ethics of abortion, not the legal aspects, as it is an ethics class rather than a law class.
• 🙋‍♂️ The speaker clarifies their personal stance as pro-choice but emphasizes that the class is not about persuading students to adopt a particular viewpoint.
• 🤔 The class aims to explore the ethical arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, treating each with respect and acknowledging the presence of intelligent and sincere individuals on both sides.
• 🤝 The speaker encourages students to consider arguments from the opposing side, aiming for understanding and acknowledging the complexity of the issue.
• 🚫 The academic debate on abortion is distinguished from public protests and debates, where arguments may be dismissed based on emotions rather than intellectual merit.
• 🤓 The speaker warns against conflating agreement with a conclusion with the quality of the argument, urging students to critically evaluate the logic and evidence behind each argument.
• 🧐 Disagreements over abortion often stem from differing empirical beliefs rather than fundamental moral disagreements, suggesting that people can share moral values but diverge based on scientific or factual assumptions.
• 📊 The speaker has narrowed down the discussion to focus on a few key arguments from each side, presented in subsequent videos, to facilitate a more concise and focused examination of the topic.

Q & A

When did the speaker start working on their dissertation on abortion?

The speaker started working on their dissertation on abortion around the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007.

What was the speaker's initial concern about writing a dissertation on abortion?

The speaker was initially concerned that the topic might be irrelevant since Roe versus Wade had been the law of the land for a long time and they weren't sure if there was anything new to contribute to the debate.

What recent development made the speaker's dissertation on abortion relevant again?

The recent development that made the speaker's dissertation relevant again was the overturning of Roe versus Wade by the Supreme Court, which left the legality of abortion up to individual states.

What is the focus of the class the speaker is teaching?

The focus of the class the speaker is teaching is the ethics of abortion, not the legal issues.

What is the speaker's stance on the abortion debate?

The speaker is pro-choice, but emphasizes that their personal stance is not the focus of the class, which aims to examine arguments from both sides of the debate.

Why does the speaker believe that people tend to have strong opinions on abortion, rather than neutral ones?

The speaker believes that people tend to have strong opinions on abortion because it is a deeply personal and moral issue, and people typically align strongly with either a pro-life or pro-choice perspective.

How does the speaker describe the academic debate on abortion compared to public debates?

The speaker describes the academic debate on abortion as one where both sides are treated with respect, without portraying one side as dumb, backwards, or evil. It is a space for examining arguments from respected scholars and understanding that well-intentioned people can disagree.

What is the speaker's approach to presenting arguments in the class?

The speaker's approach is to present reasonable arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, encouraging students to understand why smart and sincere people might hold different views, even if they disagree with them.

Why does the speaker caution students about agreeing with an argument just because they agree with its conclusion?

The speaker cautions students about this because agreeing with a conclusion does not automatically mean the argument supporting it is valid. It's important to evaluate the quality of the argument itself, not just its outcome.

What does the speaker suggest is often the root of disagreements in the abortion debate?

The speaker suggests that often the root of disagreements in the abortion debate is not a fundamental moral disagreement, but rather differences in empirical beliefs or assumptions about facts and science.

How does the speaker plan to structure the discussion on abortion in the class?

The speaker plans to structure the discussion by presenting a few of what they consider the best arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, examining them in different videos, and then making some concluding remarks.