Abortion: Introduction
Summary
TLDRThe 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.
Outlines
📜 Relevance of Dissertation on Abortion
The speaker begins by sharing their journey of writing a dissertation on abortion around 2007, expressing initial concerns about the topic's relevance given the longstanding legal status of Roe v. Wade. However, with new discussions on fetal pain emerging, they decided to proceed. The recent overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court has made their work relevant again, which they find unfortunate as it leaves the legality of abortion to state decisions, leading to its prohibition in many states. The speaker clarifies that their ethics class will focus on the ethical aspects of abortion rather than the legal ones. They emphasize the importance of academic debate, where both sides are treated with respect, and the goal is not to change beliefs but to engage in thoughtful discussion. The speaker identifies as pro-choice but stresses that the class is about exploring arguments from respected scholars, not about imposing personal views.
🤔 Understanding the Complexity of Abortion Debates
The speaker encourages open-mindedness in the abortion debate, suggesting that individuals, regardless of their stance, should be willing to understand the arguments on the other side. They hope that pro-choice individuals will recognize the validity of pro-life arguments and vice versa, even if they maintain their own views. The speaker warns against conflating agreement with a conclusion with the quality of the argument supporting it, highlighting the importance of critically evaluating arguments on their merits. They also note that disagreements often stem from empirical differences rather than moral ones, suggesting that people might align on moral grounds if they agreed on certain scientific facts about fetal development and consciousness.
📚 Narrowing Down Arguments in Abortion Debate
The speaker concludes by mentioning that they have distilled the discussion to focus on a few key arguments from both sides of the abortion debate. They plan to present these arguments in subsequent videos, aiming to treat each side fairly. The speaker reiterates their pro-choice stance upfront to establish transparency about their perspective but emphasizes that the goal is to explore the arguments without bias. They invite students to engage with the material critically and to enjoy the intellectual challenge of examining a complex and emotionally charged issue.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Abortion
💡Roe v. Wade
💡Ethics
💡Pro-choice
💡Pro-life
💡Academic Debate
💡Empirical Data
💡Fetal Pain
💡Moral Disagreements
💡Critical Thinking
💡Bias
Highlights
Began work on dissertation on abortion around 2006-2007.
Initially concerned about the relevance of the topic due to the long-standing Roe v. Wade decision.
Decided to write on abortion due to emerging discussions on fetal pain.
Roe v. Wade has been overturned, making the dissertation relevant again.
The class focuses on the ethics of abortion, not legal issues.
Academic debate differs from public debate; it's not about convincing others of one's stance.
People typically have strong stances on abortion, either pro-life or pro-choice.
The instructor is pro-choice but emphasizes the class is about critical thinking, not persuasion.
Academic debates should not portray one side as inferior or malicious.
Both sides of the abortion debate have intelligent and sincere proponents.
Disagreements often stem from different assumptions rather than fundamental moral differences.
The debate is complex, with neither side being obviously wrong.
Encourages students to understand opposing views, even if they disagree.
Agreement with a conclusion does not necessarily mean the argument supporting it is valid.
Students should evaluate arguments critically, regardless of their conclusion.
Disagreements may be based on empirical data rather than moral principles.
The instructor will present a few of the best arguments from both sides.
The goal is to treat both sides fairly and encourage critical thinking about the issue.
Transcripts
at the end of around 2006 beginning of
2007 I started working on what is now my
Dusty old dissertation on uh uh and for
my PhD on abortion and so I wrote this
starting like I said around 2007 is when
I started writing it and I was worried
at the time that it was kind of
irrelevant that you know Row versus
weight had been the law of the land for
so long and uh I didn't know if there
was anything left to be said in the
debate U but there were some things
being written about fetal pain and stuff
like that so I decided I would go ahead
and write my dissertation on um abortion
and lo and behold it is relevant again
uh I don't think it's a good thing
personally that my dissertation is
relevant again uh as you know uh Ro
versus Wade has been turned over by the
Supreme Court and so um it leaves it up
to states to decide whether or not
abortion should be legal in that state
and many states um have made it illegal
um so all of a sudden um abortion is a
relevant topic
again what I what we focus on in our
class of course is not the legal issues
this isn't a law class this is instead
an ethics class and so we're going to
talk about the ethics of abortion now I
have to say at the outset that debating
abortion discussing abortion in an
academic class in a philosophy class is
different than discussing discussing
abortion um outside of that we're not
protesting we're not uh trying to um
make sure that somebody believes uh what
we believe before we leave the room or
anything like that um you're going to
find that no matter what side you start
on and that's one of these things where
you know with abortion um people don't
really have a neutral stance uh people
are typically either strongly um
pro-life or pro-choice and um I'm
pro-choice uh doesn't matter what I am
because this that's not what this class
isn't about making you think what I
think I don't care what you think about
um this issue U but uh you'll notice
that um in the academic debates we're
not going to portray one side as dumb or
backwards or evil or something like that
uh this is if if you haven't experienced
it already no matter what side you take
on the issue you're going to find really
smart people on the other side and
you're going to find really sincere good
people on the other side so in the
protests and in the public debate you'll
often hear um maybe the pro uh Choice
people saying that uh the pro-life
people are dumb backwards not listening
to medicine or science and you might
hear the pro-life people saying that um
the pro-choice people are evil like to
kill babies something like that right U
that's not what the academic debate is
we're going to examine arguments on both
sides from very respected Scholars from
people who are intelligent bright and
sincere sorry I'm moving my camera
around a little bit
um and we're going to see that
well-intentioned people can disagree and
it's often the case that people on
either side don't really have that many
moral like foundational moral
disagreements they might agree on their
moral commitments but they might
disagree on some crucial assumptions
that in fact are you know not black and
white and so you can have people agre
agreeing on the basic principles of
morality um but still come to different
positions on abortion because they have
very nuanced and nuanced different um
takes on some empirical ideas some
factual ideas and just because of those
little differences they disagree and so
we're not going to enter this debate
looking for ways to call one side stupid
or one side evil or anything like that
and I'm going to present to you
reasonable arguments on both sides um
and you know you'll see that um there
are good people and smart people on both
sides of the debate uh throughout the
what we're U throughout the discussion
so it is a complex issue and I say that
neither side is obviously wrong on the
issue what I mean by that is not that
neither side is wrong they're saying
opposite things so one side is wrong
right but that neither side is obviously
wrong in that these are they're good
arguments that you could see so I'm
hoping that if you're um coming into
this as a pro-choice person like myself
that you'll read and listen to some
pro-life arguments and go you know what
that I can understand why somebody would
believe that right a smart person could
could agree with that if you're pro-life
and coming into this I hope that as you
see um listen to the debate you'll go I
can see why a sincere good person a
smart sincere good person might believe
that even though I still disagree with
it right you might what no matter what
side you're on you're going to disagree
with one side um even though I disagree
with it I can see why a smart person
would or a good person would agree with
that argument so that's why I say
neither side is obviously wrong because
these are there's good reasons to agree
with either
side um one thing I want to caution you
about because this is an emot topic is
that agreeing with a conclusion doesn't
mean you have to agree with a particular
argument so um a lot of times and I
talked about this in my critical
thinking classes a lot um a lot of times
if we agree with the conclusion then we
just automatically say the argument is
good but that doesn't follow there can
be a bad argument that has a conclusion
that we agree with and so as a good
philosophically thinking as a good
ethically thinking person we should say
something like oh wait that argument has
a conclusion I agree with but it's still
not a good argument or on the other hand
that argument has a conclusion that I
disagree with um but I can still admit
that it's a decent argument right and so
just because you agree with a conclusion
a lot of people will rush to to agree
with a conclusion that's just bad uh
because they agree with the conclusion
they'll agree with an argument that's
just bad so in uh some of my classes I
will give an example of an invalid
argument that concludes abortion is
immoral and students who come into the
discussion pro-life will typically look
at that argument and say it's a good
argument even though it's technically
bad I mean it it the premises the
conclusion doesn't follow from the
premises it's an invalid argument but
and people who are pro-choice will
automatically say it's wrong right
because of the conclusion but we want to
be able to evaluate the argument so
let's say that I present and I'm only
going to present a couple arguments on
each side but let's say I present a
pro-life argument and um then point out
that you know it concludes that abortion
is immoral and let's say that you're
pro-life and um it turns out that I
bring up criticisms of that argument
that show that that argument is wrong
and maybe we show criticisms of all the
arguments and on the pro-life side let's
say and show that those arguments are
bad that doesn't mean then that you that
there aren't any good pro-life arguments
it just means that the pro-life
arguments that We examined um which I
hope I picked the best ones um that
those particular arguments aren't good
and you can agree with that you can say
yes I still agree that abortion is
immoral if you're a pro-life person but
um these arguments have flaws in them
you can do that same if you're
pro-choice and we have a conclusion that
says you know therefore uh it's morally
permissible for a woman to get an
abortion these circumstances and you can
say uh yeah I agree with the conclusion
but the argument to get there is bad
right so you could disagree with it and
the other way around like I said you can
say oh that's a good argument I don't
agree with the conclusion I don't really
know why I'm rejecting the argument
because it sounds pretty good but I feel
like there's more weight uh of evidence
on the other side right so just as
you're going into this discussion keep
in mind that um you don't have to agree
with an argument just because you agree
agree with a
conclusion also something to think about
as we look at this is that oftentimes
the disagreements that people have and I
kind of mentioned this before over the
issue isn't a disagreement about
morality uh rather it might be a dis
agreement on the empirical side on
empirical data data that's objective and
scientific um it might be the the
disagreement over the empirical data um
leads the people to the different sides
but they might agree uh on morality so
for example a pro choice uh person who's
pro-choice might agree um with a person
who's pro-life if they had similar
beliefs about for instance fetal
development so if they both agreed that
um they there was conscious life from
the be from conception that a fetus
experienced pain that a fetus has
conscious life that a zygo has conscious
life then if they agreed with that then
they would agree with each other on the
morality of the issue but because they
disagree on the empirical data the
scientific data they come to different
moral sides and so sometimes it's not
even a moral disagreement that the sides
are having it's rather an empirical
disagreement so those are some things to
keep in mind as we introduce this topic
and so what I've done is it used to have
this really long section on abortion um
I've narrowed that down now um to just a
couple of what I consider the best
arguments on both sides and so we'll
look at a couple of arguments on either
side and then um I'll present them in
different videos and then we'll um make
some concluding remarks so that's where
we're headed so again uh when we talk
about controversial issues have to be
worried about them U because we're going
to try to treat both sides fairly if and
I I'd like to tell students where I'm at
at the beginning like I said I'm
pro-choice um because if you feel like
I'm being disingenuous or you feel like
I'm um um being biased then you know
where my bias is coming from and feel
free to say so in the comments or in
your uh posts or anything like that
anyway I hope you enjoy this material uh
enjoy I guess is a weird word for
abortion um but I hope you enjoy
thinking about the issue and um let's
dive into some pro-life arguments
関連動画をさらに表示
Medical School Interview - Medical Ethics - Abortion [DEBATE]
The Redirect: Why facts matter on both sides of abortion debate
Roe v. Wade Movie - Official Trailer
2016 Final Presidential Debate: Abortion
Highlights from the Trump-Harris presidential debate
‘This death was preventable’: Sen. Ossoff discusses chilling consequences of GA abortion ban
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)