Exercise #11

Nice job in class today! I especially love the pushback and always regret having to move on. This blog is a good way for us to continue thinking and dialoguing about interesting or controversial issues in our course. A few of you were not convinced that 1.2.I #11 is an argument. This is my attempt to convince you. Please feel free to push back:

Here is #11:

Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. Consequently, any interest of the state in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. 

I am going to rewrite #11 a few different times to help us see what is going on:

This first rewrite simply eliminates non-essential clauses:

Rewrite 1:

Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions … appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. Consequently, any interest of the state in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure … has largely disappeared. 

This second rewrite simply strengthens the first statement and the second.

Rewrite 2:

Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions … [are] as low as … the rates for normal childbirth. Consequently, any interest of the state in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure … has … disappeared.

This third rewrite replaces some phrases with their intended meaning:

Rewrite 3: 

Death rates for women undergoing early abortions … [are] as low as … the rates for normal childbirth. Consequently, any interest of the state in protecting the woman from the dangers of having an abortion … has … disappeared.

This fourth rewrite transforms #11 into a dialogue that, I think, is both natural and makes the argument a bit easier to spot:

Rewrite 4:

Blackmun: Any interest of the state in protecting the woman from the dangers of having an abortion … has … disappeared

Sally: Why do believe that?

Blackmun: Well, the death rates for women undergoing early abortions … [are] as low as … the rates for normal childbirth

So, I think the right thing to say here is that Blackmun is giving Sally a reason for believing that the state should no longer be involved in protecting women from early abortions. If that is correct, then #11 is an argument. 

Thoughts? 

Comments

  1. Ashley SpirekSeptember 3, 2019 at 4:55 PM

    Kelsey and I have a suggestion for rewrite #5 and want to see what you think about it.

    Any interest of the state in protecting the woman from the dangers of having an abortion … has … disappeared... because... death rates for women undergoing early abortions... [are] as low as … the rates for normal childbirth.

    Would this be a valid way of rewriting #11? For some reason, this makes sense to us as an argument, but rewrite #3 does not. Rewrite #3 sounds like an if/then statement. It sounds like an explanation of why the state's interest in protection women from the hazard of abortion has gone down. In our rewrite, however, it makes sense as an argument...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relations and Multiple Quantifiers in Predicate Logic

Thus far we have been using only one-place predicates. These are predicates that only require one name (put differently, these are properties that only require one object) to complete them. For example, _____ is red = Rx _____ is heavy = Hx _____ is a wife = Wx ( ∃ x)Rx is true if and only if there is at least one thing in the universe that is red. ( ∃ x)Hx is true iff there is at least one thing in the universe that is heavy, and so on. (x)Rx is true iff everything in the universe is red, and so on.  But, as we all know, there are predicates that are more than one place. In other words, there are predicates that require more than one name to complete them (put differently, there are properties-- better-called relations--that require more than one object). For example ____ is heavier than ____ = Hxy ____ is taller than ____ =  Txy ____ loves ____ = Lxy ____ is between ____, _____ = Bxyz (∃ x) (∃y )Hxy is true iff there is something ...
Read more

Predicates in search of nouns

According to standard categorical logic, statements of the form All S are P must have some sort of noun-phrase in the predicate.  Thus ‘All dogs are mammals’ is fine, but ‘All dogs are four-legged’ is not.  Why is this a requirement? Standard categorical logic is based on Aristotelian logic and inherits some of Aristotle’s assumptions. So one reason for the noun-requirement is that given Aristotelian metaphysics predicates without nouns are incomplete. To understand why, we first need to keep in mind that  predicates (parts of language) correspond to  properties (parts of the extra-linguistic—that is, non-linguistic—world).  Predicates without nouns are incomplete because, according to Aristotle,  properties  must inhere in objects in order to exist.  There are no free-floating properties—properties without some subject that they attach to.  Thus, statements like ‘All dogs are four-legged’ while grammatic...
Read more

Meta-Logical Themes: Soundness of Propositional Logic

We have been studying propositional logic (PL) for some time now. PL is about whole or complete propositions and their relationships to each other in terms of truth-preservation. That is, PL investigates the relationships between sets of true propositions to other propositions. How can we be sure that if we are given a set of true propositions (called the premises) that we will through a series of steps wind up with another true proposition and not a false one (i.e. how can we be sure that the relationship between the premise set and the conclusion is, in fact, a valid one). Put differently, we want to make sure that the logic we are using will never take us from truths to falsity. We have been using our rules to show that if we start with a set of (assumed to be) true propositions we can derive another proposition that must be true if the premises are. But we have only studied a finite number of arguments. There is an infinite number of arguments. So, how can we be sure that there i...
Read more