Against pro-choice: redux

[BuffScarecrow]

I posted this elsewhere but the pro-choicers were seemingly too apathetic to respond.

It's often claimed that a fetus doesn't obtain personhood until it becomes sentient and that having an abortion before this point doesn't violate their right to life. I aim to show this view to be false as follows;

1. A sufficient condition for one's right to life to have been violated is that that person was caused to die without their consent.
2. Everyone eventually dies.
3. Procreation causes people to exist.
4. By 2 and 3, procreation causes people to die.
5. Procreation is performed without consent of those who are brought into existence.
6. By 4 and 5, procreation causes people to die without their consent.
7. By 1 and 6, procreation violates the right to life.
8. Pre-sentient fetuses lack the right to life (pro-choice axiom).
9. By 7 and 8, continuing a pregnancy beyond the pre-sentient phase would violate the right to life.
10. By 7 and 9, not having an abortion violates the right to life.

Thus, there is only one option in which the right to life isn't violated which refutes this version pro-choice. The pro-life stance doesn't suffer from the same flaw because their assumptions entail that an abortion at any point during a pregnancy violates the right to life.

The million dollar question remains: is this piece of reasoning valid?

 

[nolongerhome]

The million dollar question remains: is this piece of reasoning valid?

Only if all the premises are valid.

 

[Washington]

I posted this elsewhere but the pro-choicers were seemingly too apathetic to respond.
The million dollar question remains: is this piece of reasoning valid?

No. 4 doesn't follow from 2 & 3

 

[nolongerhome]

No. 4 doesn't follow from 2 & 3

It depends on semantics, though I think you are correct.

Procreation causes the existence of a new human beings. Human beings have finite life spans, they will die. To cause a human being to exist is therefore to cause a finite life to exist.

No.4 suggests that procreation causes people to die as a result of these two facts.

Is to cause a person with a finite life to come into existence the same thing as to cause a person to die?

 

[microwaveth]

I don't believe 9 and 10 are valid, but certainly the rest are valid from a logical perspective.

 

[Washington]

It depends on semantics, though I think you are correct.

but certainly the rest are valid from a logical perspective.

As a proposition of logic it fails.

Reduced to its basics (as best as possible, which is still not good)

People Die
Procreation Causes People
________________________________
Procreation Causes People to Die.

A B
C A
_____
C A B

​

Or alternatively,
​

People Die
Procreation Causes People
________________________________
Procreation Causes People to Die.


A B
C
_____
C B

​

Both are invalid arguments.

 

[nolongerhome]

When I say it depends on semantics, I am focusing on what it means to say "procreation causes people to die".

Consider the following two sentences:

1. Procreation causes people to exist who will die. (i.e People die and procreation causes those people to come into existence).

and

2. Procreation causes people to die (i.e. People die and procreation causes those people to come into existence and is therefore responsible for causing that existence to end).

In the brackets I have highlighted what I consider to be the differences between the two statements. The OP would appear to disagree that there is a difference.

If there is no difference, and the OP is correct, then I think the argument is logical. If there is a difference, then the logial conclusion would have to be "procreation causes people to exist who will die", which will go on to invalidate a number of the conclusions the OP made.

So, we return to my earlier question:

Is to cause a person with a finite life to come into existence the same thing as to cause a person to die?

 

[Washington]

When I say it depends on semantics, I am focusing on what it means to say "procreation causes people to die".

I agree the OP is semantically very troublesome, but is also logically invalid, which your comment "It depends on semantics" seems to have missed, and prompted me to show that it doesn't depend on semantics alone. It fails on its logical construction regardless of its semantics. Yet you still feel it is logically valid, "If there is no difference, and the OP is correct, then I think the argument is logical." It is not, as I demonstrated in post #6.

 

[nolongerhome]

I agree the OP is semantically very troublesome, but is also logically invalid, which your comment "It depends on semantics" seems to have missed, and prompted me to show that it doesn't depend on semantics alone. It fails on its logical construction regardless of its semantics. Yet you still feel it is logically valid, "If there is no difference, and the OP is correct, then I think the argument is logical." It is not, as I demonstrated in post #6.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

If "Procreation causes people to exist who will die" = "Procreation causes people to die", Point 4 follows Points 2 (People who exist will die) and Point 3 (Procreation causes people to exist), as the OP stated.

I don't beleive that the two statements are equal, but if they are, the OP's Point 4 is valid.

 

[Washington]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

If "Procreation causes people to exist who will die" = "Procreation causes people to die", Point 4 follows Points 2 (People who exist will die) and Point 3 (Procreation causes people to exist), as the OP stated.

I don't beleive that the two statements are equal, but if they are, the OP's Point 4 is valid.

Just to be clear here, there IS a difference in a conclusion being valid and in it being true. A conclusion may be either, both, or neither. In this case it is neither valid nor true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't agree with 4. Does procreation cause people to die? It's like saying life causes death. Even if true, it's not helpful.

 

[nolongerhome]

Just to be clear here, there IS a difference in a conclusion being valid and in it being true. A conclusion may be either, both, or neither. In this case it is neither valid nor true.

Above I suggested:

If "Procreation causes people to exist who will die" = "Procreation causes people to die", Point 4 follows Points 2 (People who exist will die) and Point 3 (Procreation causes people to exist), as the OP stated.

Do you disagree that Points 2 and 3 result in the conclusion that "procreation causes people to exist who will die"?

I think we both accept Points 2 and Points 3. I think that means we both accept the conclusion that "procreation causes people to exist who will die". If that conclusion is equal to "procreation causes people to die", the OPs progression is logical in these points. If they are not equal, it is not logical.

Where do you disagree with me here?

 

[lux et lex]

I posted this elsewhere but the pro-choicers were seemingly too apathetic to respond.
The million dollar question remains: is this piece of reasoning valid?

It's not apathy. It's just not acknowledging poor reasoning.

 

[BuffScarecrow]

To clarify, a sufficient condition for A to cause B is that A precedes B, and A <=> B. It's never the case that someone comes into existence and doesn't die (assumed in (2)). Therefore, coming into existence is a sufficient condition to die. If someone dies, they must have come into existence and this always precedes dying. Coming into existence therefore causes people to die. Procreation causes someone to come into existence and so procreation causes people to die. If there was any ambiguity in my opening argument, I apologize, but the underlying logic was valid in any case.

I don't agree with 4. Does procreation cause people to die? It's like saying life causes death. Even if true, it's not helpful.

It's useful to know when a violation of a right occurs. It should be obvious why.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To clarify, a sufficient condition for A to cause B is that A precedes B, and A <=> B. It's never the case that someone comes into existence and doesn't die (assumed in (2)). Therefore, coming into existence is a sufficient condition to die. If someone dies, they must have come into existence and this always precedes dying. Coming into existence therefore causes people to die. Procreation causes someone to come into existence and so procreation causes people to die. If there was any ambiguity in my opening argument, I apologize, but the underlying logic was valid in any case.


It's useful to know when a violation of a right occurs. It should be obvious why.

Yes, but this kind of logic isn't helpful at all. Even if procreation causes death, then what can we do about it?
But beside that, define 'cause'.

 

[BuffScarecrow]

Yes, but this kind of logic isn't helpful at all. Even if procreation causes death, then what can we do about it?
But beside that, define 'cause'.

Do you suggest we use something other than logic to make inferences? What people choose to do with this information is up to them. If they consider the right to life to exist axiomatically, then procreation would violate that and therefore to act consistently within their beliefs, they'd need to not procreate. I gave a sufficient condition for a cause in the post you quoted.

 

[nolongerhome]

Do you suggest we use something other than logic to make inferences? What people choose to do with this information is up to them. If they consider the right to life to exist axiomatically, then procreation would violate that and therefore to act consistently within their beliefs, they'd need to not procreate. I gave a sufficient condition for a cause in the post you quoted.

Does the right to life exist axiomatically, though?

I'd say it doesn't.

 

[BuffScarecrow]

Does the right to life exist axiomatically, though?

I'd say it doesn't.

Being a pure consequentialist, I'd suggest that rights in general don't exist at all. This argument was intended solely as an exploration into the logical implications of some assumptions commonly invoked by both major parties of the abortion debate. Nonetheless, I regard the components of the argument to be valid insofar as are their premises.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you suggest we use something other than logic to make inferences? What people choose to do with this information is up to them. If they consider the right to life to exist axiomatically, then procreation would violate that and therefore to act consistently within their beliefs, they'd need to not procreate. I gave a sufficient condition for a cause in the post you quoted.

But is it even logical to begin with? I don't like the way 'causality' is being used here. Say A causes B, and then B causes C and so on all the way to Z. Did A cause Z? If so, then we could expand the argument 'procreation causes death' outward to say 'life causes death' or even more broadly to 'the universe causes death', and even then to 'the big bang caused death'. Why stop at procreation when we can stop at any arbitrary point in the causal chain?

 

[SithDoughnut]

To clarify, a sufficient condition for A to cause B is that A precedes B, and A <=> B.

No it isn't. The Romans came before the invention of the car, so did the Romans cause it?