Miscarriage Can Kill … But it Usually Does Not: Evaluating Inconsistency Arguments.

Jessalyn A Bohn
{"title":"Miscarriage Can Kill … But it Usually Does Not: Evaluating Inconsistency Arguments.","authors":"Jessalyn A Bohn","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2021.1970374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent publications debate the value of inconsistency arguments. Here, I argue that 'Cause of Death Arguments' - inconsistency arguments that claim miscarriage causes death far more often than induced abortion - are unsound or invalid. 'Miscarriage' ambiguously refers both to intrauterine death, an outcome that does not itself cause death, and preterm delivery, which only sometimes causes death. The referential ambiguity also obscures actions people do take to prevent 'miscarriage.' When using the most plausible versions of each premise, these arguments equivocate. Thus, they cannot prove anything. However, missing the equivocation also causes those responding to Cause of Death Arguments to make unconvincing arguments; they inadvertently make or grant false claims themselves. To avoid such mistakes and expose the merely rhetorical power of Cause of Death Arguments, philosophers should replace 'miscarriage' with disambiguated terms. Doing so should lead people across the abortion debate to finally abandon the Cause of Death Argument.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"27 3","pages":"245-265"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2021.1970374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Recent publications debate the value of inconsistency arguments. Here, I argue that 'Cause of Death Arguments' - inconsistency arguments that claim miscarriage causes death far more often than induced abortion - are unsound or invalid. 'Miscarriage' ambiguously refers both to intrauterine death, an outcome that does not itself cause death, and preterm delivery, which only sometimes causes death. The referential ambiguity also obscures actions people do take to prevent 'miscarriage.' When using the most plausible versions of each premise, these arguments equivocate. Thus, they cannot prove anything. However, missing the equivocation also causes those responding to Cause of Death Arguments to make unconvincing arguments; they inadvertently make or grant false claims themselves. To avoid such mistakes and expose the merely rhetorical power of Cause of Death Arguments, philosophers should replace 'miscarriage' with disambiguated terms. Doing so should lead people across the abortion debate to finally abandon the Cause of Death Argument.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
流产可能导致死亡,但通常不会:评估不一致的论点。
最近的出版物对不一致论点的价值进行了辩论。在这里,我认为“死亡原因论证”——声称流产导致死亡的几率远高于人工流产的前后矛盾的论证——是不健全或无效的。“流产”含糊地指的是宫内死亡和早产,前者本身并不导致死亡,后者只是有时导致死亡。指代的模糊性也模糊了人们为防止“流产”所采取的行动。当使用每个前提的最合理的版本时,这些论点变得模棱两可。因此,他们不能证明任何事情。然而,缺少模棱两可也会导致那些回应死因论点的人做出不令人信服的论点;他们自己不经意地提出或给予虚假的要求。为了避免这样的错误,并暴露死因论证仅仅是修辞上的力量,哲学家们应该用消除歧义的术语来代替“流产”。这样做应该会引导人们在堕胎辩论中最终放弃死亡原因的争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
A quantitative analysis of stored frozen surplus embryos in the UK. Moral Distress and its Impact on Healthcare Workers in a European NICU. Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Decision-Making: Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Corporate Manslaughter. Machine learning, healthcare resource allocation, and patient consent. The Fertility Fix: the Boom in Facial-matching Algorithms for Donor Selection in Assisted Reproduction in Spain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1