My argument: Reliance on abortion as a means of birth control will cheapen the Canadian social commitment to protecting life. It should be banned except when the mother’s life is in danger.
Would the conclusion be ‘Abortion should be banned’, or ‘Abortion should be banned unless the life of the mother is in danger’? I feel like the ‘except’ wording is cluttering the conclusion a bit when it can be simplified to ‘Abortion should be banned’, but I’m not entirely confident in my answer.
I need to choose the best reconstruction from one of these three:
R: 1
P – If reliance on abortion as a means of birth control will cheapen the Canadian social commitment to protecting life, then it should be banned except when the mother’s life is in danger.
P – Reliance on abortion as a means of birth control will cheapen the Canadian social commitment to protecting life.
C – Abortion should be banned except when the mother’s life is in danger.
R: 2
P – Anything that cheapens the Canadian social commitment to protecting life should be banned.
P – Abortion as a means of birth control cheapens the Canadian social commitment to protecting life.
C – Abortion should be banned.
R: 3
P – Anything that cheapens the Canadian social commitment to protecting life should be banned.
P – Except when the mother’s life is in danger, abortion cheapens the Canadian social commitment to protecting life.
C – Abortion should be banned except when the mother’s life is in danger.
Immediately I’m discrediting the first one because the first premise isn’t as simplified as it needs to be. At the moment, I’m leaning towards the third reconstruction; however, it’s motivated more by guess rather than complete understanding. If the third reconstruction is correct, an explanation on the word ‘except’ would be much appreciated in the context of argument construction/deconstruction.
0 comments