|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B08LTYDQ52
| 4.22
| 9
| unknown
| Oct 25, 2020
|
really liked it
|
Hendrik's book does a good job of exposing and revealing the flaws in many popular pro-choice arguments. It's important to understand that this book i
Hendrik's book does a good job of exposing and revealing the flaws in many popular pro-choice arguments. It's important to understand that this book is responding to popular pro-choice arguments. Hendrik is a philosopher but the purpose of the book is not to address academic arguments or to present the most sophisticated responses to these arguments. The book is meant as a popular-level critique of popular-level arguments that anyone can understand and use against these arguments. He addresses many arguments that most people have heard, as well as many that some may not be aware of. Hendrik's book is split into three parts. In the first part, he addresses arguments related to denying the personhood of the unborn. Part two deals with arguments related to the bodies of the mother and unborn child. Part three addresses miscellaneous arguments that don't fit into the first two categories, arguments such as "every child should be a wanted child", "pro-lifers don't help people after they're born", and "Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' justifies abortion". This book began as a response to Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob's short book Thinking Critically About Abortion, and van der Breggen says in the Introduction this book can be seen as a counterpoint to that book. Nobis has responded to several of Hendrik's arguments in a review here, and Hendrik has also responded to Nobis' review at his blog: https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbregge... If you are new to the pro-life movement or a novice in abortion discussions, this book will help you know what arguments you can expect from pro-choice people and help give you a springboard for discussion by giving a good response to these arguments. If you are more experienced in the movement, you may still benefit from some of the responses but you will definitely want to read some of the more academic treatments of the issue, such as Beckwith's Defending Life and Kaczor's The Ethics of Abortion. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Feb 09, 2021
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1138188085
| 9781138188082
| 1138188085
| 3.25
| 4
| Feb 01, 2016
| Jan 15, 2016
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 09, 2021
|
not set
|
Feb 09, 2021
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
| 0268108102
| 9780268108106
| 0268108102
| 4.33
| 6
| unknown
| Sep 30, 2020
|
it was amazing
|
Disputes in Bioethics is the most recent book by Christopher Kaczor, who has published one of the strongest cases for the pro-life position you can fi
Disputes in Bioethics is the most recent book by Christopher Kaczor, who has published one of the strongest cases for the pro-life position you can find in print (which has even been endorsed by pro-choice philosopher David Boonin). This book takes a more general approach to bioethics. It addresses some of the more well-worn topics with this field, such as abortion and euthanasia, but he also addresses questions that those who don't follow the academic discourse would even think are questions, such as: do children have a right to be loved by their parents?; is it permissible to make children with more than two genetic parents?; and what even is human dignity? Even among the well-worn subjects, Kaczor tackles questions which many people don't tend to think about, such as is abortion simply the right to remove the fetus or does the woman who aborts her pregnancy have a right to the death of the fetus itself? is Roe v. Wade unquestionably correct? and is "death with dignity" a dangerous euphemism? Kaczor's book is written in small, bite-sized chunks, which is due primarily to most of the chapters being reprints of articles he's published in academic journals. While the book does get a bit technical in a few parts, it is written accessibly so that just about anyone should be able to understand it on their first read-through. If you have an interest in bioethics, this book is worth picking up because Kaczor examines the academic literature on a number of questions that most people don't even realize are being asked in academia. Even if you don't have an interest in bioethics, there are chapters which will benefit you, especially since things like abortion and euthanasia may affect us all at some point in our lives. Additionally, his chapter Do Children Contribute to the Flourishing of Their Parents? is worth the price of the book, itself. Considering that in our current culture, fewer people are having children and more people are wondering why they should even have children in the first place. Kaczor provides an excellent apologetic for why we ought to continue having children. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Oct 30, 2020
|
Oct 30, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1735196223
| 9781735196220
| B08D25S38Y
| 4.43
| 23
| unknown
| Jul 14, 2020
|
it was amazing
|
(Special thanks to Marc Newman for the book.) Marlon Brando famously uttered the line "I coulda been a contender!" in the film On the Waterfront. Brand (Special thanks to Marc Newman for the book.) Marlon Brando famously uttered the line "I coulda been a contender!" in the film On the Waterfront. Brando played Terry Malloy, a boxer with a promising future who was asked to throw a fight so that a mob boss could win money by betting against him. Because of that thrown fight, Terry was left wondering what could have been -- he could have been somebody if not for that thrown fight. The abortion discussion can often feel like a losing battle. We have the media against us, we have the culture against us, and we have churches against us either in open support or tacit support by keeping quiet about children made in God's image being led to the slaughter. But Marc Newman has written a book which not only goes over how to respond to the various arguments you're likely to hear from pro-choice advocates, but also how pro-life people can equip themselves depending on their calling to make a greater impact for life. Marc is a nationally-recognized communicator and trainer of speakers. He draws on his numerous years of education and training in the process of this book. He outlines the problem that pro-life people face when we decide to speak out about abortion but he also provides solutions. He provides a way forward for people who are new to the movement as well as long-time veterans. I'll briefly cover the contents of the book but I don't want to give too much away. It's very readable, written in a conversational style and peppered with personal stories. And most importantly, very few typos. Compared to some of the books I've read and reviewed recently, the typos were almost non-existent. The book is laid out in a logical progression with each chapter flowing seamlessly into the next. Part One of the book is called What We're Up Against and consists of four chapters. The most helpful part of the first chapter is in drawing parallels between abortion and worship of the pagan god Molech. Ancient pagans would sacrifice their children to the god Molech for the promise of a better life and that's what abortion providers promise today. Modern abortion providers are the priests of Molech, who will kill your children for a fee so you can have the life you want to have. The next two chapters deal with reasons Christians don't speak up against abortion and then systematically dismantles each reason. Especially helpful is the discussion on why pastors don't preach on abortion from the pulpit. Avoiding the topic can feel like an act of love, but in reality it harms the very souls that the pastor or priest is called to minister to. Part One finishes with some warnings about what to expect when you do start to speak out against abortion. Part Two deals with the various arguments you are likely to encounter in your discussions and the tactics taken by pro-choice people to attempt to save their pro-abortion stance when you refute their arguments. Marc talks about bodily rights and personhood arguments, as well as the easier to answer arguments that pro-choice people throw at you in an attempt to get you to stop defending the unborn. The arguments Marc expounds are those most often defended by the average pro-choice advocate. It's especially important to understand the mindset and tactics of your interlocutor, so the discussion on how pro-choice people move from argument to argument and how to keep them from returning to refuted arguments will help your persuasiveness when addressing these arguments. Part Three is where Marc offers helpful suggestions to improve persuasiveness. The first two parts of the book would be good enough to help pro-life advocates who are shy about getting into arguments improve their confidence. But this last part goes even further. He provides helpful guidelines for how to put a pro-life presentation together, depending on how long you have to speak. He even provides helpful advice to pastors on how to address abortion from the pulpit and how to partner with Pregnancy Care Centers (PCCs) to ensure that women and men who have been hurt by abortion find the maximal amount of healing they can from their shepherd (the pastor). As far as who to recommend this book to, I'm sure non-religious pro-life people can get something out of this book, especially regarding the discussions on pro-choice arguments and how to respond to them. But this is a book primarily aimed at a Christian audience and no matter what your calling, whether it be to engage intellectually, to preach to a congregation, to speak to a crowd, or to run a PCC, this book has something for you. This is a book that every Christian pro-life advocate should have on his bookshelf. With this book in your arsenal, you no longer have to lament what could have been, like Terry Malloy. With this book, you can be a contender. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Sep 17, 2020
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 1632460858
| 9781632460851
| 1632460858
| 4.05
| 93
| Aug 27, 2019
| Sep 17, 2019
|
did not like it
|
Marty and Pieklo (hereafter MP) have written a book which attempts to show the erosion of Roe v. Wade by looking at the bills that states have been pa
Marty and Pieklo (hereafter MP) have written a book which attempts to show the erosion of Roe v. Wade by looking at the bills that states have been passing which chip away at it. However, MP are clearly pro-choice advocates and make no attempt to even sound unbiased in their research. As a result, while the book is moderately informative, it's a real slog to get through if you don't love abortion as much as they do. They don't seem to understand that pro-life people actually do care about the lives of unborn children and so consistently push the lie that it's all about controlling women. This book was obviously written for hard-line pro-choice people, not to help pro-life people gain understanding of their point of view, nor even for people on the fence about it. I'll start off by saying that I don't think this book was proofread at all. I ordinarily don't fixate on typographical errors because for me, it's all about the arguments. But in this case, there are so many errors (e.g. misspellings, wrong punctuation, words not capitalized when they should be, etc.) that it was altogether distracting. It really makes it seem like they didn't care enough about the content to ensure that it was presented well. It's really difficult a lot of times to analyze MP's claims because they don't really give any arguments for them. They just assume, for example, that human embryos and fetuses (at least early embryos) are not persons but they never argue for it. They seem content to just assume it and then believe that pro-life people are evil for trying to defend the unborn from abortionists. I doubt they have a very robust understanding of rights, either, as they have no discussion of it. They just point to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade and assume that they made the right call in denying rights to unborn human beings. They do provide numerous citations of the journeys these bills went through to get voted on, but they make many controversial claims that they provide absolutely no citations for. Some examples of the claims they make which they provide no citation for: Nearly the entire medical community has rejected a link between abortion and increased risks of suicide (p. 115); many Catholic hospitals refuse to allow the termination of pregnancies that endanger the mother's life (p. 164) -- although they did provide one piece of anecdotal evidence for this claim; fetuses surviving abortion attempts is pure fiction (p. 195); abortion is much safer than childbirth, especially early on (p. 202); and a fetus is incapable of feeling pain prior to the third trimester (p. 259), although they did allude to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for this last claim. Not only are all of these claims controversial, MP can actually be shown to be completely wrong, through actual evidence. For example, many abortion attempts do result in a live birth. Not only are there pro-life advocates who are abortion survivors, but we also hear stories in the news about babies who were born alive after an abortion and the doctor refusing to save the child's life. Also, the ACOG is just wrong about when the fetus can feel pain. There has always been good reason to suspect it could feel pain earlier, but a recent study published by a pro-choice and pro-life academic, SWG Derbyshire and JC Bockmann, shows that there is good reason to suspect fetuses may feel pain much earlier than suspected -- as early as 12 weeks. I could go on. There is even good evidence for the more controversial claims I listed above. But this isn't intended to be a full-on refutation of their arguments, merely a review of the book. While there is limited benefit to reading the book if you want to know some of the history of these bills, the authors' extreme bias, lack of proofreading, and shoddy arguments makes this book one that you can safely skip. Unless you're specifically interested in these bills as a pro-choice person, I don't see much benefit that you would receive from reading it. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Apr 19, 2020
|
Apr 20, 2020
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0813230233
| 9780813230238
| 0813230233
| 4.29
| 7
| unknown
| Jun 29, 2018
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Feb 18, 2020
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0891093451
| 9780891093459
| 0891093451
| 4.23
| 717
| May 01, 1990
| May 26, 1990
|
liked it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Feb 08, 2019
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0807069981
| 9780807069981
| 0807069981
| 4.10
| 230
| Apr 10, 2018
| Apr 10, 2018
|
did not like it
|
Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice by Rebecca Todd Peters is, unfortunately, another one of those dime-a-dozen pro
Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice by Rebecca Todd Peters is, unfortunately, another one of those dime-a-dozen pro-choice books that adds nothing of value to the conversation. Peters is a self-proclaimed feminist social ethicist, but her understanding of the abortion issue is shallow, at best, and she doesn't understand the arguments that pro-life people actually make. On top of that, she outright lies about the agenda of pro-life people. She talks a lot about the role of women in the abortion issue and doesn't give any good reasons to believe the unborn should not be considered in the abortion issue. She uses the word "moral" a lot, but every time she does, the immortal words of Inigo Montoya just echo through my head: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I also doubt she's ever actually read any books written by pro-life people. I have at least two points of evidence for this claim: 1) She actually claims that "[t]here is an unexamined pronatalist bias in this country." She can only make this statement if she's never read any books or articles by pro-life thinkers. She may disagree, but to claim that our bias is unexamined, or that it really even is a bias, is ignorance of the highest degree. 2) Not only does she consistently misrepresent pro-life arguments and lie about pro-life activists, whenever she quotes a pro-life activist it's either from a news source, such as New York Times, or a staunchly pro-abortion website like Mother Jones. She also consistently shows a lack of knowledge of the abortion debate, in general. This is not acceptable behavior for someone who wants to be known as an ethicist. I hate having to be so harsh. I was pretty blunt when I reviewed Willie Parker's book because it was so awful (and dishonest), and unfortunately Peters' book is just more of the same feminist complaints about misogyny and how pro-life people just want to control the bodies of women. It really does just get old because so many pro-choice advocates are willing to fight dirty in their advocacy for abortion. I am willing to recommend pro-choice books that make meaningful contributions to the abortion debate, as I did with Kate Greasley's recent book. This is a book that will go unrecommended from me as a good contribution to the abortion debate. Unfortunately, the book reads as if it was written by someone who is uneducated in logic, has never read Scripture, and has not read many books by people who aren't feminists. I'll just give three examples from chapter eight of the book, then I'll stop harping on her lack of qualifications as an ethicist and just respond to a couple of her arguments which are germane to her overall thesis. 1. On page 170 of her book, she claims that in today's society, sex is not just for procreative purposes. People just tend to want to have sex for pleasure rather than to create a child. This doesn't mean that many people aren't willing to accept pregnancy resulting from sex, but "it challenges the long-held Christian narrative that the purpose of sex is procreation." But this is completely false. She acts as if no one in Christian history has ever had sex simply because they enjoy it. But one read through Song of Solomon will show that to those who take Scripture seriously, sex is also something that is immensely enjoyable. In fact, the Apostle Paul told fellow believers it is better to marry than to burn with lust and have sex in a sinful way (1 Corinthians 7:9). Christians have long held that sex is enjoyable and there is nothing wrong with having sex because you enjoy it. But none of this lends any sort of evidence for Peters' claim that sex is not for reproduction. The final end of the sexual organs is reproduction -- that's why we call them reproductive organs and not recreational organs. Sex is enjoyable, but it is not the purpose of sex. Just as eating is enjoyable but the purpose of eating is to nourish the body, not simply for enjoyment. A couple can have sex because they enjoy it, but all sex they have must be open to creation of new life to be ethical. 2. On pages 170-171, she talks about cryogenically frozen embryos. Considering how many pro-life people in minority groups believe in adopting these embryos, she makes the following argument: "[C]oncern over the fate of these embryos pales in comparison to the outsized public interest in preventing pregnant woman from securing safe, legal abortions. This is further evidence that abortion politics are not about abortion, the status of prenatal life, or women's health, as much as they are about the social control of women." Her argument here doesn't even make any sense. Pro-life people, by definition, do not believe in "safe, legal abortions" because they kill innocent human beings. It's not very clear what she's arguing. Is she arguing that pro-life people care more about saving frozen embryos than in helping the women that can't abort because of pro-life laws? That, of course, would take some defense (which is not forthcoming), especially since there are numerous pro-life pregnancy care centers and churches who are able and willing to help. This is just a nonsensical argument. 3. Finally, on pages 174ff., she quotes a theologian named Kendra Hotz who describes parenthood as "a calling that not everyone is called to fulfill." She continues, "the choice for parenthood is bigger than what pleases me; it is also about God's reconciliation of all things." She argues that parenthood is a sacred trust, a covenant relationship entered into in which parents care for and nurture their children. Of course, this is a mistaken view about parenthood; or at least, very simplistic. No one can be forced into a covenant -- covenants are agreements made between two or more parties. While parents could certainly enter into a covenant (and they do when they get married), having children cannot be considered a covenant because no one has a choice to be conceived. No child has a choice to be part of this covenant relationship. In fact, it's this natural neediness and the fact that they didn't choose to be conceived which is part of what grounds the parents' obligation to care for their children. The idea that not everyone is called to be a parent is simply absurd. If God didn't call all people, in general, to be parents, he wouldn't have made sex the way to conceive children and then give all people a sex drive. We have a sex drive, and reproduction happens through sex, because God wants us to populate the world and wants us to have families. Families are good things. People are made for community, which is why Paul exhorts us not to forsake assembling together with other believers. Friends come and go, but families give us a community of people who will always be there for each other when we need it most. In fact, I don't find anywhere in Scripture that only certain people are called to be parents. What I do find in Scripture is that certain people are called to be single. In fact, because our sex drive is so strong, it takes a special gift and a special calling to remain single and celibate. It is not for everyone. Again, this idea that one must be specially called into parenthood is absurd. The main argument of Peters' book is to shift the discussion away from what she calls "the justification framework" (i.e. the idea that women have to give reasons to justify their abortions) toward a framework of reproductive justice. She writes, "[Reproductive Justice] has three primary principles: the right not to have a child, the right to have a child, and the right to parent in safe and healthy environments" (p. 7, emphases hers). Trying to shift the conversation away from the nature of the unborn isn't exactly a new tactic -- many pro-choice people do that in their conversations, and occasionally a pro-choice author will try to do that in one of her books (e.g. Eileen McDonagh trying to shift the conversation from one of choice to one of consent). In fact, Judith Thomson's famous essay with the violinist tried to shift the conversation away from the nature of the unborn. Peters' new tactic is to frame the conversation away from what the unborn are and more toward the lives of women. She believes that the complex lives of women is the foundation that we must start from in the conversation on abortion. Peters is very much pro-abortion, believing that any restrictions on abortion are immoral and oppressive. How does she justify her pro-choice stance? She believes that the "prenate" (her term for the human embryo/fetus) only crosses the threshold of life by the physical experience of birth, becoming part of the human community (p. 5). She then claims that beginning with the premise that women should continue their pregnancies misidentifies the act of "terminating a pregnancy" as the starting point for our ethical conversation. She writes, "It reduces the conversation to an abstract question of whether abortion is right or wrong, creating a binary framework woefully inadequate for the complexity of the moral questions surrounding abortion. Abortion, however, is never an abstract ethical question. It is, rather, a particular answer to a prior ethical question: 'What should I do when faced with an unplanned, unwanted, or medically compromised pregnancy?' This question can only be addressed within the life of a particular woman at a given moment in time" (p. 6). Thus, by attempting to reframe the discussion of abortion, she can completely dismiss the question of whether or not the unborn are human beings with a wave of the hand and resort to telling stories about the difficult situations women find themselves in and justifying their decision to abort based on their considerations regarding that difficult decision (of course, she ignores the fact that abortion is only a difficult decision because there is a human child at stake in the decision). Plus, she doesn't really give us any reason for believing that we should reframe the discussion in such a way. One could just as easily support infanticide or toddlercide by arguing that we should reframe the discussion away from one of are infants and toddlers human persons and toward one of the complex lives of parents. However, if the unborn are persons, as pro-life advocates argue, then we can't just take them out of the equation. No matter how complex a woman's life is, it doesn't justify murder of an innocent human being. So unless she can make a compelling case that the unborn are not persons, then we are free to reject her suggestion that we move the conversation in a different direction. What are her arguments that the unborn aren't persons? She has a small section in chapter five dedicated to that question. Needless to say, she does not engage with the argument of pro-life thinkers but primarily repeats talking points you hear from lay level pro-choice advocates: 1. Several times she declares that the belief that personhood is established at fertilization is a "theological belief". Of course this is plainly false (again lending credibility to my claim that she likely has never read any books or articles from pro-life thinkers). 2. While "prenates" are human, they are not fully developed. They don't have a heart in the same sense that we do, even though it beats, because the prenate body is still in development. This argument always strikes me as bizarre. Do pro-choice people not understand how development works? Do they not realize that even infants and toddlers are not fully developed? She claims that birth is when we become persons, but if she is going to deny personhood rights to the unborn on the grounds that they are not fully developed, she is being inconsistent by not denying infants or toddlers personhood rights. 3. Prenates cannot survive outside the womb before viability and are dependent on the woman's body. But of course, these things do not justify denying personhood rights to the unborn. After all, people in reversible comas cannot survive outside the hospital environment without their respirator. Diabetics cannot survive without insulin. Being dependent on someone or something else for your survival does not mean you have less rights. In fact, we often tend to think it grounds more of an obligation to help someone, if we can. Not less of an obligation. Those are the main arguments she gives, and needless to say they are not persuasive in the least. There are many problems with Peters' book, and I'd have to write a book myself to address all of them. One major issue is that she cites studies in support of many of her statements. The problem, though, is that almost always she quotes just one study that supports her position. However, one study is not evidence of your claim. The thing about studies is that they are easy to fudge the results of (and, in fact, it has been shown that many studies are unreliable because the sociologists were more interested in appeasing their donors than in getting to the truth -- and she even talks about one such study on p. 88, in which the sociologist was unaware of biases that tainted his studies). Results must be replicatable to be reliable, so pointing to one study does not support her position. And despite the fact she dismisses pro-life organizations as unreliable, she constantly relies on pro-abortion organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who are also unreliable as organizations for the same reason (just reversed). In fact, I've written an article taking ACOG to task for being dishonest when asked a question about when human life begins. She also makes several dishonest claims about pro-life people. One of the most egregious is on p. 42, in which she references the Center for Medical Progress' videos showing Planned Parenthood selling fetal body parts for profit. She repeats the common claim that these videos were "heavily edited". Of course they were heavily edited. That's what you do when you want to shorten them for public consumption. What she probably means is that they were "deceptively edited", despite the fact that the full videos are available on-line for viewing It would take a book or several lengthy articles to pick out every error in reasoning or false claim made by Peters. But this should suffice to show that Peters' book, unfortunately, is not one that adds meaningfully to the discussion on abortion. Your time will be better spent reading something else. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Dec 07, 2018
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0198766785
| 9780198766780
| B077WSG28T
| 3.95
| 21
| unknown
| Mar 17, 1970
|
really liked it
|
Arguments About Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law is a book published in 2017 by Kate Greasley, a British lawyer. This book took me by surprise
Arguments About Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law is a book published in 2017 by Kate Greasley, a British lawyer. This book took me by surprise as I didn't hear about it until earlier this year. It also seems to have slipped under the radar, having only one review at the time of this review's writing on Amazon and none on Goodreads. However, I would say, without exaggeration, that Greasley's book is an important contribution to the discussion on abortion and for anyone who wants to understand this issue, this book is required reading. I read a lot of books by pro-life and pro-choice advocates. It's not often that a good pro-choice book comes along, one that not only makes a compelling intellectual and articulate case for the pro-choice position, but also interacts with the best of the pro-life academic literature on the topic. The best book defending abortion before this one was David Boonin's 2002 book A Defense of Abortion. Now I can place this book alongside Boonin's as one that anyone who wants to educate themselves on the issue must read. Greasley's book is in three parts. In the first part, she examines arguments that try to show that the question of personhood is irrelevant to the abortion debate, including 1) Thomson's bodily autonomy argument justifies abortion whether or not the unborn are persons, 2) that abortion can be justified as an act of self-defense, and 3) Dworkin's "red herring" argument, that at the heart of the issue is not really personhood but that pro-life people believe that life is sacred and inviolable. Greasley interacts with these, and others, dispatching them, showing that these arguments do not justify abortion if the unborn are persons. So the personhood of the unborn is the central issue regarding whether or not abortion is moral. The second part of her book is where she makes her case that the unborn are not persons. The third part of her book talks about issues regarding abortion law and regulation. I will not look at her arguments in part one since I agree with her position. I also won't look at her arguments in part three because they really depend upon her arguments in part two succeeding. So I will leave that up to the reader to follow up there. I do want to look at her arguments regarding personhood. I don't believe her arguments succeed in justifying abortion for the reasons that I give below. While Greasley's case is intelligent and articulate, I believe that her case fails for one important reason: She interacts with some of the best pro-life thinkers, but she only interacts with two main views of personhood among pro-life advocates: substance dualism and animalism. She doesn't interact with hylemorphism, such as that held by Edward Feser. The reason that this is important is not just because she neglects to interact with a feasible account of personhood, so considering that she hasn't refuted it, her own argument that the unborn are not persons fails. But it's also important because the criticisms she raises against substance dualism and animalism are easily answered by hylemorphism. So it can give the impression that there are no good responses from pro-life advocates when in fact there are responses to these concerns already in the literature. That being said, I'll address two of her main contentions in the book: that the unborn do not count as persons, and that pro-life personhood accounts also suffer from various amounts of arbitrariness. Personhood Greasley takes the position that personhood is a gradual property, not an all-or-nothing one. Similar to Mary Anne Warren, she takes personhood attributes to be the fully realized, presently exercisable capacities that typical human adults exhibit. Human adults are our paradigm case for persons, and when you ask what capacities they possess that other creatures, which we don't consider persons, lack, these are things like rational thought, the ability to communicate, etc. These, of course, are gradually developing properties. But since early embryos lack these capacities, just like creatures who are non-persons lack them, they are not persons, either. However, while personhood develops gradually, there is a definite point at which we should establish legal personhood, even if the unborn are not yet persons in the moral sense. She thinks that the unborn don't become persons in the moral sense until sometime after birth, but that we should establish birth as the point at which we establish personhood legally. So she would take personhood not to arrive at a certain threshold, which someone like David Boonin would take to be a set point, Greasley takes personhood to be a ranged property. A ranged property, she explains, is some arbitrarily determined point at which we will establish that all who meet these qualifications will be considered persons (paraphrased, p. 183). Regarding the fact that not all human beings who are born lack these personal properties that adults exhibit, she further explains, "[a]lthough human beings in general meet the condition, there are of course some individuals who fail entirely to realize that capacity or who realize it only to a minimal degree, perhaps as a consequence of some unfortunate defect or deprivation" (p. 183). In other words, some human beings may fail to exhibit the properties that adult humans exhibit which make them persons. But as long as they fall under the legally recognized range of personhood, they are persons, no matter how closely they resemble adults, the paradigm case. To even further explain the concept of a range, you might think of the state of California. Fresno and Blythe are both cities in California. Fresno is further into California than Blythe is, Fresno being in the center and Blythe being near the border to Arizona. But even though one city is clearly further inside California than the other, both are considered California cities because they are inside the state boundary. Of course, Greasley recognizes that a possible retort is that this argument attempts to have it both ways, that personhood is binary (i.e. you're either a person or you're not) and that it supervenes upon properties which come in degrees. So the question is, why draw this line at birth instead of some other place? She offers the following as reasons that birth, rather than some other range, should be considered as the range property that establishes legal personhood. She considers an argument for legal or pragmatic interests, but considering that it has some unpalatable consequences (such as mentally handicapped people being legal persons only by "polite extension"), she presents arguments that this range is acceptable as morally necessary, as well. 1) Opacity respect -- Greasley considers that her argument might appear circular because it claims that there is a moral interest driving the specification of "person" as a ranged property, yet this moral interest exists only if all individuals within the range actually are persons. But this is what personhood accounts grounded in gradual properties seem to deny. So she introduces the concept of "opacity respect" as a way to try and ground an independent moral reason for focusing on the ranged property, one that is independent from a prior commitment to equality. Opacity respect, borrowing from Ian Carter, is simply that a respect for human equality requires maintaining a sort of blindness toward their individual capacities. We treat them as equals regardless of how developed their capacities are. However, rather than avoiding the charge of circularity, this only pushes the problem back an extra step. As Calum Miller responds, either humans are morally equal or not. If they are not, then it is implausible that we are in any way required to treat them with respect. The only way we would need opacity respect is if they are already equal. (Calum Miller, "Arguments About Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law Book Review", The New Bioethics, Vol. 24 No. 2, 2018, 190-195). So the charge of circularity stands. 2) Some arbitrariness in the law is unavoidable. Consider the seven month cut-off for prosecution of a serious criminal offense. This is an arbitrary limit set which permits some prosecutions which shouldn't be permitted and precludes some which ought to be permitted. Stipulating personhood at conception is unsatisfactory due to how far away those organisms are from the sorts of creature which exemplify personal properties, and putting the threshold at birth is not unacceptably arbitrary, as shown by the case of criminal prosecution. But the event of birth is favorable for several reasons: It is a highly visible event, it is not speculative, and it is an easy guideline with which to comply. By contrast, other milestones (those before and after birth) are less visible and easier to mistake or conflate with other events. Now while it's true that birth is a highly visible event, this is hardly grounds for favoring birth over conception. After all, even though it's not visible like birth is, every embryo that implants itself in her mother's womb was conceived. The fact that we couldn't see it doesn't mean the event isn't significant. Also, while birth is not speculative, it is not always safe for the unborn child. Unborn children should gestate for 40 weeks. A child born too prematurely faces developmental problems, if he even survives at all. Yet this argument seems to suggest that we can intentionally induce birth at any stage of development, and you haven't actually harmed the entity in question, despite now being born with developmental issues that you purposely caused. Additionally, while the date of conception may be speculative, the fact of conception is not. The fact that we can't accurately pinpoint the exact date of conception is not an argument against conception being the event that establishes personhood in an individual. Finally, the fact that it is an easy guideline with which to comply is not grounds for establishing birth as the event which establishes personhood either. How is the threshold of birth easier to comply with than the threshold of conception? And what if the law is wrong? You might be killing entities which are actually persons for a weak justification, that birth is easier to comply with than conception. And while it may be easier to determine the date of birth than the date of conception, it is not out of the question to approximate the date of conception. Just because one is easier does not make the other illegitimate. 3) There are good reasons for favoring birth as the legal threshold for personhood over other thresholds. These reasons are: 1) Birth is a watershed event in the life of a human because "emergence into the world marks the beginning of a human's exposure to the objects of mental experience and enables the discriminations necessary for conscious self-awareness and the basic understanding of where we end and everything else begins" (Greasley, Arguments About Abortion, p. 194). 2) At the point of birth, the neonate attains separate embodiment in the world. Regarding her first point, it's really meant more as a response to pro-choice philosophers who argue that there's no significant difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn. Greasley's point is that there are significant differences that aren't usually mentioned by these philosophers that show that we can support late-term abortion but oppose infanticide because of these changes. Now, Greasley's discussion here is interesting but ultimately I think she misses the point of the arguments by these philosophers (and gets some facts about the late-term fetus wrong). These philosophers don't necessarily claim that there are no differences at all, but in the way that is morally relevant (such as needing to be self-aware to have a right to life), there is no significant difference between the two. However, there is no real need to belabor the point or offer much of a response, since this is a point toward these other philosophers and not a general defense of her position. All I need to say is that even though her argument here makes sense in the context of arguing for abortion rights at birth rather than later, she is still placing one's personhood in a developmental milestone, so her argument is no more successful than Sumner's argument that sentience is what matters morally, or Tooley's argument that self-awareness is what matters morally. Regarding Greasley's second point, it is still largely a response to the other pro-choice philosophers who might place personhood threshold in some other property (this is largely because she has dismissed the conception threshold out of hand with arguments that I will address below). In order to support her contention, she points to the existence of conjoined twins, using Abigail and Brittany Hensel, who are conjoined below the neck, as her example of such twins. She claims that despite there being two "separate and distinct little girls," each one having an independent mental life and personality, their connectedness diminishes their personhood because of things such as their inability to live the kind of life distinctive of persons. She goes on to say that the fetus' attachment to the woman is more extreme than that of the Hensel girls, but she asks us to consider another pair of conjoined twins. This time one twin is completely enclosed within the other but still is bodily sustained and possesses a mental life. She claims that many of us would doubt that it is still correct to call this individual a person. She claims this shows that there is a level of enmeshment beyond which much of the meaning of personhood is lost. The problem with Greasley's claim here is that she doesn't support it at all, merely pointing to what she thinks many of us would accept as a person. But why shouldn't we consider Greasley's second pair of twins both persons? I see no reason not to consider the enclosed twin a person, especially since my conception of person has to do with one's nature, not with the functions one can perform. Greasley offers no supporting arguments for her assertion besides the one I just addressed, so her argument is not a very strong one, especially considering how strong the arguments for personhood established at conception are. There is a second part to my review, responding to her arguments against the conception criterion of personhood. Unfortunately I don't have enough characters to post the full review. You can read the full review here: http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2018/09/... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Sep 06, 2018
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0679733191
| 9780679733195
| 0679733191
| 3.90
| 218
| May 11, 1993
| Jun 28, 1994
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Mar 14, 2018
|
Mar 14, 2018
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0691615241
| 9780691615240
| 0691615241
| 3.25
| 4
| Jan 01, 1981
| Jul 14, 2014
|
it was ok
|
A review will be forthcoming.
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
May 12, 2017
|
May 12, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1501151126
| 9781501151125
| 1501151126
| 4.48
| 3,136
| Apr 04, 2017
| Apr 04, 2017
|
did not like it
|
It's not often I give a book a one star rating, but this book deserves it. I only have so many characters, so this is going to be an abridged review.
It's not often I give a book a one star rating, but this book deserves it. I only have so many characters, so this is going to be an abridged review. You can find my full review on Amazon or on the Life Training Institute blog. Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice by Dr. Willie Parker is a new book defending abortion rights by an African-American doctor who is a self-proclaimed "Christian" (the reason for the quotes around Christian will become evident below). For all the lip service Parker says about rationality and wanting to approach the issue rationally, I've rarely read a more irrational defense of abortion rights. Doctor Parker is, having grown up a poor black kid with all the struggles that brings with it, adamant about protecting the rights of women by ensuring that they have the "right to abortion." Unfortunately, what Parker doesn't understand is that by dehumanizing the unborn, he is doing exactly what white people used to do to black slaves, dehumanizing them so that they can justify killing them because they're in the way of what bigger and stronger people want. He actually says, unironically, that "A fetus is not 'a person.' It is not, therefore, entitled to the rights of 'a person'" (p. 154). I bet Parker is glad white people aren't saying that about black people any longer. This is going to be a fairly lengthy review. Parker has said a number of things that I should respond to. I'm going to split it up into four sections and show the various reasons his book is so irrationally argued: First, I'll show how he has contradicted himself in several places, even sometimes in the same paragraph. Then I'll respond to some of his pseudo-scientific arguments against the humanity of the fetus. After that, I'll respond to some of his pseudo-biblical arguments for abortion. Then finally I'll show why Parker is not a Christian in any meaningful sense, based on some of the statements he makes in his book. A few preliminary notes. Parker's book commits a couple of critical errors. He has no table of contents in his book, and he doesn't source any of the information he uses. Absolutely none. He does occasionally allude to another source that might support something he is saying, but he doesn't actually source anything. As such, I can't look up his information to know whether or not he's telling the truth on any of it. Additionally, Parker has failed the ideological turing test. Badly. He tries to tell his abortion-choice readers what pro-lifers believe and think. He tries to put on an air of charitability, but in reality he doesn't know what he's talking about. Parker never responds to any of the scientific arguments pro-life people make. Instead, he continually insists the only reason pro-life people are opposing abortion is because they want to control womens' bodies (which is an all-too-common claim) and because they want white women to have as many babies as they can to continue being the dominant race in the United States (this is seriously an assertion he makes in his ninth chapter, titled "Black Genocide and the White Majority"). I guess black people and other minorities are invisible to Parker unless they worship at the altar of abortion rights. Despite the subtitle to Parker's book, it's mainly an autobiography. He really presents no "moral argument" throughout the book other than "I grew up in a difficult situation, so I need to give women abortions to help them through their difficult situations." Other than that, he does present a few arguments from science and Scripture that I'll be getting into in their respective sections. The only other thing worth mentioning is that he claims certain people, like Martin Luther King, Jr., as his heroes and thinks of them in his fight for "abortion rights." Of course, he completely ignores the fact that King, a Baptist minister, opposed same-sex marriage and opposed abortion. But let's not let facts get in the way of polemics. I'm not going to talk about literally everything in the book, but I'll hit most of the highlights. Contradictions One contradiction appears early on (p. 10). He says that [one of] the underlying assumptions behind these pro-life laws is that their doctors can't be trusted to tell them the truth, when in the paragraph immediately preceding that he fully admitted that he refuses to tell them simple things such as "abstinence is the surest way of birth control." In chapter two, he describes a doctor he gives the pseudonym Dr. Sweet as a lovely person, having a "gentle, nonconfrontational demeanor." A couple of paragraphs later, he describes this sweet, nonconfrontational, lovely person as waging a war on abortion rights. There are, of course, others. But one of the most glaring contradictions occurs on p. 195. Parker writes that he will not perform abortions after the point of viability, but since he doesn't believe morality is absolute, he will refer out for them. He tells of a mother who is seeking an abortion for her daughter, so Parker referred them to clinics in Colorado and New Mexico. Then he writes, "I did not tell them that the doctors in those places would probably not perform the procedure because, at twenty-eight weeks, patient preference -- or 'I messed up' -- is not a medical indication. It is not my role to block anyone from pursuing their interest or to withhold information." At this point I was asking myself if he even pays attention to himself. In the span of two sentences he says he doesn't withhold information from anyone right after informing us that he withheld information from a mother and daughter seeking an abortion. Arguments from Science Let's now talk about Parker's pseudo-scientific claims. Parker doesn't believe the fetus is equal to a baby or a child because it can't survive outside the uterus since it can't breathe, nor can it form anything like thoughts. Of course, he never justifies why these things are necessary to be equal to us older people; he just assumes it. The only reason the fetus can't breathe or form thoughts is because it is too young to do so. And of course, the fetus does breathe, it just breathes via the umbilical cord, not through its nose. It is still taking in oxygen. Then he says that despite what "the antis" say (his not-so-nice term for pro-life people), a fetus can't feel pain up until 29 completed gestational weeks. He says this is the scientific consensus, though he doesn't give any source to support his claim. Chapter eight is where Parker really tries to offer a more extensive scientific case. He first starts off by stating that no one (not doctors, legislators, etc.) judges or shames cancer patients for their decisions, even if those decisions lead to death. This really shows Parker's inability to understand the other side, because of course there's a difference in performing an act that one foresees may be detrimental to him- or herself (such as refusing cancer treatment to remain lucid as long as possible, even though getting treatment may extend her life) and performing an act that results in the death of another human being (i.e. having an abortion). Parker goes on to state that the political conversation around abortion has "obliterated truth and crushed any nuanced understanding of what it means to live a human life" (p. 143). By this he means that pro-life people are too black and white by arguing that human life begins at fertilization. Parker doesn't believe we can pinpoint when human life begins because "life is a process" (and of course, he completely ignores the fact that his own argument means that he can't even prove a human infant or the woman he gives the abortion to is alive, since he makes no attempt to tell us when human life begins). Parker tries to put himself forth as an authority on when life begins, but as an astronomer is not an authority on evolution, nor is a biologist an authority on what the atmosphere of Mars is composed of, Parker is not an authority on whether or not embryos are human beings just because he has scientific training -- embryologists are, and they consistently agree, without significant controversy, that human life begins at fertilization. Parker's a pretty lousy doctor if he doesn't even know this basic biological fact. Of course, he dismisses the idea that "life begins at conception" as a "deeply held religious belief" and doesn't even attempt to interact with the scientific arguments pro-life people give for that view. He then appeals to Justice Blackmun's ruling in Roe v. Wade, though, of course, Blackmun's ruling was not scientific in nature -- it was philosophical (and bad philosophy, at that). I bet Parker would not accept as an argument for young-earth creationism that "scientists, philosophers, and theologians all disagree on the age of the earth, so neither should we take any particular stance on what the age of the earth is." But this is exactly the kind of reasoning Blackmun used in Roe, and Parker apparently finds it quite convincing. Parker also repeats the myth that abortion was illegal in common law to protect the life and safety of women. This is a false narrative (though Parker doesn't seem very interested in refuting false narratives if they agree with his). As Joseph Dellapenna showed in his book Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History, abortion was illegal in common law to protect the life of the fetus, not to protect the health of the mother. A stark difference is that Dellapenna has provided many, many sources to support his claims, and Parker doesn't offer a single one to support his. Parker then tries to argue that life is a continuous process -- the man and woman are alive, the sperm and ovum cells are alive, and the resulting zygote is alive. This is, of course, not new information, nor is it particularly interesting. Of course life is a continuous process. But there is a zero point at which the sperm and ovum cells cease to exist and a new, genetically distinct human organism arises in its place. This is the consensus among embryologists, even abortion-choice embryologists. Parker mistakenly thinks this shows that there's no point at which the "switch for life is flipped on," so to speak. But Parker is wrong. He even tells his readers on p. 181 of his book, "Life is a process. Your life is a process." Considering this is the main reason he denies human embryos and fetuses are alive, to be consistent he must not believe anyone reading his book is alive. He next speaks of embryos that implant but fail to thrive, resulting in miscarriages. Aside from the fact that, again, he doesn't source his claim that as many as one in five embryos fail to thrive, he seems to indicate that an embryo's failing to thrive means that it isn't a "life." Of course, many infants fail to thrive, as well. Perhaps Parker would be okay with infanticide, since his scientific argument would also show that infants are not "lives" based on his ridiculous criteria. Arguments from Scripture Parker fancies himself as a modern day Apostle Paul (though he doesn't seem to accept Paul's admonition not to forsake the assembling together, as had become the habit of some). On page 15 of his book, Parker talks about the woman caught in adultery and how Jesus told the people who wanted to stone her "if any of you are without sin, go and cast the first stone." Of course, what he fails to mention is that Jesus also told her "go and sin no more." In other words, "leave your life of adultery." Parker's Jesus is a Jesus who does not judge the sins of man (boy is he in for a shock). Additionally, on page 69, Parker tells us he offers a counternarrative to the disapproval of Christianity: "...that God gave every woman gifts and the agency to realize those gifts, and that nothing about choosing to terminate a pregnancy or to delay childbearing puts a woman outside of God's love." Of course, this "modern day Apostle Paul" also seems to have forgotten that Paul wrote, in Romans, "Shall we sin so that grace can abound? Certainly not!" Parker is no philosopher. He doesn't seem to understand that having the volition (the agency) to do something does not mean that we are justified in making any choice we make just because we have it. Parker, himself, repeats the oft-asserted claim that Christianity is sexist. He claims that Christianity "threw Eve under the bus" (a slogan he repeats several times throughout the book), and while it's true Adam tried to blame Eve for his sin, what Parker conveniently leaves out is that Adam was punished for sinning, just like Eve was, and Jesus proclaimed that it would be through a woman that Christ would eventually conquer Satan. However, as David Marshall points out, Christianity does not oppress women; just the opposite. It has always been the great liberator of women (see his article here and the subsequent parts in this series for evidence for that claim). Just a couple of examples: it was Christians who discouraged female infanticide in the early Roman world. And let's not forget that it was Jesus, in the Scriptures, who opposed Jewish societal etiquette and talked to women (such as the Samaritan woman at the well). Parker reinterprets Martin Luther King, Jr.'s sermon I've Been to the Mountaintop and his discussion of the Good Samaritan. This is not unique to Parker; abortion-choice philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson also abused the Good Samaritan tale to justify her stance on abortion rights. Parker sees himself as the "good Samaritan" in performing abortions on women he thinks are in need of them. In chapter seven, Parker attempts to make a more detailed Biblical case for supporting abortion rights. He argues that the Bible does not contain the word "abortion" in it. Of course, this is just the old argument from silence fallacy. The Bible not expressly condemning it does not mean the Bible condones it. What we do have is one of the earliest Christian documents, The Didache, expressly forbidding both abortion and infanticide, so to claim that Christianity is consistent with support for abortion is historically and theologically confused. The Bible also says "you shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13, Deut. 5:17), that child sacrifice had never even entered God's mind to command (Jer. 19:5), and that Jesus had high regard for children (Matt. 18:6, Matt. 19:14). That God would support abortion to make our lives easier is a concept that is foreign to Scripture. He refers to the passage in Exodus in which if two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman, if her child dies the offender is to pay the husband a fine. He uses this to illustrate that the loss of the fetus was not a capital crime. I have responded to this passage elsewhere, but briefly, what is in mind here is not miscarriage, but premature birth. If the two men are fighting, the baby is born prematurely, and there is no further harm, the man must pay the husband a fine. But if there is loss of life (either the mother's or child's), then the offender was to be put to death. Parker also alleges that throughout Jewish Scripture, a fetus becomes human only when its head emerges from the birth canal. Aside from not supporting his claim with any sources, this is absurd on the face of it. It may be different in other Jewish texts, but at least in the Torah, the same word for "child" is used to refer to either unborn or born children. The text makes no differentiation between children. Parker is Not a Christian in any Meaningful Sense Parker simply worships a god of his own creation. Throughout the book, he uses phrases such as "the god I worship", or "the god I believe in". This is likely because he doesn't believe there is any right interpretation of Scripture (p. 127) and that there is no such thing as absolute morality (p. 195). However, Parker's beliefs land him square outside of orthodoxy, meaning that he is not a Christian in any meaningful sense. Of course, this won't prevent people like Gloria Steinem and Cecile Richards from holding him up and saying, "see, you can be a Christian and pro-life." As Parker proves in his book based on his rejection of it, you can't be an orthodox Christian and pro-life. On page 55 of his book, Parker writes the following: "God is love, and God does not judge; but God's people can become overly pious and haughty, and they can become inflexible." It is astounding that anyone who thinks himself a Christian can believe that God doesn't judge. Would you try to tell that to Ananias and Sapphira? To Tyre and Sidon? To Sodom and Gomorrah? To the Canaanites? To the Amalekites? The list goes on and on. Hebrews 9:27 states, "It is appointed for man to die once, and after this comes judgment." All over Scripture we're told that God will judge the quick and the dead. What Bible has Parker been reading? It's also worth noting that despite the fact Parker thinks God doesn't judge, and he condemns pro-life people as being "overly pious and haughty," Parker has no qualms with judging pro-life people ten ways to Sunday, going so far as to bear false witness against pro-life people (but maybe he doesn't think the Ten Commandments are very important, either). He goes on to state that "I began to understand that I had to find a thinking person's religion or abandon God entirely," and by that he obviously means "I had to find a religion that wouldn't judge me for my immoral acts, even killing unborn children." Some of the most brilliant people who have ever lived have been Christians. There were a long line of physicians before Willie Parker who were followers of Jesus and treated all human life, even unborn human life, as if it is sacred. I could go on and on, but this is enough to show how irrational Dr. Parker actually is in his defense of abortion rights and his performing abortions. This is really only the tip of the iceberg of what's wrong with Parker's book. On p. 29, he writes the following: "The living, breathing women who carried those fetuses in utero were cast as less than fully human -- either as criminals, on the one hand, or mentally incompetent on the other -- and thus not in possession of any rights at all." In this sentence, he seems to be stating that criminals and the mentally incompetent are less than human and not deserving of rights. This is barbaric. I hope he didn't mean what he actually wrote, which would just make him a sloppy communicator, not a barbaric person. Unfortunately Doctor Parker is completely oblivious to the plight of the unborn throughout this book. The First-Wave Feminists understood that as women were treated as property, it was shameful for any woman to then treat her own child as property to be disposed of as she saw fit. Unfortunately Doctor Parker didn't get this memo, as despite how black people have been treated in our country, he is perfectly willing to dehumanize the unborn because they are in the way of something they want, be it not being pregnant, financial freedom, etc. He has the audacity to frame his fight for "abortion rights" in the language of civil rights, despite the fact that he kills innocent human children. His own lack of self-awareness is astonishing. Doctor Parker's book is garbage. It is not worth reading, so save your money. The best defense of abortion in print is still David Boonin's A Defense of Abortion. Considering the poor level of critical thinking abortion-choice activists tend to be at, I don't see this changing any time soon. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
May 05, 2017
|
May 08, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0919225489
| 9780919225480
| 0919225489
| 4.65
| 106
| unknown
| 2015
|
(Full disclosure: Stephanie is a friend and I have had the pleasure of engaging in pro-life activism with her. As such, I'll be referring to her by he
(Full disclosure: Stephanie is a friend and I have had the pleasure of engaging in pro-life activism with her. As such, I'll be referring to her by her first name because it feels weird to me to call her Gray. Additionally, even though she's a friend, these are still my honest thoughts on her book.) Love Unleashes Life is the newest book from pro-life advocate Stephanie Gray. It's a book that covers some of the intellectual and emotional arguments for abortion and how to respond to them, but the main focus of the book is in teaching people not just how to respond to these arguments, but also in how to engage in a more human way, by recognizing when emotional hang-ups and past trauma are undergirding someone's arguments. This book should be on every pro-life advocate's bookshelf. There are a lot of books you can pick up to help respond to pro-abortion-choice arguments, but precious few books that help engaging pro-abortion-choice people in a way that cuts to the heart and responds not just to concerns people have but in responding to the trauma they have experienced in the past. Few books, if any, do that as well as Steph's book here. This book seems to be largely intended for Christian readers. It's neither a pro nor a con, but I think worth pointing out, since I have nonreligious readers, as well. I do think nonreligious people can find a lot of value in this book, if they can overlook the Scripture references. And of course, the arguments she gives against these pro-abortion-choice arguments are nonreligious so as to appeal to the largest number of people possible and change more hearts and minds on the issue. Aside from the aforementioned, one of the things that stood out in particular is the fact that it's an excellent primer on communicating a controversial message. If you want to be a good communicator you will do well to pick up this book. On top of that, it has good focus on how to use language well (for a couple of examples, she talks about avoiding the word "but" because it can sound dismissive, and about using personal pronouns, such as "he" and "she" when referring to the unborn). I really enjoyed her discussion of double effect reasoning (pp. 64-65). Usually in discussions about abortions in the case of the woman's life being in jeopardy, the intentionality criterion is emphasized (e.g. that the unborn child's death is foreseen but unintended), but the other criteria for when double effect permits saving the woman's life in a life-threatening pregnancy aren't really discussed. Stephanie discusses all four criteria in some detail, to show what kinds of procedures double effect reasoning justifies. Her discussion even helped clarify my thinking a bit on this issue. As great as this book is, there are still some areas I feel could use improvement (perhaps for consideration in a second edition sometime in the future), and they're mainly along the philosophical side of things. Her book was mainly geared toward helping people like me talk more humanly about abortion, so it's not meant as a primer on the intellectual arguments for abortion choice. However, there were some arguments that were conspicuously missing. In her discussion of rape, she trots out the toddler to show that since we would not kill a toddler who was conceived in rape, if the unborn are fully human we should not kill the unborn for this reason. That's true as far as it goes, but most pro-abortion-choice people argue the reason abortion is permissible in rape is because she has been made pregnant against her will, so we should not force her to use her body for this child because she did not consent to having sex. Steph did address bodily rights arguments, but didn't address them in the context of the rape discussion. Another thing was her constant use of the term pre-born. I understand why she is using it, and I know many pro-life people who insist on using it (over the term "unborn"). The problem is that many pro-abortion-choice people consider the term "pre-born" to be a propagandistic term. It can lead to irrelevant debates over terminology if you use that term rather than unborn. It's possible that Steph's experience has shown her otherwise, but in my experience using "pre-born" instead of "unborn" can derail the conversation. At the very least, I thought the book could have used a brief section talking about why she opted to use "pre-born" instead of "unborn". Her section about personhood is good, but I feel it didn't go far enough. Most of the way Steph responds to the question of personhood is by driving home the point that it's ageism -- the reason the unborn aren't conscious or self-aware is because they're too young to be conscious or self-aware, but will be in time. However, in our current age we are defending what has come to be considered a controversial proposition -- that there are such things as natures, and that numerical identity is retained even in the absence of psychological connectedness. Again, I realize the point of the book was not to go too deep into these arguments (and there are other books one can read to learn how to respond to these arguments), but I feel that we'd encounter a number of people who might actually answer "yes" to the question of whether or not age is a relevant factor in one's value, especially considering that euthanasia is becoming more accepted. So I would have liked to see addressed why consciousness or self-awareness are not relevant factors in determining one's value, since there are a number of people we'll have to respond to who hold to these types of arguments. My final con was regarding her section of the teleological view of the uterus. This is a view I wholeheartedly endorse, and she's really the only person in the abortion literature I've seen defend this specific view (other thinkers defend teleological views, but it usually has to do with the personhood discussion and whether or not we're persons from fertilization). I like her argument, but there were a few counterarguments I came up with in my head that I wish she would have addressed. So basically this comes down to I really wish she would have responded to potential criticisms of her views because I'm very much interested in how she would respond to them. The missing arguments aren't a huge deal, since it's not really the point of the book to give a full primer on these arguments. This book is an invaluable resource to a pro-life advocate's arsenal. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 25, 2016
|
Sep 27, 2016
|
Sep 28, 2016
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0199391645
| 9780199391646
| 0199391645
| 4.26
| 121
| Jan 01, 2016
| Jan 07, 2016
|
really liked it
|
Special thanks to Oxford University Press for the free copy to review. Daniel Williams has done a great service to the pro-life field by researching an Special thanks to Oxford University Press for the free copy to review. Daniel Williams has done a great service to the pro-life field by researching and compiling this volume regarding the history of the pro-life movement. There are now two books on abortion history that I would suggest grace every pro-life advocate's bookshelves: Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by Joseph Dellapenna, and now Defenders of the Unborn by Daniel K. Williams. This book is meticulously researched and sourced. It tells the historical tale of how a movement of pro-life advocates, who were largely Catholic and Democrat, tried to work against the liberalization of abortion laws, which eventually culminated in Roe v. Wade, ending the ultimate safety of unborn children in the womb. It recounts not just how they fought against these bills, but also the progression of their arguments, from making Natural Law arguments, to Constitutional rights-based arguments, to showing abortion victim photography, to arguing that women are victims of the abortion culture. It shows how, even though the movement started as mainly Catholic Democrats, eventually it became a much more diverse movement. I've been doing work in the abortion field for a long time now, and there's a lot of false information regarding abortion history and the history of the pro-life movement out there. I've heard much of it over and over again. One glaring historical error I hear is that there was no pro-life movement until after Roe v. Wade was passed. Williams shows that it simply isn't the case. There was much pro-life work being done before Roe v. Wade, in order to ensure that unborn human lives were protected. It's also worth noting that Williams is very even-handed in his approach. He doesn't insult either side; in fact, he uses language that both sides use in the course of writing his book. So even though this book is written by a pro-life person, a pro-abortion-choice person can read this as a history book without getting offended by inflammatory language. If there is one negative point to this book, it would just be that it's very matter-of-factly written, with a lot of information given to you, so it's pretty dry reading. It's not the kind of book you'd just sit down and finish in one or two sittings. But if you read it through, study it, and take notes, it will greatly benefit you, especially with all the false information regarding abortion history and the history of the pro-life movement is out there. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Sep 25, 2016
|
Sep 26, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 1619707624
| 9781619707627
| 1619707624
| 3.94
| 17
| Jan 01, 2016
| Jan 01, 2016
|
it was ok
|
Special thanks to Dave Sterrett and Hendrickson Publishers for the free copy of the book to review. In a person's lifetime, there are only so many book Special thanks to Dave Sterrett and Hendrickson Publishers for the free copy of the book to review. In a person's lifetime, there are only so many books that he/she can read. That's why it's important to be as honest as possible in a book review, so someone can honestly gauge which book is a good use of their time. Unfortunately, while there were several really good essays in this compilation, I can't really give it my full endorsement, as there were too many bad essays to weigh against the good ones. You would probably be better served by picking up David Reardon's book Aborted Women: Silent No More for compelling stories and Scott Klusendorf's book The Case for Life for the defense of the pro-life position. I'll start with the pros of the collection before moving on to the cons. Pros: As I mentioned, there are several good essays in this collection. Scott Klusendorf's essay on making the pro-life case is excellent, of course. And I was surprised to see an essay written by Mike Adams in this collection. I am a regular reader of Mike's Townhall column, and it was great to read about how he became a pro-life Christian. I also thought Jewels Green's essay "How I Finally Chose Life" was one that stood out from the others. I enjoyed the philosophical reflections in Bernard and Amber Mauser's essay regarding usage of contraception and fertility treatments. It filled my little Thomist heart with joy. And the late Kortney Blythe Gordon's father, Larry Blythe, shared an essay chronicling the life and ministry of this young pro-life advocate who was taken from us too soon. Another pro for the collection is that there is a wide range of perspectives from many different people in the movement, some well-known and some not so well-known. You'll get to learn what runs through the head of a staunch pro-choice advocate who eventually becomes pro-life, what it's like to have a child with spina bifida, etc. Another pro is that the book is easy to read. You can probably finish it in just a couple of days, depending on how much time you have. Now on to the cons: I really felt that the editing could have been tightened up. There were spelling and grammatical errors, as well as sentence fragments. There were also too many instances of sentences going on and on, and several things being repeated over and over again unnecessarily. Several of the essays were just not well-written at all, and some only needed to be half as long as they were. Plus, many of the claims made in some of the essays were not sourced. Additionally, the term "preborn" was overbearing throughout the collection, which seems more like a rhetorical move. It was even in Scott's essay on how to make the case for life, when Scott used the term "unborn" in the original (which you can find on the LTI website, www.prolifetraining.com) without indicating that the editor made those changes (usually indicated by brackets: [preborn]). I'm guessing what happened is that they used the "search and replace" feature to replace all instances of "unborn" with "preborn". What tipped me off to this is the fact that in endnote 2 on page 170, they changed the title of Greg Koukl's book, Precious Unborn Human Persons, to Precious Preborn Human Persons (emphasis mine). Another minor complaint is that I had no idea who several of these people were. The collection would have been helped by including a short paragraph or two about who each of the contributors were. One major issue with many of these essays is that they were less about abortion and more about trying to evangelize. Now, I'm a Christian. There's nothing wrong with evangelization, but in the proper contexts. For example, if I want to evangelize a friend, I'd give them a copy of Cold-Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, or The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I wouldn't give them Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time by William Lane Craig or An Essay on Free Will by Peter van Inwagen. That's not the purpose of those books. The purpose of this book should focus on abortion, not on evangelization. Now, some of the essays used Biblical quotations and ideas without it seeming out of place. That's fine, because in the life of Christians I should expect Biblical influence. But in several of the essays, it felt like they weren't trying to tell their story so much as trying to make converts out of whoever would read the book. There were many Biblical quotations out of place, and "Christianese" scattered throughout these essays. Frank Gray's essay is representative of the essays that I'm talking about. His essay is fully of Bible verses thrown in and Christianese used. I really didn't get the sense that he struggled because he didn't really expound on what he said he was going through in the essay because he felt evangelizing was more important in the moment. It really detracted from his story and didn't give me the sense he was really struggling or suffering during these times. Again, I don't want to give off the wrong idea. I'm a Christian, and I believe evangelizing is the Church's mission. But there's a time and place for everything, and a book on abortion experiences isn't the place for writing a Gospel tract. As I said, there were several essays that used Scripture references to good effect. But there were several, like the aforementioned, that were overbearing with it and it detracted from their story. Some of the essays in this compilation are definitely worth reading. Unfortunately, there were more that I felt were poorly written than good, so that unbalances this collection. So I can't wholeheartedly endorse this book, although it's only $7 on Amazon, so that might be a price you can justify for the number of good essays. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 08, 2016
|
Jan 10, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0882143522
| 9780882143521
| 0882143522
| 3.88
| 17
| Apr 01, 1992
| Aug 13, 1998
|
did not like it
|
Ginette Paris has offered one of the worst defenses of the abortion issue you can find in print. It's worse than Katha Pollitt's recent book, Pro: Rec
Ginette Paris has offered one of the worst defenses of the abortion issue you can find in print. It's worse than Katha Pollitt's recent book, Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights. If you want a good defense of the pro-choice position, the very best you can find is David Boonin's A Defense of Abortion. Save yourself the money and don't buy this book. Now, I'm pro-life, so I do disagree with the pro-choice position. But the reason why Boonin's book stands far above and beyond this book (and Pollitt's book) is because it not only presents a rational argument for the pro-choice position (contra this book), but he also engages with pro-life arguments and responds to them. That's rare in the pro-choice literature, as authors tend to ignore the pro-life argument altogether, simply assuming the case for the pro-life position fails, then giving their own defense of the abortion issue, usually with irrelevant arguments. This book is standard pro-choice fare, ignoring the pro-life argument and giving a religious argument for why abortion is necessary: it should be viewed as a form of human sacrifice to the goddess Artemis (a goddess she doesn't seem to believe in, so one might reasonably ask: why should we offer human sacrifices to a god who doesn't exist?). On top of the sophistry you'll find in this book are blatant falsehoods about Christianity, and unsurprisingly, very few of her claims are supported by any sources (since most of her claims are flat-out false). Paris is hostile to Christianity. That's understandable if she's not a Christian, but she merely assumes Christianity is false, she doesn't argue for it. Why should we accept human sacrifices to Artemis if you're not willing to argue for the falsehood of Christianity? For that matter, if you're not willing to give an argument for the reality of Artemis, why should we allow human sacrifice in the form of abortions to this false goddess? Now, granted non-Christians believe the existence of Yahweh to be false. But Christianity has one major advantage over pagan religions: There has been 2,000 years of Christian intellectual history defending the existence of the Christian god. If you want to claim God doesn't exist, you have to contend with at least 30 compelling arguments for God's existence (just a few examples: Aquinas' Five Ways, the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Axiological (Moral) Argument, the Modal Ontological Argument, the Transcendental Argument, the Argument from Desire, etc.). Let's look at just some of the claims she gets blatantly wrong (and as would be expected, she doesn't bother to source): On page four of Paris' book, she claims that since Christianity strips nature of its sacredness and places it in God (whose realm is not of this world), this is dangerous for trees, animals, oceans, forests, etc. But this is a mistake: while there are Christians who may take the view that she expounds, the proper understanding of nature given Christianity is that God has created the world and us in it. He has also given us the responsibility to be stewards of his creation (after all, he put Adam and Eve in charge of tending the Garden of Eden). A proper understanding of nature is that God created it and has made us stewards over it. Therefore we should be good stewards and take care of that which God has created. While it is true that humans have always sought methods of contraception and abortion, Paris claims that Christians, alone, during the Middle Ages brought hostility toward midwives by the Church on page 10 of her book. Now, I don't know if this is true as she didn't care to source her claim. However, what I *do* know is true is that Christians have never shied away from scientific advancement. In fact, during the Middle Ages science was flourishing thanks to Christians (for more on this, see: The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution by James Hannam). In fact, even though they believed in a God who can heal miraculously, Christians have always understood that God largely works through his people. So Christians built the first hospitals (as well as the first universities). Christianity has always been on the forefront of intellectual pursuits, so while there may have been the occasional Christian who thought this way, it seems quite unthinkable to assert that this was the view of Christianity, as a whole. On page 21, Paris repeats the oft-made claim that the Christian Churches don't care about mothers, the tensions in local communities, etc. This, of course, is a bogus claim considering that while they are pro-life, they are also the largest charitable organization in the world Christians are responsible for liberating women and minorities. Christian missionaries ended the practice of foot binding in China, Christians were responsible for ending the slave trade in England and the United States, etc. There will always be people who misuse religion (specifically Christianity). But you can't judge a religion by its abuses. These are just a few of the claims that she gets blatantly wrong. To respond to all of them would take another book, in itself. She does make the claim that there would be a certain point in pregnancy at which it would be wrong to make a human sacrifice for the woman, but she doesn't really make any statement as to when this would be. To say nothing of the fact that she can't make this argument. If it is okay to make a human sacrifice for the mother's benefit, then it seems that it shouldn't have an age limit to it. If you place an age limit on when the woman can make this human sacrifice, then you have to contend with the question of what makes fetus X permissible to kill by not fetus Y (at whatever arbitrary age limit you set). On page 25, she seems to set out her main contention (though she doesn't spend much, if any, time justifying it): A fetus suffers less by having its life cut short than adults do (e.g. by wars and disease). After all, she states, a fetus is no bigger than a raisin and is less conscious than a chicken. Plus, by making it legal to wage war but illegal to have an abortion, society has placed the "right to kill" in the hands of men, not women. Now obviously these are poor arguments for abortion. For one thing, it denotes the fact that Paris probably hasn't spent any time in philosophical reflection over the act of killing -- not all acts of killing are equal. Even in times of war, there is a difference between a just war and an unjust war. If a war is unjust, then no one -- man or woman -- has the moral right to wage it. If she wants to argue for the moral rightness of abortion, she has to give an argument that abortion is a moral act of killing. No such argument is forthcoming. Additionally, saying a fetus is "no bigger than a raisin" is misleading, since by the time of the fetus stage (after two months' gestation), the fetus is still tiny, but it grows substantially. Women have abortions during all months of pregnancy, though the numbers decrease as it gets later in pregnancy. Most abortions are done when the fetus is larger than a raisin. But as Stephen Schwartz asks in his book The Moral Question of Abortion, why does size matter? Why is size relevant in the question of whether or not it's permissible to kill you? The fact is, it isn't. Even more, while I was asleep last night, I was less conscious than a chicken. So if Paris' argument succeeds, that means it was permissible to kill me last night while I was asleep. But this is clearly absurd. Your personhood is not grounded in your presently exercisable capacities -- it is grounded in your inherent capacities which flows from your nature as a rational agent. It's clear that Paris has not done the work of properly arguing for her position. There is massive evidence that the Christian god exists, and no evidence that Artemis exists. Nor does Paris present any or even seem to believe in Artemis. Yet she would have us accept abortion as an act of human sacrifice to a goddess who doesn't exist as a symbol of female fertility. This is clearly a barbaric idea, one that even pro-choice people of good faith should reject. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Jan 10, 2016
|
Jan 09, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1587310031
| 9781587310034
| 1587310031
| 3.70
| 10
| Apr 20, 2015
| Aug 30, 2015
|
really liked it
|
Special thanks to Dave Sterrett for the free copy of the book to review. There are a lot of great books out there defending the pro-life position. Ther Special thanks to Dave Sterrett for the free copy of the book to review. There are a lot of great books out there defending the pro-life position. There are also some great books to help you get started in pro-life apologetics. Dave Sterrett's book really functions as a pre-starter book, whereas in introductory books the information you learn about are the basics that you need, Aborting Aristotle gives a grounding, the sort of metaphysical basement, for our pro-life views. You won't learn how to defend the pro-life view, that's not its purpose. You'll learn about why the pro-life position works and why pro-choice thinkers fail to justify abortion by jettisoning an Aristotelian framework. There is a lot of great information contained in this book. His discussions on how naturalistic metaphysics is self-refuting is especially important to understand. His chapter on personhood was also very good. Usually discussions of personhood certain around who counts as persons, but it seems that rarely do these discussions get to the heart of what the concept of "person" actually means. Sterrett shows admirably that our personhood, while different than our humanity, cannot be separated from it. He even talks about some common ground that we can find with pro-choice people in his concluding chapter, which is an excellent thing for pro-life people to keep in mind when talking to pro-choice people. The only main problems I had with the book are: 1) There was no real discussion about substances and why humans count as substances. It really seems like you'd need at least a basic familiarity with Aristotle in order to know what he's talking about, even in his excellent rebuttals of naturalistic philosophy. 2) There was no real discussion about potentiality and actuality. It was mentioned, but not really discussed. This does seem like a glaring omission, since not knowing what potentiality actually means leads even modern philosophers to make bad arguments against the personhood of the unborn. Two examples are when Michael Tooley, in his book Abortion and Infanticide, argues about injecting a rationality serum into cats, and when Singer, I believe in his book Practical Ethics, argues that potential presidents don't have the same privileges and duties as actual presidents. If Sterrett does a second edition, I think a chapter on potentiality vs. actuality would be in order. 3) The 17.00 price tag is a bit steep for a 120-page book. Granted, this is not the fault of the author, the publisher sets the price tag. There are a couple of other minor issues that should probably be corrected for future editions. In at least a couple of the chapters, I felt the endings weren't tightened up. They seemed to just end abruptly. Additionally, for many of the quotes regarding Aristotle, he used secondary sources, not the primary sources, themselves. This may affect credibility. I am an Aristotelian/Thomist in my view of metaphysics. As such, I think this is an important book to add to the discussion. It's a helpful primer on the metaphysical grounding of the pro-life position. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Sep 25, 2015
|
Sep 25, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0312620543
| 9780312620547
| 0312620543
| 4.28
| 2,091
| Oct 14, 2014
| Oct 14, 2014
|
did not like it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
May 05, 2015
|
May 05, 2015
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| B00T3H6KU0
| 3.77
| 70
| Apr 15, 2015
| Mar 12, 2015
|
really liked it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1620322765
| 9781620322765
| 1620322765
| 4.80
| 5
| Aug 20, 2013
| Aug 20, 2013
|
really liked it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
Mar 24, 2015
|
Mar 24, 2015
|
Paperback
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.22
|
really liked it
|
not set
|
Feb 09, 2021
|
|||||
|
| 3.25
|
not set
|
Feb 09, 2021
|
||||||
|
| 4.33
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 30, 2020
|
Oct 30, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 4.43
|
it was amazing
|
not set
|
Sep 17, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 4.05
|
did not like it
|
Apr 19, 2020
|
Apr 20, 2020
|
|||||
|
| 4.29
|
not set
|
Feb 18, 2020
|
||||||
|
| 4.23
|
liked it
|
not set
|
Feb 08, 2019
|
|||||
|
| 4.10
|
did not like it
|
not set
|
Dec 07, 2018
|
|||||
|
| 3.95
|
really liked it
|
not set
|
Sep 06, 2018
|
|||||
|
| 3.90
|
Mar 14, 2018
|
Mar 14, 2018
|
||||||
|
| 3.25
|
it was ok
|
May 12, 2017
|
May 12, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.48
|
did not like it
|
May 05, 2017
|
May 08, 2017
|
|||||
|
| 4.65
|
Sep 27, 2016
|
Sep 28, 2016
|
||||||
|
| 4.26
|
really liked it
|
Sep 25, 2016
|
Sep 26, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.94
|
it was ok
|
Jan 08, 2016
|
Jan 10, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.88
|
did not like it
|
Jan 10, 2016
|
Jan 09, 2016
|
|||||
|
| 3.70
|
really liked it
|
Sep 25, 2015
|
Sep 25, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.28
|
did not like it
|
May 05, 2015
|
May 05, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 3.77
|
really liked it
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
Apr 27, 2015
|
|||||
|
| 4.80
|
really liked it
|
Mar 24, 2015
|
Mar 24, 2015
|
Loading...
