Abortion Books

Michael, This is John. There are not many of us here in america compared to our per capita numbers in the town of clifden. I too share your pro-life views and am often chastised for it. I appreciate your candor and honesty in this work. Unpopular views are difficult to stand for. However, i believe as you that we have lost our way here in america. Our priorities are skewed and our insight clouded. I compliment your forthright stand on this issue and hope for continued advancement of this most worthy cause. Your strong stance and commitment in future literary endeavors will most surely help.

In addition to serving as one of the leading thinkers in the area of legal philosophy, Ronald Dworkin has had an effective career as a political commentator in such publications as the "New York Review of Books" and "The New Republic." This short paperback, running some 70 pages (but lacking an index) reprints four of his essays from the NYRB that appeared between October 05 and August 07. One of his major themes, which has been echoed by many others, is the ineffectual nature of the Supreme Court confirmation process. This is particularly significant for Dworkin since he believes Gore v. Bush "foreshadowed" the end of Supreme Court moderation. Dworkin wants the hearings to rigorously probe the "constitutional philosophy" of the nominee, which he sees as the only safeguard against the typical evasive answers that usually are offered to Senatorial questions.

Otherwise we end up with the "pointless recital of an established script" such as occurred in the Alito hearings. Dworkin finds some danger signs in Alito's DOJ memos and his decisions while on the Third Circuit. He also argues that Alito misled the Judiciary Committee on his dedication to precedent. Both Alito and Roberts Dworkin concludes engage in "silent" overruling of past precedents. The third and fourth chapters deal with abortion and "stealth" overruling in affirmative action, campaign finance, first amendment rights in schools and standing to challenge the expenditure of public monies for religious purposes. Whatever you can say about Dworkin's adrenalin here and his vigorous advocacy of a philosophy at odds with the current Court majority, his articles proved to be remarkably prescient, as many of his predictions about Robert, Alito and their Court unfortunately have come to pass.

This book is a good eye opener for anyone who has even a little opinion on moral issues such as abortion, the death penalty, the right to pornography, and euthanasia. The cool part of this book is that it presents a pro-side and a con-side to seventeen different issues. The way in which the arguments are presented are logical and follow a well thought out pattern of thought. In my reading of this book, I was amazed at some of the thoughts that were presented many of which I had never thought of or considered before. This book could serve as a textbook, or just a good resource book for debates. If you have even a slight opinion on a touchy issue, I would suggest reading this book for two reasons; first, it will give you more understanding and fire for your position, and second, you be able to understand where someone else is coming from.

As abortion was always an interesting topic to me, the beginning of this book was quite catching, and at first I couldn't put it down, as the author recounts her life in Catherine Booth, a home for expectant mothers. Towards the second half of the book, Shullenberger delves into the more factual part of abortion, it's history and the status of it today. Nearing the end of the book, she also recounts her life up to this point. Although I was not as interested in the factual essence of this book, it was retained fully by me. For those who like real life accounts of situations, in this case abortion, Shullenberger offers a very good view of the situation. I would definitely recommend this book to those serious of learning more on abortion.

Written in 1993, this is the story of Professor Goodman, a 41 year old, married female with 2 grown children who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant. She opts, after much thought, to terminate the pregnancy, only to find herself arrested a month later and charged under a new law that retroactively makes abortion a capital offense. The book's cover says this could really happen which is impossible to believe but certainly may be possible. The outcome of the story is a surprize, but nothing like what I expected. The DA was a dummy, but her defense team, naturally, brilliant. The Judge should have been presiding over the OJ trial. Read it, it's very good.

Just a note that this is NOT the hardback edition despite all the information to the contrary here on Amazon. It is a paperback edition. Doesn't change the content but honesty in advertising could be better for Amazon.

"Wanting to Be Born" was a breath of fresh air to me. When I read the author's viewpoint that there is a specific soul assigned to each pregnancy, and that terminating that pregnancy interrupts the process whereby the soul can embody and fulfill its reason for being, I had to pause. It made sense to me...and when I read about reincarnation and how childbirth allows us to nurture and care for souls with whom we might have karma from other lifetimes, that was pretty profound to me, too. In sum, this little book offers a viewpoint on the issue of abortion that seems to rise above the proverbial pro-life/pro-choice rumblings...I also like its non-judgmental and non-preachy tone. I highly recommend "Wanting to Be Born."

I read this book for a term paper and though I am not for abortion it was an excellent book because it explained he methods and what really happened. If you are planning on having an abortion I would recommend this book.

A charismatic new president draws a line in the sand by nominating the first woman for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, knowing that her secrets may be his undoing. The domestic hot-button issue of late-term abortion drives this novel, bringing scrutiny to not only her understandable and carefully hidden secret, but those of several other key players. The ugliness of ambition, the comprimises of principle easily made, the barely concealed disgust for necessary alliances, all color the Senate as we watch the confirmation process unfold, harming many along the way. An alternate title for the book could easily have been "What Price Principle?", for that disturbing question lingers long after the book is closed. Because much of the tale rings true, most readers can only be grateful they don't daily face the temptations of power, and perhaps can commit to advocating for their own principles with a bit more force and clarity, and perhaps a new respect for opposing beliefs.

I'm not a polital book reader overall but some do strike my interest. This one has many positive aspects going for it. Politics and the background that lies behind the votes in the Senate. Law and what goes on in the courts. What a struggle it can be for someone with virtue that just wants to do the right thing but may have made choices others don't agree with. Also that not all issues, like abortion, are cut and dry.

This is not a quick read but it is an enjoyable read. I highly recommend it.

and one of the best , thought provoking books on the subject. Too bad Carolyn Masters isn't available to make a run at the '08 Presidency.

This is the third RNP that I've started. I couldn't continue past page 29. This book is headed to the Salvation Army.
No more RNP for me.

This book has two halves. The first is an abortion debate presented through the vehicle of a sometimes realistic/sometimes not courtroom drama. This half is full of gory detail and emotional manipulation. Not my cup of tea, and I almost stopped. The second half of the book is a Supreme Court confirmation fight in the style of a West Wing television show --- fun and clever, though the characters are charicatured good guys and bad guys (with the Democratic president head "good guy"). Patterson's page-turning writing skill is on display throughout.

While so much of the book echoes real-life political debates and (even more) real life politics, I also found it curiously dated. 1998 --- pre 9/11, pre the Bush years, still in the Lewinsky scandal --- when this book was written had a remarkably different political landscape. So recent and yet so long ago. Protect and Defend will remind you of it, but it will not make you want to go back.

When I first picked it up and began to read it, I feared, judging from the title, it would be poorly argued and mostly emotion-charged. I was quickly disabused of that notion. Beckwith does a marvelous job reasonably addressing the pro-"choice" arguments bringing down that house of cards. Together with Stephen Schwarz's The Moral Question of Abortion, in my opinion these are the two best sources for a pro-lifer to better understand his own position and his opponent's arguments.

This book by an eminent Christian philosopher, Francis Beckwith, supports the traditional Christian pro-life position that human life begins at conception (fertilization) and that it is wrong to take this life except where the mother's actual life is in danger.

Beckwith thoroughly refutes pro-abortion arguments, both the popular rhetoric in the media and political circles, as well as the sophisticated philosophical arguments by more intellectual abortion advocates (who are contemptuous of much popular pro-abortion 'reasoning'). He knows how to use logical arguments to show that pro-abortionists use both false premises and invalid reasoning from both false and true premises to support their view. There is even a chapter refuting an article purporting to be 'A Pro-Choice Bible Study'. Finally there is a fictional Socratic dialogue aimed to support non-violent civil disobedience such as Operation Rescue.

It has been very useful to me recently in my own writing projects on topics like embryonic stem cells. Beckwith already anticipated such specious arguments such as,

*'Identical twins prove that life doesn't begin at conception' (twinning may be a form of asexual reproduction, where one embryo divides into two, but this doesn't mean that s/he wasn't an individual before then),

* The early embryo doesn't look human? (yes it does -- just the way it should look at that age. Also, appearances are defective -- Statues and store mannequins look human, but are not; abnormal-looking humans like the 'elephant man' are still human).

* 'Most zygotes never make it to term?' (but all we humans have virtually a 100% mortality rate, but this doesn't mean it's OK to actively murder someone!)

* The Clintonian pseudo-Biblical argument that the account of Adam's creation shows that life begins when breathing starts (First, unborn babies do 'breathe' or at least respire, just not through their lungs. Secondly, the creation of Adam and Eve was a special case -- 'neither of them had mothers or came from an embryo, so it's illegitimate to extrapolate from their example. It would be just as (il)logical to claim that since they began lives as adults, human life today doesn't begin till adulthood!)

This is easily the most comprehensive pro-life defence around, so is very important for Christians. This is not to say that it's totally without flaws, although they are not enough to detract from a five-star rating.

One obvious deficiency is the lack of pictures, which are often highly effective in convincing the general public of the humanity of the unborn.

I also think Beckwith deals unfairly with the adoption argument on p. 15. Of course, if the unborn baby is human and murder is wrong, this would not change even if there were no couples willing to adopt. But the point of the adoption argument is well in line with what Beckwith practises so effectively --' both demonstrating the falsity of the premise(s) as well as showing that the conclusion would not follow even if the premise(s) were true. So the adoption argument is really demonstrating that the pro-death premise 'there are many unwanted babies' is false, without conceding at all the inference 'if a baby is not wanted, then it can be killed'.

Also there is some downplaying the need for an objective moral lawgiver who has revealed His will in the Bible. When evolution has replaced the Bible as authority, anything goes. This is epitomised by the neo-Nazi views of Peter Singer who supports infanticide of physically 'defective' infants and elderly people with Alzheimer's -- because in an evolutionary world view, there is nothing to say that human life is any more sacred than animal life. This is why it's not always enough to show that the baby is human.

But I repeat, this book is probably the single most valuable specialist defence of the pro-life view around, so is essential reading for all those who wish to stand up for unborn babies.

I have used this book for research purposes, and from what I've read so far, I find this to be an overall excellent resource. However, just today I saw that it has at least two fundamental flaws: Beckwith is not 100% pro-Life.

On page 115, for instance, he writes: "...there could be times at which abortion is justified." An example case he mentions is where a woman's pregnancy will probably result in her death due to, say, a tubal pregnancy. Says Beckwith: "Because it is a greater good that one human should live rather than two die, the pro-lifer believes that in this case abortion is justified."

This is preposterous. First, *he* believes this, but certainly not all pro-lifers! Secondly, in the case he mentions, abortion would NOT be justified still as one would be engaging in an instrinsically immoral act in order to bring about a good. In other words, he is implicitly saying that the end justifies the means--but this is consequentialism. It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being deliberately, and therefore we could NOT kill the baby in the fallopian tube even if the result will be that both mother and baby die. The only possibility to save the life of the mother would be if the circumstances would allow us to make use of the Principle of Double-Effect -- that is, if saving the mother's life would only *unintentionally* and *indirectly* entail the death of the baby, such as when a cancerous uterus has to be removed and the woman happens to be pregnant. But direct killing of a human fetus is never permissible, no matter what "good" might come out of it.

Think about it. Beckwith's position here entails that if we can prevent 100,000 people from dying of, say, cancer by killing one innocent person, then that's a good thing to do. But this is morally reprehensible.

Another unacceptable thing Beckwith says on page 114: "Biological human life without the natural inherent capacity to function as a person (that is, the metaphysical grounding of human personhood that makes human function possible) is probably not fully human." This is a preposterous assertion. To say that there can be human life that's not fully human is first of all a logical contradiction. Secondly, his statement implies that someone who does not fulfill whatever criteria of "personhood" he may consider necessary, then he is "sub-human" or something. I am puzzled that Beckwith would make such an argument, because it contradicts his otherwise keen intellect and good argumentation.

Unfortunately, I can only endorse this book with strong reservations now. Most of the other things I have read were very good. I want to make this point clear. It is definitely a terrific book to have, but, alas, not uncompromisingly pro-Life. I also wish to caution about the author's theology, as he is a Protestant.

I will put this review simply:

This book will forever end for the debate over whether abortion is morally correct, or whether it is the taking of a human life for the convenience of another.

Period.

I was what I will call abortion-agnostic prior to reading this book, and considered myself "pro-choice". I now understand just how much the pro-choice movement, along with its strongest supporter: Planned Parenthood, has fooled millions of people with rhetoric and politically charged spin control. This is truly tragic. The truth is so obvious everyone! Open your eyes!
Every single argument that the pro-choice liberal agenda tries to throw at you is false, and not even close to reality.

As I said, if you want to stay numb to reality, and go along with the crowd, do not read this book. No one who reads it will be able to refute that abortion is a horrible act of brutally murdering a human being.

Author Beckwith utterly destroys the pro-abortion arguments using reason and logic. No author I have read so far has done such an extraordinary job of demonstrating that the unborn child is a human being and has the same God-given rights as the rest of us. If I had to use one book to cram for a debate on this issue, I would not hesitate to choose this one.