Customer Reviews

The Liberal Case Against Abortion

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a truly unique and stunning work. Unlike a majority of pro-life material, it does not rely on any religious common ground between author and reader.

Even more amazing is the fact that the author comes from a strong "left-wing" position, yet makes common sense arguments from that position in opposition of abortion. I would go so far as to say that Vasu's arguments are even stronger than those I have heard from pro-life Republicans - perhaps there is more reason for Democrats, Progressives, and the left to be anti-abortion than the right-wing conservative movement.

I would not only reccomend this book to liberals, but to conservatives who could learn a thing or two about how to address the abortion issue with people who do not ascribe to the same "religious right" world view.

In this vein, you might also want to consider Guerrilla Apologetics for Life Issues, as that book also uses non-religious arguments to address life issues (although it is not specifically a liberal book, as this one is).

I'm not a liberal, though I am not really a conservative either, so I can't quite speak to the question of how convincing this book would be to a liberal. It is a very short book, which can easily be read in one sitting. The book seemed to lack coherence, a unity to it. Much of it was spent giving quotes. There were some very good quotes, especially by some of the early feminists. The book goes through fetal development as well. Basically, the author's premise is that because liberals are typically concerned with the weak and those less fortunate, they should be against abortion. Of course, I agree. However, the last section of the book continues this idea to argue for animal rights as well. Many of the parallels the author draws between protecting the unborn and protecting animals are valid. But it begs the question as to WHAT an animal is and WHAT the unborn is. Is there a difference between a human and an animal? I would say 'yes' and hence was not convinced that animals deserve the same protection as the unborn, but that is neither here nor there.

I think that a liberal should give this book a read. It gives many quotes that I think a liberal would be surprised at (e.g. Planned Parenthood admitting that an abortion kills a baby back in the 1960s) and tries to argue it from their point of view.

While Murti relies heavily on quoting from other authors, speakers, and historical figures, his organization of the material, and the sheer number of quotes that he has gathered, is both impressive and overwhelmingly compelling. I find myself appreciating that he did all of the work and research for me, compiling it into a quick read. His own assertions are honest and challenging to any reader: to pro-choice liberals, pro-life conservatives, pro-life activists who insist on using religion to essentially lose the debate, and to pro-life meat eaters like myself. Watch out--Murti makes some undeniable claims about the need to be consistent, and he has gotten me thinking! That is what any good book should do.

With science, history, and logic, the authors call liberals (and libertarians) to be consistent in their stand for human rights. We cannot, on the one hand, oppose the killing of young people in an unjust war while demanding the right to kill unborn children in abortion. In the past, pro-lifers have been dismissed as blinded by their religious agenda - but which is worse, a religious agenda or a purely political agenda? This cry for justice must be heard. Abortion has not brought freedom to women, on the contrary, it has brought only another form of oppression. It is time to make a consistent moral stand for the most basic of all human rights.

Thirteen years BEFORE the legalization of abortion, Dr.
Mary Calderon, the medical director of PLANNED PARENTHOOD, made the following admission in the July 1960 edition of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH:

"90% of illegal abortions are being done by PHYSICIANS. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians trained as such...They must do a pretty good job IF THE DEATH RATE is as LOW as it is...

Abortion, whether therapeutic or ILLEGAL, is in the main NO LONGER DANGEROUS [in 1960!!] because it is being done WELL BY PHYSICIANS."

Eleanor Cooney states in her review of this book that overturning Roe v. Wade will send "women back to the illegal abortionist," thus endangering their safety. However, this argument doesn't hold up when placed next to the preceding quote from Guerrilla Apologetics for Life Issues (another noteworthy book)

For those of us who were "there", the squalor and danger of illegal abortion is not a vague abstract concept that can be "disproved" by quotes from books. Doctors? Oh, sure, plenty of illegal abortionists were doctors, but not the kind you'd send your wife, daughter, mother or sister to, believe me. Board-certified gynecologists they were not. Seedy old drunks is more like it, whose practices had deteriorated to the point where they had nothing to lose, who might or might not use a glove when they examined you, who were free to molest you while you were on the table in their run-down, ill-equipped, unsanitary offices. Bleeding to death was not the only hazard women faced when abortion was illegal.

Vasu Murti wishes to repeal Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal again. The reality of how it is when abortion is illegal is the big fat fly in the ointment of Vasu Murti's "compassionate" platform. How does he address it? With denial, revisionism, dissembling, quotes from people who never experienced it, sophistry, academic doublespeak, and ultimately, silence. I have challenged Vasu Murti to tell us what specific words he would use to convince anyone who had an illegal abortion pre-Roe that recriminalization is the way to go. He has not done it, because he can't. Are any of you enthusiastic reviewers of TLCAA people who had illegal abortions back in the old days? I didn't think so. It is at our peril that we dismiss the testimony of people who had a close encounter of the first kind with illegal abortion, not to mention disrespectful and condescending. Unless, of course, you believe that the dirt and danger of illegal abortion are what a woman who aborts deserves. Then it's all of a piece.

A distinction needs to be made here: Being "against" abortion is one thing. Wanting to make it illegal again is quite another. Criminalization of abortion accomplishes one thing, and one thing only, and that's the crude, dirty, savage, vigilante punishment of women who abort. Either you're in favor of that, or you're not. While people argue ad infinitum over the "humanity" or lack thereof of the fetus, the facts remain, and always will, whether we like them or not: Illegality does not deter abortion; it drives it underground and women and girls follow, into a furtive, dangerous, random, clandestine, fear-filled netherworld. It's simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. Anyone taking refuge in soothing revisionism that says "it wasn't that bad," "it didn't happen that often," "it was done by doctors" and such needs to talk to someone who actually had an illegal abortion. Also read THE WORST OF TIMES by Patricia G. Miller. It's happening in the world today, and it happened in the U.S. during 100 years of prohibition. Know what it is you are wishing for when you are wishing for abortion to be illegal again.

The instant one crosses over into the territory of wishing to recriminalize abortion, as Vasu Murti does, one is no longer "liberal." By whatever route one arrives at that point, he/she has joined the ranks of honor-killers-by proxy.