Customer Reviews

Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights

5 star:		(44)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

In "Politically Correct Death" (hereafter, PC Death), Dr. Francis Beckwith argues that the unborn entity is fully human,hence elective abortion is morally unjust.

This is, of course, the standard pro-life pitch for the last 25 years. What makes Beckwith unique is his rigorous logic and argumentation in support of his thesis. You will not find emotionally charged rhetoric or religious sentiment here. In fact, some of Beckwith's critics attack him precisely because he is so logical. Now there's a new twist: careful thinking a sin?

In PC Death, Beckwith demolishes popular abortion rights rhetoric by showing that most pro-choice arguments beg the question. That is to say, they assume the very thing they are trying to prove. Take, for example, the popular coat-hanger argument that states women will die by the thousands if abortion is restricted. But as Beckwith points out, unless you begin with the assumption the unborn are not fully human, this argument is tantamount to saying that because some people will die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so. Should we legalize bank-robbery so that it is safer for felons?

In my opinion, Beckwith is at his best when confronting academic arguments for abortion rights, in particular, his analysis of Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous violinist argument. Thomson is unique in that she bites the bullet: she concedes the humanity of the unborn, but argues that abortion is justified because no woman should be forced to use her bodily organs to sustain the life of another against her will. This is a potentially devastating argument against the pro-life view.

Beckwith, however, presents a nine point rebuttal to Thomson's carefully argued piece, and does so in a fair and even-handed manner. To sum up Beckwith's response, Thomson's arguemt is flawed because it fails to distinguish between our right to withhold support and our duty not to actively kill another person--which is what elective abortion does.

PC Death is truly refreshing for its careful consideration of facts and arguments. I'm surprised, however, at the response from some abortion rights advocates who resort to name calling instead of refuting Dr. Beckwith's arguments. Now it may be the case that PC Death is a poorly reasoned piece. But this must be proven by appealing to evidence, not launching ad-hominem attacks against the author.

If abortion rights advocates are to have any credibility with clear thinking individuals, they will have to do better than that. Dr. Beckwith has presented a carefully reasoned case for the pro-life position. Prove him wrong if you can. But please, dispense with the childish name calling.

This book is probably one of the very best books available on the issue of abortion in America. I will have to join the chorus of reviewers who have applauded this fine book. The author, a Ph. D in philosophy, critiques 68 arguments for abortion rights (i.e. "pro-choice) and systematically refutes them.

Professor J.P. Moreland said this about the book:
For some time now we have needed a book that lays out and responds to the various pro-choice arguments in a detailed, systematic way. [This book] does this admirably... It is unique in combining a through catalog of the issues with a sophisticated response that remains accessible to the general reader.

As a brief side note, do not be put off by the negative reviews. The criticism is vague and often does not cite SPECIFIC pages or SPECIFIC arguments; I find such criticism difficult to believe (there are one or two exceptions to this though).

If you are pro-life, then reading this book is invaluable. If you are pro-choice, then you will find this book difficult, for the pro-choice view is hardly the given truth that it is billed to be. However, the author has requested substantive critiques, and has said (see Editorial Reviews for the author's comments) that he has not received them.

Beckwith evaluates MANY abortion rights arguments:
Why don't pro-lifers adopt the babies they don't want aborted? Argument from 'no one knows when life begins,' Argument from privacy, Argument from the dangers of illegal abortion, argument from rape and incest and many of the others. This will help you in discussing the issue with other people, responding to newspaper article and even knowing how to critique professional philosophers that hold to the abortion rights position.

Beckwith also argues for the full humanity of the unborn. The pro-life position that Beckwith defends is as follows:

1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is fully human.
2. It is prima facie wrong to kill an entity which is fully human.
3. Almost every act of abortion is intended to kill the unborn entity, an entity which is fully human.
4. Therefore, almost every act of abortion is prima facie wrong.
(Page 12)

Note that the position Beckwith defends is very precise and pro-lifers would do well to adopt his formulation of the argument.

The other parts of the book that do not evaluate abortion rights arguments or argue for the pro-life position are:
Chapter 1: The Possibility of Moral Reasoning
Chapter 2: Why Abortion on Demand Is Legal in America

Chapter 1 deals with the idea of reasoning in morality and shows that the idea of moral relativism (that there are no moral absolutes) is false. For more on relativism, see "Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air," by Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl (see my review).

Chapter 2 explains why abortion for any reason at all is currently legal through all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, contrary to those who claim that it is only legal until the first trimester (the first three months of pregnancy).

Also included are two interesting Socratic dialogues in which Socrates arrives to debate 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and another in which Socrates discusses Operation Rescue and civil disobedience.

The book has a bibliography and there are a total of 431 footnotes where Beckwith documents his facts, quotations and refers to other philosophers and their works.

Beckwith does a fantastic and thorough examination of the abortion debate. He handles contentious and emotivly charged issues with clear logic and rationale without doing away with compassion. His arguments are clear and easily understood by the lay-person but by no means lack any technical coherence. An absolute must to have to answer pro-choice arguments rationally, logically and non-emotively. The responses of pro-choice advocates really says it all: to see Beckwith's debate with Socrates as a 'contradiction' demonstrates their narrowmindedness and lack of ability to deal with the rationality of the actual argument. Beckwith's book dealt with abortion, not gay rights or rational suicide, it is his abortion arguments that must be answered. Those pro-choice who failed to answer Beckwith's arguments simply give evidence of their inability to doing so by focussing on irrelevant alleged 'contradictions.' If you want to reach everyday people, particularly those who are secular in belief, Beckwith arms you with the necessary arguments and info unlike any other book I have found. In fact every other book I have read on this topic (many I assure you) pale in comparison. Beckwith simply is that good. Read it.

A wonderful resource, I am yet to hear a coherent pro-abortion rebuttle of any of it. Sensible rational discussion that cuts away all the emotive, sociological/philosophical babble uttered by the pro-abortion movement.

There is a rat, one person behind all of the meaningless incoherent babble of heuristic syllogisms empirical data rubbish, he is based in New Zealand and is called Craig Young - a research officer for the dying ALRANZ NZ's only pro-abortion group. He impersonates people to gain/impart information - he admits this is an article on the Massey University New Zealand Web Site in the Women's Deparment section of the site. You can tell all these critiques were by him as the same misuse of philosophical terms, exact same spelling mistakes of SOUL NZ's Ethical Advisors name by 'different reviewers' from all over the world occur in his postings plus others. If this is the New Zealand pro-abortion movements 'golden boy' then there is nothing to worry about. Mr Young cannot offer one coherent criticism of Beckwiths argument, not only because he is not capable, but because there are none.

I truly enjoyed Dr. Beckwith's point-by-point refutation of the most common pro-abortion arguments. This book has greatly improved my ability to winsomely and intelligently respond to pro-abortion catchphrases. I look forward to reading Dr. Beckwith's revised version as soon as it appears.

New topic: I'd like to point something out to folks reading the reviews posted here. I've been reading many of the negative reviews on this page, and I think I see a pattern.

Each review of the type I'm talking about awards the book one star. Each review is by an anonymous person identified only as "a reader," typically writing from Canada, Australia, the UK, or South Africa. Each review uses terms that an average reader would have a tough time understanding: "hermetic and self-referential rationales," "stacked and constrained syllogisms and heuristics," "factors of early zygote-blastocyst miscarriage and totipotency," "neoplatonic chora," "self-referential epistemologies," "monocausal presuppostions" ... you get the idea.

A common feature in these reviews is a rather vague criticism of Aristotelian logic, without any explanation of why such logic is bad. Another recurring theme is a claim that Beckwith's work cites too few reliable scientific sources ... again, without specifics.

All in all, I think this pattern strongly suggests that there's one person behind a great many of these damning reviews. This person detests the book, has lots of free time to devote to vague, critical, unsupported but intellectual-sounding reviews, and appears to be trying to overwhelm the rest of us by flooding this page with his/her own opinion (masquerading as lots of different people). When I also consider Dr. Beckwith's unanswered requests for a substantive critique, I must declare that I smell a rat here.

Whoever you are, please spare us your heaps of airy rhetoric. Either give us or Dr. Beckwith a detailed, well-supported critique and prove your point in the objective marketplace of ideas, or get off your soapbox and spend your time more productively elsewhere.

Kudos, Dr. Beckwith. Keep poking holes in the arguments of pro-abortionists and moral relativists.

Dr Beckwith does a fine job here of offering refutations to the argumentation provided by the pro-choice crowd - from the popular "run of the mill/ garden variety" to the more philosophical objections to the pro-life position. This is a must read for anyone involved in the pro-life movement, as it gives the necessary introductory scientific background on embryology and catalogs the different pro-choice objections that are often raised. Additionally, I think it would behoove the pro-choicer to read this work; to reconsider their own position in light of Dr. Beckwith's argumentation.

People definitely say that it is the BEST BOOK EVER on the pro-life position. Dr. J.P. Moreland writes that it is a thorough catalog of the issues with a sophisticated response that remains accessible to the general reader (Dr. Moreland is a well-known professor of philosophy and ethics). It is FASCINATING to look at arguments with a TRULY OPEN MIND. For example, ask if the arguments that Beckwith gives are REALLY RIGHT OR WRONG. A person must deal with the arguments that Beckwith gives DIRECTLY if they want to FIND THE RIGHT VIEW. I hope this review helps people understand the significance of this book. I also hope that it helps people look at arguments directly and with a truly open mind. A person should get Politically Correct Death because it is the best book that has ever been written on abortion. This is definitely the book a person should get if they want to get a better understanding of abortion.

Originally published in 1993, Prof. Beckwith's book remains at the top of my recommended list for works on this highly charged subject. It is exceptionally well organized, making it useful for the layman in search of concise answers in a timely manner, as well as sufficiently thorough for those reading it from cover to cover in search of rigorous and persuasive philosophical arguments. In contrast to many other works on this topic, I believe only Beckwith succeeds on shedding "more light than heat."

The heart of the book comprises a systematic presentation and rebuttal of six classes of arguments in favor of abortion rights. It is thoroughly footnoted with specific citations, enabling further research and verification by the reader if desired. A set of appendices is included which, among other things, contains a summary of over 68 pro-choice arguments, "Choice Quotes" from noted abortion advocates, an abridged version of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, an outstanding bibliography, and the citations for footnotes throughout the book. These appendices alone are worth the price of admission!

I highly recommend this book to those interested in mastering a solid basis for the pro-life position or those interested in engaging pro-choice advocates on their own terms.

In short, if you are pro-choice prepared to be shocked at the reality of what you have been told to believe. Mr. Beckwith discusses the many myths about abortion including the "back alley" arguments, and the many non-valid arguments used to justify abortion, as well as discussing the legalities, the interpretations of the law, the inconsistency of pro-choice support groups like Planned Parenthood, and the basic moral concerns for and against abortion.

The content is written in an objective fashion, with arguments raised, and research and conclusions stated and supported. The research and sources used are excellent and very well documented and credited. Often the author will give credit to good arguments, and will challenge any illogic presented, by either side of the issue. The research and source materials drawn from are as extensive as I have ever seen in one place.

Some of the more powerful arguments raised are in regards to the common arguments presented as a justification for abortion. These include the misuse and deliberate falsification of "back-alley" death statistics that are used as a means to justify the continued killing of humans through abortion. For example, one argument consistently postulated is the: "If abortions are illegal only the rich will be able to afford them through other means, and therefore this ruling will hurt the poor." One interesting counter argument to this stance is whether the affordability argument has any relevance at all. For example, should it become legal to allow a person to hire a hitman as only the rich are able to afford the practice now? The answer would be of course - "no" - because the question of who can afford a hitman is not related to the question of its morality. The same with abortion. The question of who can afford them is not relevant to the question of the morality of the practice.

There is far too much information in the book to possibly address here, but the result is that the common myths perpetuated by the Liberal pro-choice agenda are consistently exposed as illogical and without merit. Again, if you are concerned about the morality of the practice of killing human beings based on the personal preferences of another then this book validates what you already know as common sense. If you have somehow bought into the pro-choice myths about the reality of what abortion is or does, you will find it impossible to read this book and maintain your position with any integrity, so powerful and logical are the arguments presented here. An excellent book, with well presented objective data and arguments, and extensive research and source materials.

Various reviewers have questioned Beckwith's empirical data (some to the point where they actually misquote footnotes), regarding backstreet abortion numbers, viability and foetal pain. Reviewers fail to realise, that even if their claims about the empirical content are correct, this only attacks peripheral points of Beckwith's argument. As any student of ethics and logic knows, one cannot deduce an 'ought' from an 'is.' The mere mustering of empirical data in itself is irrelevant unless conjoined with a normative premise which attempts to draw some conceptual link between the fact in question and the right to life. Beckwith criticises these evaluative and conceptual arguments alongside his treatment of the empirical issues. Consider foetal pain, many ethicists see sentience as a necessary condition in order for an organism to posses a right to life. Beckwith deals with the empirical facts of foetal pain in chapter 3. However in chapter 6, he argues that sentience is not a necessary condition for the right to life. If sentience is not necessary for a right to life, then if a being lacks sentience this has no bearing on whether it possesses a right to life. The question of foetal pain then becomes irrelevant. Suppose that we granted that Beckwith is incorrect in chapter 3, his argument that foetal pain is irrelevant would still remain unchallenged. All reviewers have done is shown that he is wrong on a point, which he argues, is irrelevant anyway. Similarly, Beckwith cites several problems with the backstreet abortions argument, first he disputes the empirical evidence. Secondly, he argues that even if backstreet abortions were as widespread as the pro-abortionists assert, then there are still philosophical and logical problems with the argument. Beckwith argues it begs the question, further, that it presupposes a moral principle that is subject to various dis-confirming counter examples. These latter arguments are logically distinct from his assessment of the backstreet abortion numbers. Consequently, even if one can show that Beckwith's figures are wrong, this doesn't make any real difference to his central point; that the argument of backstreet abortions, is flawed. The point can be repeated any moral argument contains both factual and evaluative premises that jointly entail a conclusion. To demonstrate that an argument is unsound, one must demonstrate either; a) that ONE of the premises is false, or, b) that the argument exemplifies an invalid argument form. (Beckwith, like myself, is a moral objectivist ie. he thinks that evaluative statements have a truth value). To rebut an argument given by pro-abortionist then all he has to do is show that the argument is invalid or one of the premises, factual OR evaluative, is not true. Beckwith has attacked the arguments' validity, called into question the empirical data and shown problems with the evaluative premises. Simply showing that one empirical premise is in fact correct, does not save the argument from rebuttal. (If anyone has a background in philosophy they'd know this). Secondly, reviewers make much noise over Beckwith's Aristotelianism. Like some reviewers I suspect that Beckwith is Aristotelian, his understanding of human personhood certainly relies on Aristotelian notions. Like other reviewers I also have qualms about the natural law moral epistemology which goes with this. However, the question arises as to how relevant this is to most of the book. Clearly when Beckwith articulates his own views on the essence of personhood, these notions are important. However this part only compromises a small section of the book, much of Beckwith's book is rebuttal. He cites the arguments of his opponents and calls into question the soundness of these arguments. He does this either by showing logical fallacies the arguments embodies, or by using thought experiments (pro-abortionists such as Judith Jarvis Thompson use the same techniques which are in fact standard in contemporary ethical philosophy). Beckwith catalogues an array of common pro-abortion arguments and argues that these display textbook logical fallacies such as ad hominem, begging the question, appeals to pity, etc. which have little rational content. Recognising such argumentation as fallacious does not rely on Aristotelian metaphysics or natural law theory. One does not have to be an Aristotelian to recognise that begging the question and ad hominem is wrong Or, Abortion is wrong because it is killing a human, and it is killing a human, because it is wrong. Pro abortionists will rightly point out that my reasoning is flawed. They will not need to presuppose the truth of Aristotelian metaphysics to do so. In addition, much of the rebuttal of Aristotelianism expressed is fallacious. Reviewers state that Aristotelianism is sexist or pre-modern or they sight various academics who oppose Aristotle. But again this is of dubious relevance. Belief in legalised abortion is pre-modern and some people who support abortion are racist and sexist, that does not call into question abortion. Further, one could easily quote many academics who support Aristotelianism and/or the pro-life position. I am not saying I agree with Beckwith in entirety or that I hold him in awe, there are many thinkers whom I have much greater respect for. However, the claim that anyone who holds an opposing view to Craig Young is academically substandard is simply an arrogant and ad hominem assertion. (which was in a review entitled "ad hominem attacks don't impress me). Matthew Flannagan The author is an Ethical Advisor to SOUL New Zealand. He holds a Masters Degree with first class Honours in Philosophy and studying towards a PhD. He lectures and tutors Social and Moral Philosophy and Logic at the University of Waikato. In addition, he has lectured in Ethics at the Waikato Polytechnic and at various theological institutions. His postgraduate paper "Abortion as Arbitrary Killing" is now one of the required readings for University Ethics courses in New Zealand and has been included in the new Social and Moral textbook. This paper was reviewed and assessed by not only the Waikato University Faculty, but also the Massey University Philosophy Faculty