Customer Reviews

The Unaborted Socrates: A Dramatic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This is one of those books that will surprise you in many ways. It was not what I was expecting - of course I did not have the subtitle, only the main title at that time. I was expecting a book on philosophy from Peter Kreeft, a professor of Philosophy. But it was three debates on issues surrounding abortion lead by Socrates.

The format is three discussions led by Socorates with three groups of people. The first is with a Dr. Rex Herrod (King Herrod) held in a hospital in Athens in the present time. The second is again with Dr. Rex but also with his friend, a philosopher, Professor Atilla Tarian (Atilla the Hun) who is an ethicist, and it is held at a Philosophy convention. The final is in a Psychiatric ward with "Pop" Syke, (Pop Psychology) the psychologist.

Each debate is written as a mini morality play, like those of classical Greek plays. Each is written as a dialogue and written somewhat tongue in cheek, filled with puns and word plays.

This book was not an easy read, in that the material it deals with is very difficult and very controversial. It raises many questions that most people on both sides of the abortion debate probably do not think about. It is easy to read in that it was written in an easy style and flows nicely.

The main focus of all three debates is when does life begin, and who will speak for the most helpless, the unborn. This is a tough read but one that will not leave the reader unchanged.

The author clearly shows how emotionally-charged and irrational pro-abortion arguments really are when they are held up to the truth-penetrating light of logic and natural reason, which Professor Kreeft, using his brilliant wit in the role of Socrates, masterfully applies. The charge in a previous review that the author did not accurately present the women's perspective on abortion because all the characters in the book were male is somewhat puzzling--the characters are fictional to begin with; and besides, I can think of no argument that only a woman would be able to use to justify abortion that was not triumphantly refuted. Anyone who has argued himself or herself blue in the face with someone who is pro-abortion knows how discomfittingly illogical--oftentimes downright silly--and motivated by selfishness the arguments employed are. To the Christian this volume demonstrates that one does not need to rely solely upon Church teaching to argue that abortion is morally wrong--a strategy which will rarely succeed against a non-believer. Instead, it reveals the power that logic and reason alone can have in critically examining issues of social morality, which when used properly, can greatly bolster religious arguments. To the non-believer, this little book plainly shows that abortion is not exclusively a religious issue, as many people in today's society assume. I enthusiastically recommend this book to any pro-life person who wants to be successful in arguing against abortion as well as to persons who, being instinctively pro-choice, honestly desire to understand how anyone could be against this apparent woman's right.

Peter Kreeft, who is famous for his religious/philosophical dialogues, has another witty materpiece here. As the title suggests, Socrates is playing the role of the questioner against those who might defend abortion on demand. Socrates engages a doctor, lawyer and philosopher who argue for the pro-abortion position. The great thing about this book on the abortion issue is that Kreeft forces the reader to see what is at stake in this issue. He strips away emotionally loaded cases and bad arguments for abortion. This is a must read for anyone who isn't sure where they stand with abortion. If you don't get why pro-lifers are so uptight about about abortion, you need to read this book. The dialogue is easy to read, and it is unapologetically honest about where the truth leads.

Professor Kreeft (philosophy dept., Boston College), through the character of Socrates, eloquently and convincingly demolishes all the major arguments for abortion rights. He shows that unless one holds that human persons are more than physical property-things (that is, beings that can be exhaustively described by science), then there is no basis for "autonomy" (since there is no absolute substance or agent existing over time), no "rights" (since moral properties do not exist in a universe exhaustively described by science), and no purpose or nature to human persons (and thus, pro-aborts could not say that prolifers are "ignorant," for objecting to ignorance means that human beings have a natural purpose to know). The unborn, according to Kreeft, have an instrinsic dignity because they are human persons by nature. Whether they are able to act "autonomously" is irrelevant, for they are individual substances whose nature is human. A comatose person, a newborn, and someone sleeping lack the present ability to act autonomously, though they have the natural inherent capacity to do so. The unborn, because it is a human person, has the same natural inherent capacity. When a being lacks a particular function (e.g., it is unconscious, cannot speak, cannot hear), it does not lose its nature; it simply cannot perform the function. In fact, the lack is testimony of its nature. For example, rocks don't "lack" the ability to speak; they cannot speak by nature. Newborns, the dumb, and fetuses lack the ability to speak, because they are human persons by nature. It seems to me that those who label such thinking "Aristotelean" think that name-calling is sufficient to refute a viewpoint. The question is: Is it correct and do the arguments for it work? Also, if this view is wrong, which one is right and why? And can this alternative view ground the notions we think are intuitively correct: rights, the wrongness of prejudice, etc. If one were to call Kreeft's view "Feminism" rather than "Aristoteleanism," it would not make a wit of difference as to its cogency. The secret is to refute the position with real arguments. Some people think that reciting postmodern feminist mumbo-jumbo gobbledy-gook rather than actually making an argument is academically respectable. It isn't. And by the way, appealing to "science" as arbiter in a metaphysical debate is flawed in at least two ways: (1) it is a category mistake, and (2) the appeal to science itself is philosophical (and metaphysical) since it is something not discovered by science but something concluded as the result of philosophical reflection.

In this imaginative work, Socrates is resurrected and finds himself talking with various specialists about the issue of abortion. The questions he asks are appropriate for considering the ethics of this issue. A good book for those reflecting on the morality of abortion.

This book is an excellent introduction for the person who is just getting started in the abortion debate. Kreeft's clear logic and concise thinking will keep the reader entertained and convey the true issues behind the abortion debate.

If the book is considered as such, this book should get five stars. Its staged conversations are a great way to keep the readers attention. Kreeft also shows how many of the pro-abortion arguments beg the question, and that the pro-life side has a lot to say on this topic. However, I would stop there. Because Kreeft authored the book, one might get the impression that Kreeft is going to give a complete analysis of the abortion debate. Like is generally his style of doing with other topics. But this is not the case nor do I think that is what Kreeft intended to do. Given this books short size, and pages, I think Kreeft just wanted to give a good overview of the principles behind the abortion debate. In this regard, Kreeft did an excellent job and I would recommend the book to any person looking for that. So just keep in mind that there are some strong arguments for abortion that are left out in this book. Such as "unplugging the violinist" argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson.

If anybody gets more interested in the abortion debate, and would like to have a book that is guaranteed to convince even the most ardent pro-abortionist, I would strongly recommend, "Politically Correct Death : Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights" by Francis J. Beckwith. This book is sure to shake the ground of any sincere pro-abortionist out there. It includes all arguments in the abortion debate and clearly shows the logical power on the pro-life side.

Though parts of this book struck me as cheesy, an abortionist named Dr. Rex Herrod for instance. I think that Peter Kreeft has crafted a good analysis of the arguments around abortion, presenting a fair picture both sides of the argument. It's a short and enjoyable read. Kreeft can be accused at times of using cheesy dialog, but at least his writing remains unbiased and logical.

Peter Kreeft shows takes just about every argument for abortion and completely refutes it perfectly. A must read for people on both sides. Some people said he lacked scientific info. He's a philosopher, not a scientist and scientific info shows TONS of risks for women's bodies when they have abortions: ectopic pregnancies, breast cancer, infertility, depression, etc. etc. I should know because my sister's life was saved by giving birth to her son.

Peter Kreeft does not oversimplify a complicated issue -- he shows how UNcomplicated the issue of abortion can be, once it is seen as justification for the convenience of some. If you'd like to read a condensed, and very logical, refutation of some of the arguments of those who advocate abortion, visit members.aol.com/pladvocate/person.html and read Kreeft's thoughtful piece.

The dialogue format of this book is a great tool used by the author to bring this debate to life. The questions are fundamental in nature and arouses a great interest in the person of Socrates. I had not read anything about Socrates before and this book caused me to contemplate current issues in a logical fashion - just as Socrates did. If nothing else, readers are forced to consider their own lives and recognize that "the unexamined life is not worth living."