What do you think?
Rate this book
Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes
"An important work on a monumental subject." ―Anna Quindlen, New York Times Book Review On profound questions of birth, death, and human choice that are raised by abortion―where opposing sides see no common ground―how can the conflict be managed? The abortion debate in the United States today involves all Americans in complex questions of sex and power, historical change, politics, advances in medicine, and competing social values. In this best-selling book, an eminent constitutional authority shows how the nation has struggled with these questions and then sets forth new approaches that reflect both sides' passionately held convictions. The paperback edition includes discussion of the latest court decisions and excerpts from the major cases, including the Supreme Court's landmark June 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey .
336 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1990
2 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
About the author
Laurence H. Tribe
27 books51 followersLaurence Henry Tribe es un académico estadounidense que es profesor de la Universidad Carl M. Loeb en la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard de la Universidad de Harvard. La beca de Tribe se centra en el derecho constitucional estadounidense. También trabaja con la firma Massey & Gail LLP en una variedad de asuntos.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 10, 2017
The constitutional issues presented by the debate over Roe v Wade are fascinating. Lawrence Tribe reviews those questions in Abortion: Clash of Absolutes. Tribe is professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He contends the debate revolves around two absolutes: the right of the fetus to life and the right of the woman to control her body.
This conundrum is unique to the 20th century. In early post-revolutionary America abortion was legal and common. The first law against abortion was not passed until 1821 when abortion was prohibited only after viability or movement (usually the 4th or 5th month). Most early abortion laws were intended to protect the mother. The death rate from abortions was as high as 30% in hospitals, but abortions continued to increase until by the mid-19th century it was estimated that there was 1 abortion for every 4 live births. (Ironically, it is now calculated that a woman is 23 times more likely to die from childbirth than from a 1st trimester abortion in the 1990s; hence it has been argued that the life of the pregnant mother is always in danger when compared to the risk of abortion.)
Aristotelian and Rabbinic traditional doctrine theorized the fetus was not human until "animation" (40 days for a male and 80 days for a female after conception). Animation was defined as "infused with a soul."
Abortion laws gradually became more restrictive during the early 20th century until, ironically, pressure from the clergy resulted in a relaxation of those laws in the early 60s. The measles epidemic and the thalidomide tragedies had forced many women to seek illegal abortions and the clergy were appalled by the result. They formed an organization to refer women to clinics where they could obtain safe abortions. Paradoxically, it was Governor Ronald Reagan who was one of the first governors to sign into law a bill permitting abortion on demand (1967).
After placing abortion in historical context, Tribe delves into its constitutional aspects, dealing with each argument in turn from all sides. It is again ironic (so much of the issue is) that Roe v Wade, considered by some a notorious example of judicial activism, was written by a conservative justice (Blackmun), under a conservative Chief Justice (Burger), who was appointed by a conservative president (Nixon), precisely to reverse the perceived avalanche of "activist" decisions.
Generally, the pro-abortion camp has based their constitutional argument on unenumerated (not explicitly stated) privacy rights found to be flowing from several on the Bill of Rights. Precedent includes other court decisions including Skinner v Oklahoma, 1943, which guaranteed the right to reproduce, i.e. the state could not interfere with the parental decision to have a child; and Griswold v Connecticut, 1965, which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
Anti-abortion spokesmen, Judge Bork among others, have argued the right to privacy is no where stated in the Constitution; that abortion and the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Tribe considers this reasoning flawed. If the right of privacy to control one's body is not firmly entrenched as a constitutional principle, then government could legally and constitutionally mandate abortion at some future date for some ostensibly socially desirable goal such as population control or eugenics. Such is currently the case in China.
This prospect is not so far-fetched as it may seem. For years states have forced the sterilization of mental defectives, and one must remember Justice Holmes' famous argument that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." In fact, the state of Virginia required forced, involuntary sterilizations of the "unfit" as late as 1972.
On the other hand, if privacy and a woman's right to chose become the predominant ideology, then government loses the right to control an individual's body and ultimate liberty resides with the individual.
This conundrum is unique to the 20th century. In early post-revolutionary America abortion was legal and common. The first law against abortion was not passed until 1821 when abortion was prohibited only after viability or movement (usually the 4th or 5th month). Most early abortion laws were intended to protect the mother. The death rate from abortions was as high as 30% in hospitals, but abortions continued to increase until by the mid-19th century it was estimated that there was 1 abortion for every 4 live births. (Ironically, it is now calculated that a woman is 23 times more likely to die from childbirth than from a 1st trimester abortion in the 1990s; hence it has been argued that the life of the pregnant mother is always in danger when compared to the risk of abortion.)
Aristotelian and Rabbinic traditional doctrine theorized the fetus was not human until "animation" (40 days for a male and 80 days for a female after conception). Animation was defined as "infused with a soul."
Abortion laws gradually became more restrictive during the early 20th century until, ironically, pressure from the clergy resulted in a relaxation of those laws in the early 60s. The measles epidemic and the thalidomide tragedies had forced many women to seek illegal abortions and the clergy were appalled by the result. They formed an organization to refer women to clinics where they could obtain safe abortions. Paradoxically, it was Governor Ronald Reagan who was one of the first governors to sign into law a bill permitting abortion on demand (1967).
After placing abortion in historical context, Tribe delves into its constitutional aspects, dealing with each argument in turn from all sides. It is again ironic (so much of the issue is) that Roe v Wade, considered by some a notorious example of judicial activism, was written by a conservative justice (Blackmun), under a conservative Chief Justice (Burger), who was appointed by a conservative president (Nixon), precisely to reverse the perceived avalanche of "activist" decisions.
Generally, the pro-abortion camp has based their constitutional argument on unenumerated (not explicitly stated) privacy rights found to be flowing from several on the Bill of Rights. Precedent includes other court decisions including Skinner v Oklahoma, 1943, which guaranteed the right to reproduce, i.e. the state could not interfere with the parental decision to have a child; and Griswold v Connecticut, 1965, which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
Anti-abortion spokesmen, Judge Bork among others, have argued the right to privacy is no where stated in the Constitution; that abortion and the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Tribe considers this reasoning flawed. If the right of privacy to control one's body is not firmly entrenched as a constitutional principle, then government could legally and constitutionally mandate abortion at some future date for some ostensibly socially desirable goal such as population control or eugenics. Such is currently the case in China.
This prospect is not so far-fetched as it may seem. For years states have forced the sterilization of mental defectives, and one must remember Justice Holmes' famous argument that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." In fact, the state of Virginia required forced, involuntary sterilizations of the "unfit" as late as 1972.
On the other hand, if privacy and a woman's right to chose become the predominant ideology, then government loses the right to control an individual's body and ultimate liberty resides with the individual.
March 15, 2015
Tribe lays out a well-researched and informed snap shot of the abortion debate. The most interesting chapters outline the history of abortion in the United States and around the world. Both give important context for the development of the debate that culminated in Roe v. Wade and continues to rave today.
Some arguments are left undeveloped, however. In particular, Tribe gives mere lip service to the question "does it matter if the fetus is a person?". His response merely recounts Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument about waking up in the middle of the night attached to a world-class violinist. After many other nuanced and thoughtful arguments, Tribe's handling of this case was less than deft.
Overall a good read for anyone wanting a framing of the abortion controversy in the United States. The book has a decidedly pro-choice bend, but does call for civility and understanding when apporaching an issue in which we are all invested.
Some arguments are left undeveloped, however. In particular, Tribe gives mere lip service to the question "does it matter if the fetus is a person?". His response merely recounts Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument about waking up in the middle of the night attached to a world-class violinist. After many other nuanced and thoughtful arguments, Tribe's handling of this case was less than deft.
Overall a good read for anyone wanting a framing of the abortion controversy in the United States. The book has a decidedly pro-choice bend, but does call for civility and understanding when apporaching an issue in which we are all invested.
December 31, 2017
A must read if you need information on how the abortion laws evolved in the United States. It has a brief background about the history of abortion as a medical procedure. The only thing is that the writing is too legal, which isn't a bad thing, but if you're not a legislation nerd, you'll find some parts pretty heavy to digest.
May 31, 2025
Tribe is a constitutional law expert, but is not really aiming for scholarly objectivity in this book. He sets out the legal arguments on both sides impartially enough, but is clearly partisan (on the pro-legality side) in his political and social commentary. He understands the legal arguments on both sides, but on an emotional level, I think he only "gets" his own side. I found this a little off-putting, but there was enough of interest there to make it a worthwhile read nonetheless.
May 5, 2020
Mostly covering the legal history - which I was not as interested in - but enlightening especially how the Catholic Church hierarchy really initiated and pushed the political agenda and an exploration of the bottomline feelings/thinking of pro-lifers (hint: control of women).
November 20, 2013
Excellent history of abortion law and practice both in the United States and throughout the world, followed by an in-depth (without ever making you feel in-over-your-head) examination of constitutional law as pertains to abortion, wrapped up with a section on 'how can we find common ground'?
The books title and introduction suggest a nonpartisan unbiased perspective, but by the conclusion Tribe pretty clearly appears to be in the pro-choice camp (not a gigantic problem, as he offers plenty of support for pro-life argument ... I just didn't feel exactly like I got the whole perspective).
What I'll remember most, probably, is Tribe's suggestion that to bridge the gap between people of pro life and pro choice beliefs, one solution is to reduce the number of women who want to have abortions by making motherhood less of a financial and career burden as it currently is for American women. In France, for example, women get federally mandated paid maternity leave, and 3 years of parental leave after which they're guaranteed their same job or an equivalent. This means becoming mothers won't derail their entire lives as independent, professional women. America's attitude, as it frequently is, seems to say "do what you want but you're on your own" - and maybe if our government could provide as much support and encouragement for parenthood as European countries do, we wouldn't have 100 abortions for every 1 that happens in France.
The books title and introduction suggest a nonpartisan unbiased perspective, but by the conclusion Tribe pretty clearly appears to be in the pro-choice camp (not a gigantic problem, as he offers plenty of support for pro-life argument ... I just didn't feel exactly like I got the whole perspective).
What I'll remember most, probably, is Tribe's suggestion that to bridge the gap between people of pro life and pro choice beliefs, one solution is to reduce the number of women who want to have abortions by making motherhood less of a financial and career burden as it currently is for American women. In France, for example, women get federally mandated paid maternity leave, and 3 years of parental leave after which they're guaranteed their same job or an equivalent. This means becoming mothers won't derail their entire lives as independent, professional women. America's attitude, as it frequently is, seems to say "do what you want but you're on your own" - and maybe if our government could provide as much support and encouragement for parenthood as European countries do, we wouldn't have 100 abortions for every 1 that happens in France.
February 9, 2018
Totalmente de acuerdo con lo que dice el autor:
"No hay nada más devastador que una vida sin libertad. Una vida en la que una persona se ve obligada a ser madre o padre es justamente esa clase de vida. La violación es una de las formas más profundas de negación de la libertad, y obligar a una mujer a dar a luz al hijo de su violador es una agresión a su humanidad. ¿Qué tan distinto resulta obligarla a seguir con un embarazo y llegar a ser madre sólo porque a pesar de su diligencia al usar métodos anticonceptivos por casualidad fallaron?"
La nefasta influencia de la religión en hispanoamerica limita el control de la natalidad y no permite a la mujer decidir sobre su cuerpo.
"No hay nada más devastador que una vida sin libertad. Una vida en la que una persona se ve obligada a ser madre o padre es justamente esa clase de vida. La violación es una de las formas más profundas de negación de la libertad, y obligar a una mujer a dar a luz al hijo de su violador es una agresión a su humanidad. ¿Qué tan distinto resulta obligarla a seguir con un embarazo y llegar a ser madre sólo porque a pesar de su diligencia al usar métodos anticonceptivos por casualidad fallaron?"
La nefasta influencia de la religión en hispanoamerica limita el control de la natalidad y no permite a la mujer decidir sobre su cuerpo.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews