What do you think?
Rate this book
Abortion: Beyond the Polarization and a Way Forward
Cuts through the mass confusion surrounding abortion and lays out solid common ground
The abortion debate in the United States is confused. Ratings-driven media coverage highlights extreme views and creates the illusion that we are stuck in a hopeless stalemate. In this book Charles Camosy argues that our polarized public discourse hides the fact that most Americans actually agree on the major issues at stake in abortion morality and law.
Unpacking the complexity of the abortion issue, Camosy shows that placing oneself on either side of the typical polarizations -- pro-life vs. pro-choice, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican -- only serves to further confuse the debate and limits our ability to have fruitful dialogue. Camosy then proposes a new public policy that he believes is consistent with the beliefs of the broad majority of Americans and supported by the best ideas and arguments about abortion from both secular and religious sources.
The abortion debate in the United States is confused. Ratings-driven media coverage highlights extreme views and creates the illusion that we are stuck in a hopeless stalemate. In this book Charles Camosy argues that our polarized public discourse hides the fact that most Americans actually agree on the major issues at stake in abortion morality and law.
Unpacking the complexity of the abortion issue, Camosy shows that placing oneself on either side of the typical polarizations -- pro-life vs. pro-choice, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican -- only serves to further confuse the debate and limits our ability to have fruitful dialogue. Camosy then proposes a new public policy that he believes is consistent with the beliefs of the broad majority of Americans and supported by the best ideas and arguments about abortion from both secular and religious sources.
221 pages, Hardcover
First published April 15, 2015
24 people are currently reading
224 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
June 9, 2017
As I was reading through this I kept waiting for my mind to be blown. That didn't happen. When I finished it I thought, "Hmm, that was ok." Since being done, though, I've realized that I'm thinking much more clearly about the subject and with categories that I never had before or never understood as clearly. I think that's an indication of a good book. Each chapter brought some really helpful contributions to the argument, and I really appreciate how well Camosy tears down the overly simplistic binary categories that are so quickly thrown around and don't really do justice to the complexities of the issues involved in thinking through abortion. I also love his tone and the way he really seeks to understand the concerns of those who have different views on the issue. His emphasis on looking for common concerns with those who seem to have very different values is admirable. I also appreciate how he understands that we not only have to be able to clearly and winsomely express our ethical views/concerns, but also think through how those can be applied to the complexities of our legal system and the concerns of other citizens who do not have the same point of view.
February 24, 2016
I was recommended this book as a "compromise" book to bring pro-life and pro-choice movements that could, as the title suggests, get beyond the culture wars.
Reading the book, it is clear to me that it is not at all a compromise position, not in the slightest. In fact, I think it is a Trojan horse to get the fetus personhood status. Camosy has a relatively well-documented book, but he still falls prey to a number of straight-up factual errors of the pro-life movement generally. He refers to "partial-birth abortion," even though he has to know this was invented by the pro-lifers because it sounded bad and isn't a medical term. He also believes birth control causes abortions (p. 69), which is beyond scientifically ridiculous and entirely inexcusable for someone as reasoned as he claims to be to perpetuate. He also believes that abortion should be re-criminalized except for the few exceptions he is willing to grant, and does not believe re-criminalizing abortion will negatively impact women.
Now, here is the Faustian bargain: the federal legislative program he proposes (MPCPA) would grant equal pay for women, protect victims of domestic violence, 21 weeks of parental leave, universal Pre-K and child care, end for-profit adoption, coordinate efforts to collect child support, and more. Now this is all great stuff, and stuff pro-choice people would agree with. But in exchange, the fetus would be granted personhood and abortion outside of the narrow confines of Camosy's model would be re-criminalized. I would reject this deal outright, particularly because Camosy's case for personhood of the fetus is so sloppy in the book to begin with. Chapter two addresses this question, resulting in essentially that the evidence is inconclusive, and then jumps the logic gap to conclude on the basis of nothing that it is obvious the fetus should be a person from implantation. I would also reject this bargain because it provides no coverage for comprehensive birth control availability.
So this attempt to get beyond the abortion wars fails under its own power. It isn't a compromise of any kind on the matter of abortion, it is ceding all the territory to the pro-life movement in exchange for federal programs that we should be doing anyway for completely different reasons. This isn't really middle ground between the pro-life and pro-choice camps, it is a middle ground compromise within the pro-life movement itself, between hardline radicals who want all abortion criminalized and the death penalty applied, and those who only want most abortion outlawed and only *some* jail time applied for the women and doctors who continue to operate outside the bounds of the legal limits.
Camosy gets props for trying, and he really does try to be even-handed and reasonable. He dismisses religious arguments in favor or reason, philosophy, and science, which is appreciated. But he's overly obsessed with Peter Singer (given the amount of times Singer is brought up and refuted, he apparently thinks most pro-choice people like or even agree with Singer's arguments), he continues to slip pro-life falsehoods like "partial-birth abortions" and the notion that birth control causes abortions into the argument, and his proposal, at least it seems to me, is just another effort to get the personhood status for the fetus, which is the pro-life movement's dearest wish and re-criminalize it except in certain very limited circumstances.
Reading the book, it is clear to me that it is not at all a compromise position, not in the slightest. In fact, I think it is a Trojan horse to get the fetus personhood status. Camosy has a relatively well-documented book, but he still falls prey to a number of straight-up factual errors of the pro-life movement generally. He refers to "partial-birth abortion," even though he has to know this was invented by the pro-lifers because it sounded bad and isn't a medical term. He also believes birth control causes abortions (p. 69), which is beyond scientifically ridiculous and entirely inexcusable for someone as reasoned as he claims to be to perpetuate. He also believes that abortion should be re-criminalized except for the few exceptions he is willing to grant, and does not believe re-criminalizing abortion will negatively impact women.
Now, here is the Faustian bargain: the federal legislative program he proposes (MPCPA) would grant equal pay for women, protect victims of domestic violence, 21 weeks of parental leave, universal Pre-K and child care, end for-profit adoption, coordinate efforts to collect child support, and more. Now this is all great stuff, and stuff pro-choice people would agree with. But in exchange, the fetus would be granted personhood and abortion outside of the narrow confines of Camosy's model would be re-criminalized. I would reject this deal outright, particularly because Camosy's case for personhood of the fetus is so sloppy in the book to begin with. Chapter two addresses this question, resulting in essentially that the evidence is inconclusive, and then jumps the logic gap to conclude on the basis of nothing that it is obvious the fetus should be a person from implantation. I would also reject this bargain because it provides no coverage for comprehensive birth control availability.
So this attempt to get beyond the abortion wars fails under its own power. It isn't a compromise of any kind on the matter of abortion, it is ceding all the territory to the pro-life movement in exchange for federal programs that we should be doing anyway for completely different reasons. This isn't really middle ground between the pro-life and pro-choice camps, it is a middle ground compromise within the pro-life movement itself, between hardline radicals who want all abortion criminalized and the death penalty applied, and those who only want most abortion outlawed and only *some* jail time applied for the women and doctors who continue to operate outside the bounds of the legal limits.
Camosy gets props for trying, and he really does try to be even-handed and reasonable. He dismisses religious arguments in favor or reason, philosophy, and science, which is appreciated. But he's overly obsessed with Peter Singer (given the amount of times Singer is brought up and refuted, he apparently thinks most pro-choice people like or even agree with Singer's arguments), he continues to slip pro-life falsehoods like "partial-birth abortions" and the notion that birth control causes abortions into the argument, and his proposal, at least it seems to me, is just another effort to get the personhood status for the fetus, which is the pro-life movement's dearest wish and re-criminalize it except in certain very limited circumstances.
December 8, 2016
The 2016 presidential campaign and election have made this a tough year for me. One of the things that added to my stress was that most of my co-workers have very different political views from my own, and so any time hot-button issues come up in the workplace, I usually feel like it's me (always right, of course! :)), and then everybody else. That gets wearying. A positive spin on that situation is that it causes me to keep current on those issues that I know will continue to come up: climate change, evolution, and abortion. Our views on abortion are not actually so different, but what hurts me to hear is when a colleague makes this the sole factor for deciding how to vote. For myself, I haven't even been certain to what extent abortion should be a matter of government involvement. I've sometimes wondered if its current legality creates more space for people to individually and together make wise decisions. But in discussing this around the office, I came to realize that I really don't know much about the true complexity of the issue. I don't like speaking about big topics with only half-information, so I was glad to see a recommendation for Charles Camosy's Beyond the Abortion Wars. I knew one thing for certain: I'm tired of the snide, hateful rhetoric, the dualism, the "war." Camosy's title was exactly what I wanted.
Reading Camosy's book, I learned a lot about the nuance and complexity of the issue. He helped me refine my concept of what "endangerment of the mother's life" really means, and he explained the "in the case of rape" context in a helpful, more nuanced way. In answer to my question about whether a law prohibiting abortion is really a worthy goal, Camosy shared statistics about Ireland and Poland, two Westernized nations that do have laws against most abortions. With these examples, he suggests that there is some extent to which the law is a teacher of society--that what the law allows and prohibits comes to be reflected in the social conscious. In recommending a law against most abortions, Camosy also recommends a lesser penalty than death or life sentence for anyone who breaks the law, which helped me when I was feeling from the first part of his book that there's no way around extreme punishment if abortion is illegal. (I also think this needs to temper the vehemence with which people seek such a law through the argument that "abortion is murder." The logical consequences of that argument, should it win the day, may be quite severe.)
Camosy, a Catholic, is obviously most closely aligned with a typical "pro-life" perspective, and so I doubt that his book will be widely accepted by those who consider themselves "pro-choice." (He wants to get away from either-or terms like that, but it's really difficult--even for him!--to do so. The impulse is excellent, though, and I hope the discussion can move away from that framework.) I expect that his primary accomplishment with this book will be if he convinces other people with the "pro-life" perspective to consider backing down from the most extreme "all abortion is murder" stance. That was my experience with the book, at least.
Again and again, Camosy returns to the foundational idea that abortion ought to push us to make society better for all women, so that abortion becomes a choice that women need less and less. He also points out how the very idea of "free choice" is often mistaken, as girls and women are not free to make their own choices but instead are coerced or forced by boyfriends, husbands, fathers, or the restrictions of society itself. In the "way forward" that he proposes, I love that he incorporates a number of measures that would improve life for women generally. What a great thing that would be for America to show to the world!
Though it's not a perfect book, I found it a good introduction, and I wish that policy makers would take a look at it and move the discussion more in Camosy's suggested direction than it has become. It will take a coordinated effort by the media, politicians, evangelical Christians, and the average person--which, as I write it, makes me feel a little deflated. But it is possible to change the tone of the discussion! In my conversations with co-workers, I will now be speaking, I hope, in a better way. I pray that we can all make those small changes in everyday life.
Reading Camosy's book, I learned a lot about the nuance and complexity of the issue. He helped me refine my concept of what "endangerment of the mother's life" really means, and he explained the "in the case of rape" context in a helpful, more nuanced way. In answer to my question about whether a law prohibiting abortion is really a worthy goal, Camosy shared statistics about Ireland and Poland, two Westernized nations that do have laws against most abortions. With these examples, he suggests that there is some extent to which the law is a teacher of society--that what the law allows and prohibits comes to be reflected in the social conscious. In recommending a law against most abortions, Camosy also recommends a lesser penalty than death or life sentence for anyone who breaks the law, which helped me when I was feeling from the first part of his book that there's no way around extreme punishment if abortion is illegal. (I also think this needs to temper the vehemence with which people seek such a law through the argument that "abortion is murder." The logical consequences of that argument, should it win the day, may be quite severe.)
Camosy, a Catholic, is obviously most closely aligned with a typical "pro-life" perspective, and so I doubt that his book will be widely accepted by those who consider themselves "pro-choice." (He wants to get away from either-or terms like that, but it's really difficult--even for him!--to do so. The impulse is excellent, though, and I hope the discussion can move away from that framework.) I expect that his primary accomplishment with this book will be if he convinces other people with the "pro-life" perspective to consider backing down from the most extreme "all abortion is murder" stance. That was my experience with the book, at least.
Again and again, Camosy returns to the foundational idea that abortion ought to push us to make society better for all women, so that abortion becomes a choice that women need less and less. He also points out how the very idea of "free choice" is often mistaken, as girls and women are not free to make their own choices but instead are coerced or forced by boyfriends, husbands, fathers, or the restrictions of society itself. In the "way forward" that he proposes, I love that he incorporates a number of measures that would improve life for women generally. What a great thing that would be for America to show to the world!
Though it's not a perfect book, I found it a good introduction, and I wish that policy makers would take a look at it and move the discussion more in Camosy's suggested direction than it has become. It will take a coordinated effort by the media, politicians, evangelical Christians, and the average person--which, as I write it, makes me feel a little deflated. But it is possible to change the tone of the discussion! In my conversations with co-workers, I will now be speaking, I hope, in a better way. I pray that we can all make those small changes in everyday life.
July 6, 2015
There are a lot of problems with this book, and it happens to hit on a lot of my pet peeves both as an academic and someone who is regularly asked for an opinion on writing that attempts to address a crossover audience. These books are presented with a number of problems, the first of which is that they are necessarily interdisciplinary, and wind up having to play fast and loose with their intellectual standards in order to blend, make points, etc. There are a number of successful examples of this in academic writing; there are also a number of examples that are less successful. I think this is probably one of the latter.
There are a number of problems with some of the intellectual claims made in the book; there is some misleading representation of philosophers alongside views they don't hold (see the discussion of Michael Tooley; pp. 86-87) and smuggling in a "recent" poll on the political dynamics of the United States that is far older than the other polling data he uses, but omitting the date of that one particular poll. (pp. 26) These aren't, for me, trivial problems. I think that it's important to be clear about what people believe, and I think that Camosy plays a bit fast and loose with both general social views and those of philosophers, in those instances.
I suppose, in the spirit of that charity, I should note the major success of the book. It demonstrates that the discussion of abortion is more complicated than its conventional representation in popular media. I think that, for many mainstream readers, that success would be satisfactory to render the book a major contribution to the library. This, really, is the major accomplishment of the opening gambit of the book, though, and not it's primary purpose.
One of the central claims of the book is that it will present arguments that are accessible and compelling to secular thinkers. I don't think this is satisfactorily accomplished. One of the moves that is made in the book is the attempt to put both the teachings of the Catholic Church and secular philosophy on the same intellectual playing field, as alternative evaluations of metaphysical concepts. To borrow from Camosy, they "are grounded in contested, abstract, faith-based claims about what a person is, the right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and more." (pp. 107) Set aside the possibly annoyed reaction to the term "faith based." (I admit, I had to take a moment to actively do this.) Camosy's point, for context, is that we ought to allow religious principles to guide legal judgment because they are at parity, in this respect, with comparable secular principles; I'm not sure a secular thinker believes this is so, nor am I sure Camosy believes this is so.
But, suppose that we believed this was the case, and that we (rightly) believed that the mere fact of "being secular" was not a good reason to favor one set of principles to another. While the views are contested, we can test them for consistency and the cogency of their position regarding the issue of abortion, and this is one place where Camosy's book experiences a painful tension. There are a set of reasons that some Catholics (as well as other groups of Christians) are "pro-life," and there are reasons a secular person might accept the "pro-life" position. But these two views quite simply aren't the same. Camosy's book positions itself to be forward looking, but (over and over again) it runs up against a tension between the secular reasons for accepting abortion and the religious reasons. This view leads Camosy to present claims that have a religious flavor to them as though they were secular and vice versa. Teleological views of reproduction, for example, get offered as secular reasons, but aren't palatable to a huge portion of those secular folks.
The goal of the book is to come up with a compromise, and Camosy proposes one. This is, I think, an admirable goal and an ultimately very ambitious one. I think that in order to be successful, though, one has to (at least) adequately represent the positions of the groups that are supposed to come to a compromise, and I don't think that the book successfully does that. There is one view in the book that is represented carefully, and that is the Catholic view on medical ethics; I suppose this is unsurprising. Still, if Camosy had treated his opponents with the thoughtful interpretation and nuance he treats Catholic medical ethics, acknowledging the places where the view defies expectation (either in brief, when he lacks the time, or at length, when it's important) then I think I would've been satisfied.
Initially, I likely wouldn't have recommended the book to anyone. I don't think that the book succeeds in its goal, and I think that popularizing it amongst "pro-life" folks (those most likely to read it, and those who recommended that I read it and give feedback) has a number of problematic consequences, including reinforcing the view that superficial readings of the Bible are at intellectual parity with academic philosophy. (This is not Camosy's intention, I don't think, but it is a consequence of a number of the statements he makes, as well as similar statements and sentiments he invokes advanced elsewhere by Beckwith.) However, I do think that the redeeming value in the book can be found in my own dissatisfaction with it. I want Camosy to represent the views I take seriously as well as he represents the Catholic Church's view; insofar as the book does a good job representing Catholic teaching on the issue of abortion, (along with the initial success of demonstrating some of the political complexity around the issue) it is a worthwhile read. As an introduction to the subject of abortion, and a resource for audiences looking to engage and come to a fruitful solution, though, I don't think so.
Normally, I don't have any interaction with the authors of the book I'm reading. This proved to be an exception, and that interaction tempered my view, somewhat. During the course of my reading, I noticed that Camosy was following me on Twitter, and a brief exchange with him reaffirming his mission for the book influenced some of what appears above.
There are a number of problems with some of the intellectual claims made in the book; there is some misleading representation of philosophers alongside views they don't hold (see the discussion of Michael Tooley; pp. 86-87) and smuggling in a "recent" poll on the political dynamics of the United States that is far older than the other polling data he uses, but omitting the date of that one particular poll. (pp. 26) These aren't, for me, trivial problems. I think that it's important to be clear about what people believe, and I think that Camosy plays a bit fast and loose with both general social views and those of philosophers, in those instances.
I suppose, in the spirit of that charity, I should note the major success of the book. It demonstrates that the discussion of abortion is more complicated than its conventional representation in popular media. I think that, for many mainstream readers, that success would be satisfactory to render the book a major contribution to the library. This, really, is the major accomplishment of the opening gambit of the book, though, and not it's primary purpose.
One of the central claims of the book is that it will present arguments that are accessible and compelling to secular thinkers. I don't think this is satisfactorily accomplished. One of the moves that is made in the book is the attempt to put both the teachings of the Catholic Church and secular philosophy on the same intellectual playing field, as alternative evaluations of metaphysical concepts. To borrow from Camosy, they "are grounded in contested, abstract, faith-based claims about what a person is, the right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and more." (pp. 107) Set aside the possibly annoyed reaction to the term "faith based." (I admit, I had to take a moment to actively do this.) Camosy's point, for context, is that we ought to allow religious principles to guide legal judgment because they are at parity, in this respect, with comparable secular principles; I'm not sure a secular thinker believes this is so, nor am I sure Camosy believes this is so.
But, suppose that we believed this was the case, and that we (rightly) believed that the mere fact of "being secular" was not a good reason to favor one set of principles to another. While the views are contested, we can test them for consistency and the cogency of their position regarding the issue of abortion, and this is one place where Camosy's book experiences a painful tension. There are a set of reasons that some Catholics (as well as other groups of Christians) are "pro-life," and there are reasons a secular person might accept the "pro-life" position. But these two views quite simply aren't the same. Camosy's book positions itself to be forward looking, but (over and over again) it runs up against a tension between the secular reasons for accepting abortion and the religious reasons. This view leads Camosy to present claims that have a religious flavor to them as though they were secular and vice versa. Teleological views of reproduction, for example, get offered as secular reasons, but aren't palatable to a huge portion of those secular folks.
The goal of the book is to come up with a compromise, and Camosy proposes one. This is, I think, an admirable goal and an ultimately very ambitious one. I think that in order to be successful, though, one has to (at least) adequately represent the positions of the groups that are supposed to come to a compromise, and I don't think that the book successfully does that. There is one view in the book that is represented carefully, and that is the Catholic view on medical ethics; I suppose this is unsurprising. Still, if Camosy had treated his opponents with the thoughtful interpretation and nuance he treats Catholic medical ethics, acknowledging the places where the view defies expectation (either in brief, when he lacks the time, or at length, when it's important) then I think I would've been satisfied.
Initially, I likely wouldn't have recommended the book to anyone. I don't think that the book succeeds in its goal, and I think that popularizing it amongst "pro-life" folks (those most likely to read it, and those who recommended that I read it and give feedback) has a number of problematic consequences, including reinforcing the view that superficial readings of the Bible are at intellectual parity with academic philosophy. (This is not Camosy's intention, I don't think, but it is a consequence of a number of the statements he makes, as well as similar statements and sentiments he invokes advanced elsewhere by Beckwith.) However, I do think that the redeeming value in the book can be found in my own dissatisfaction with it. I want Camosy to represent the views I take seriously as well as he represents the Catholic Church's view; insofar as the book does a good job representing Catholic teaching on the issue of abortion, (along with the initial success of demonstrating some of the political complexity around the issue) it is a worthwhile read. As an introduction to the subject of abortion, and a resource for audiences looking to engage and come to a fruitful solution, though, I don't think so.
Normally, I don't have any interaction with the authors of the book I'm reading. This proved to be an exception, and that interaction tempered my view, somewhat. During the course of my reading, I noticed that Camosy was following me on Twitter, and a brief exchange with him reaffirming his mission for the book influenced some of what appears above.
May 13, 2019
I came in excited to read this and having watched some of the Camosy-Singer debates on various issues. However, I found that Camosy, perhaps unsurprisingly, doesn't present much of a way 'beyond the abortion wars'. His fundamental solution (spoiler alert here) is just a repackaged ban on abortion with a few exceptions. It would be both polarizing and heavily restrictive.
There's absolutely no way this kind of idea would become law, and it might not even fly under Roe v. Wade. Camosy subscribes to this idea that a rise of independent voter registration means there are more centrists unattached to political parties. The problem with this is that many of these "independents" are only nominally so, and lean one way or the other quite heavily. I also find flaws with the idea that millennials are actually more pro-life, or that it's enough of a salient issue for Hispanic or young voters to cause realignment. He also doesn't account for the backlash potential from his proposal, which would be immense. It doesn't provide a strong enough middle ground to actually move beyond the rhetorical polarization we see today. In this sense, the book fails to live up to its premise.
On the other hand, Camosy provides an incredible amount of facts and figures that are useful and don't fit any one agenda. He acknowledges the crucial arguments on both sides, which makes this book important for anybody ('pro-choice' or 'pro-life') looking to learn more about the arguments employed by both 'sides' (which he reveals as a flawed concept) in the debate. In this sense, it was a fascinating read for the politically inclined who want to learn more about the relevant arguments and their philosophical bases.
There's absolutely no way this kind of idea would become law, and it might not even fly under Roe v. Wade. Camosy subscribes to this idea that a rise of independent voter registration means there are more centrists unattached to political parties. The problem with this is that many of these "independents" are only nominally so, and lean one way or the other quite heavily. I also find flaws with the idea that millennials are actually more pro-life, or that it's enough of a salient issue for Hispanic or young voters to cause realignment. He also doesn't account for the backlash potential from his proposal, which would be immense. It doesn't provide a strong enough middle ground to actually move beyond the rhetorical polarization we see today. In this sense, the book fails to live up to its premise.
On the other hand, Camosy provides an incredible amount of facts and figures that are useful and don't fit any one agenda. He acknowledges the crucial arguments on both sides, which makes this book important for anybody ('pro-choice' or 'pro-life') looking to learn more about the arguments employed by both 'sides' (which he reveals as a flawed concept) in the debate. In this sense, it was a fascinating read for the politically inclined who want to learn more about the relevant arguments and their philosophical bases.
November 24, 2018
Regardless of whether I or any other reader agreed with him 100%, that isn’t the point. He did what he set out to do, which was to outline a legislative way forward based on the things about abortion that a large majority of our country agrees on, across party lines, across religious/nonreligious lines, across age lines, and across gender lines, such as abortion being legal to save a mother’s life (88% support), abortion being legal in cases of rape (83%), banning abortion in the third trimester (80%), and based on areas where “pro-life” advocates and women’s-rights advocates have good reason to work together: establishing guaranteed parental leave, increasing subsidized childcare, etc. He also has a very thoughtful and careful conversation around the basis of controversy over abortion, the history, and the philosophical principles at play, which grounds his later policy suggestions. It made me hopeful that maybe we’re not at a permanent acrimonious ideological stalemate.
July 25, 2017
Camosy offers an evenhanded, non-vitriolic account of the current abortion debates that have defined what's been called "America's second civil war" since Roe v. Wade's passage in 1973. The book aims to be accessible to both "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" (terms that Camosy puts in quotes to suggest that even these binaries are limited) but is overall rooted in Catholic moral theology, although accessibly so. I think the book ends up being different from what it intends to do--to find common ground in the abortion debates--because the personhood of the fetus is a nonstarter for many pro-choice advocates. That said, what the book *does* do--talk about the abortion debates in constructive terms with actual policy consequences--is admirable and worth engaging. I especially thought the policy proposals regarding federal paid programs for mothers and children was worth the price of the book, and could convince some Democrats who don't enshrine abortion rights as core to their party's platform. I also found the overview of the pro-life feminist case to be helpful. Overall a helpful and evenhanded resource for anyone who's invested in these debates.
July 8, 2015
This was well thought out, and although I didn't agree with all of the author's conclusions, I found it a valuable book and a good addition to philosophical writings on abortion
March 7, 2018
Most helpful thing I've read on abortion in quite some time. Eschewing the standard talking points, Camosy examines the polling data on what Americans actually believe, as well as evidence for why despite this polling data, there is a stalemate in American policy. My guess is that very few readers will agree with ALL of Camosy's conclusions. But his data and analysis need to be grappled with, as he makes a compelling case.
From the publisher... "The abortion debate in the United States is very confused. Ratings-driven media coverage highlights extreme views and creates the illusion that we are stuck in a hopeless stalemate. In this book Charles Camosy argues that our polarized public discourse hides the fact that most Americans actually agree on the basic issues at stake in abortion morality and law.First unpacking the real complexity of the abortion issue, Camosy shows that placing oneself on either side of the typical polarizations -- pro-life vs. pro-choice, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican -- only serves to further confuse the debate and limits our ability to have fruitful dialogue. Finally, Camosy proposes a new public policy that is consistent with the beliefs of the broad majority of Americans and supported by the best ideas and arguments about abortion from both secular and religious sources."
From the publisher... "The abortion debate in the United States is very confused. Ratings-driven media coverage highlights extreme views and creates the illusion that we are stuck in a hopeless stalemate. In this book Charles Camosy argues that our polarized public discourse hides the fact that most Americans actually agree on the basic issues at stake in abortion morality and law.First unpacking the real complexity of the abortion issue, Camosy shows that placing oneself on either side of the typical polarizations -- pro-life vs. pro-choice, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican -- only serves to further confuse the debate and limits our ability to have fruitful dialogue. Finally, Camosy proposes a new public policy that is consistent with the beliefs of the broad majority of Americans and supported by the best ideas and arguments about abortion from both secular and religious sources."
June 7, 2023
If you're too deeply entrenched on your ideas about abortion, you will find this book aggravating. Just skimming the bad reviews, Camosy is either "not pro-life enough" or "not pro-choice enough," which he calls in the conclusion of the book. He knows that and you're not his audience anyway. He specifically states that even if all that comes from someone reading this book is clearer categories and ways of speaking about this issue, then he has succeeded.
That was true for me. This was a perspective-changing book for me and made me think less emphatically and more empathetically but I also think more carefully, thinking in categories and distinctions I hadn't made before. I think his final proposal leads naturally from his arguments and I appreciate his discussion on how we enact what we might believe morally in a pluralistic society. I think this is a key issue that Christians misunderstand. At one point in explaining his compromise he makes the distinction between "morally wrong" and "intrinsically evil." These are the kinds of careful arguments he tries to make. And his tone throughout is even-handed. I learned a lot thinking through this book.
That was true for me. This was a perspective-changing book for me and made me think less emphatically and more empathetically but I also think more carefully, thinking in categories and distinctions I hadn't made before. I think his final proposal leads naturally from his arguments and I appreciate his discussion on how we enact what we might believe morally in a pluralistic society. I think this is a key issue that Christians misunderstand. At one point in explaining his compromise he makes the distinction between "morally wrong" and "intrinsically evil." These are the kinds of careful arguments he tries to make. And his tone throughout is even-handed. I learned a lot thinking through this book.
November 19, 2020
I thought I would appreciate this book, but it relies on too many assumptions about its readers and the general population, it indulges in too much specifically Catholic moral theology to have universal appeal, and it just fails to speak to anyone who’s not already in the conversation. Nothing new or “beyond” here, unfortunately.
February 2, 2023
Challenges which need a 2022 update
I never quite got around to reading this one, even though I’ve found myself largely aligned with Dr. Camosy’s public thinking on approaching abortion and women’s sexual health. This is still a great introduction to developing critical thinking skills about abortion in our post-Roe world, but yah… needs an update.
I never quite got around to reading this one, even though I’ve found myself largely aligned with Dr. Camosy’s public thinking on approaching abortion and women’s sexual health. This is still a great introduction to developing critical thinking skills about abortion in our post-Roe world, but yah… needs an update.
October 10, 2020
Self-aware, nuanced, persuasive, surprising. Theoretical/ethical as well as practical/political. Compromising and uncompromising in all the right places, Camosy refuses to settle for any of the tired binaries. Regardless of where you currently stand, this is highly recommended reading.
January 8, 2022
Interesting book! I didn't agree with everything but it was still a good read. Camosy has good arguments and he's clearly compassionate, trying to find common ground so people can work together. Looking forward to reading more from him!
August 27, 2020
As a Catholic...I am very thankful for this book. It goes beyond the binary language that rules the abortion discussion and makes a proposal for moving forward that is possible.
August 6, 2022
Clear exposition of positions and related facts regarding abortion and how our current culture fails to adequately support mother and prenatal child. Haunting.
May 16, 2021
Raised some good points about a way forward while not sacrificing the issues around the lives of the unborn and the women who carry them.
June 23, 2016
Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation by Charles C. Camosy attempts to break down the divisive all or nothing form of public and political debate on abortion, address the nuances and come to a compromise position suitable for the vast majority. This commendable goal is not achieved in this ambitious book, though I don't believe it was for lack of honest effort.
While Camosy tries to avoid the hardline dichotomies that rule abortion debates (liberal/conservative, secular/religious, etc) he never fully leaves behind the secular vs religious type of argument. Additionally, the part of the compromise that might be considered as the right/Republican compromise calls for the types of assistance and security that should be in place regardless of any position on abortion. In exchange, the pro-choice side is supposed to pretty much capitulate on abortion.
While he proposes legislation that would indeed help women and children (which shouldn't be tied to abortion but done simply because it is the right thing to do) he does not believe that re-criminalization of abortion would negatively impact women. Historically, abortions will take place whether they are legal or not. Those with money will find a save avenue while those desperate will go back to, both figuratively and literally, the coat hanger. In other words, many of the women who get an abortion, particularly those who are financially unable or are afraid to let their fellow churchgoers know, risk serious injury and death. That would seem to me to be a negative impact.
I do believe that Camosy sincerely tried to argue both sides but his background and own strong background makes it difficult to fully argue the points of most pro-choice advocates. Not to mention that the law is not religious but is secular. If I believe based on science that life does not begin at conception and I also know the Bible does not dispute this, then my belief system does not stand in the way of an abortion because it is not, by any rational standard, murder or "taking an innocent life" as many like to claim. Since medical science agrees, then the law (again, this is not religious law that governs the land but civil/secular law) should allow abortions. Those whose belief systems are less rational and don't take into account medical science are free to not get an abortion even if a result of rape or accidental or unable to support a child.
While I obviously do not agree with the "compromise" put forth nor do I believe the information presented was entirely accurate and most certainly poorly expressed on the side of pro-choice, I still think this book should be read by most people regardless of where they stand. This is an attempt to do more than repeat slogans from either end of the debate spectrum and acknowledges that many positions are not as strongly grounded as many believe. As an early attempt to get beyond demonizing those on the other side (no matter which side) it is a good start. I believe it falls short but it opens the dialogue.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
While Camosy tries to avoid the hardline dichotomies that rule abortion debates (liberal/conservative, secular/religious, etc) he never fully leaves behind the secular vs religious type of argument. Additionally, the part of the compromise that might be considered as the right/Republican compromise calls for the types of assistance and security that should be in place regardless of any position on abortion. In exchange, the pro-choice side is supposed to pretty much capitulate on abortion.
While he proposes legislation that would indeed help women and children (which shouldn't be tied to abortion but done simply because it is the right thing to do) he does not believe that re-criminalization of abortion would negatively impact women. Historically, abortions will take place whether they are legal or not. Those with money will find a save avenue while those desperate will go back to, both figuratively and literally, the coat hanger. In other words, many of the women who get an abortion, particularly those who are financially unable or are afraid to let their fellow churchgoers know, risk serious injury and death. That would seem to me to be a negative impact.
I do believe that Camosy sincerely tried to argue both sides but his background and own strong background makes it difficult to fully argue the points of most pro-choice advocates. Not to mention that the law is not religious but is secular. If I believe based on science that life does not begin at conception and I also know the Bible does not dispute this, then my belief system does not stand in the way of an abortion because it is not, by any rational standard, murder or "taking an innocent life" as many like to claim. Since medical science agrees, then the law (again, this is not religious law that governs the land but civil/secular law) should allow abortions. Those whose belief systems are less rational and don't take into account medical science are free to not get an abortion even if a result of rape or accidental or unable to support a child.
While I obviously do not agree with the "compromise" put forth nor do I believe the information presented was entirely accurate and most certainly poorly expressed on the side of pro-choice, I still think this book should be read by most people regardless of where they stand. This is an attempt to do more than repeat slogans from either end of the debate spectrum and acknowledges that many positions are not as strongly grounded as many believe. As an early attempt to get beyond demonizing those on the other side (no matter which side) it is a good start. I believe it falls short but it opens the dialogue.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews