What do you think?
Rate this book
What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics
One of the Wall Street Journal's Top Ten Books of the Year
A leading expert on public bioethics advocates for a new conception of human identity in American law and policy.
The natural limits of the human body make us vulnerable and therefore dependent, throughout our lives, on others. Yet American law and policy disregard these stubborn facts, with statutes and judicial decisions that presume people to be autonomous, defined by their capacity to choose. As legal scholar O. Carter Snead points out, this individualistic ideology captures important truths about human freedom, but it also means that we have no obligations to each other unless we actively, voluntarily embrace them. Under such circumstances, the neediest must rely on charitable care. When it is not forthcoming, law and policy cannot adequately respond.
What It Means to Be Human makes the case for a new paradigm, one that better represents the gifts and challenges of being human. Inspired by the insights of Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor, Snead proposes a vision of human identity and flourishing that supports those who are profoundly vulnerable and dependent--children, the disabled, and the elderly. To show how such a vision would affect law and policy, he addresses three complex issues in bioethics: abortion, assisted reproductive technology, and end-of-life decisions. Avoiding typical dichotomies of conservative-versus-liberal and secular-versus-religious, Snead recasts debates over these issues and situates them within his framework of embodiment and dependence. He concludes that, if the law is built on premises that reflect the fully lived reality of life, it will provide support for the vulnerable, including the unborn, mothers, families, and those nearing the end of their lives. In this way, he argues, policy can ensure that people have the care they need in order to thrive.
In this provocative and consequential book, Snead rethinks how the law represents human experiences so that it might govern more wisely, justly, and humanely.
A leading expert on public bioethics advocates for a new conception of human identity in American law and policy.
The natural limits of the human body make us vulnerable and therefore dependent, throughout our lives, on others. Yet American law and policy disregard these stubborn facts, with statutes and judicial decisions that presume people to be autonomous, defined by their capacity to choose. As legal scholar O. Carter Snead points out, this individualistic ideology captures important truths about human freedom, but it also means that we have no obligations to each other unless we actively, voluntarily embrace them. Under such circumstances, the neediest must rely on charitable care. When it is not forthcoming, law and policy cannot adequately respond.
What It Means to Be Human makes the case for a new paradigm, one that better represents the gifts and challenges of being human. Inspired by the insights of Alasdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor, Snead proposes a vision of human identity and flourishing that supports those who are profoundly vulnerable and dependent--children, the disabled, and the elderly. To show how such a vision would affect law and policy, he addresses three complex issues in bioethics: abortion, assisted reproductive technology, and end-of-life decisions. Avoiding typical dichotomies of conservative-versus-liberal and secular-versus-religious, Snead recasts debates over these issues and situates them within his framework of embodiment and dependence. He concludes that, if the law is built on premises that reflect the fully lived reality of life, it will provide support for the vulnerable, including the unborn, mothers, families, and those nearing the end of their lives. In this way, he argues, policy can ensure that people have the care they need in order to thrive.
In this provocative and consequential book, Snead rethinks how the law represents human experiences so that it might govern more wisely, justly, and humanely.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2020
72 people are currently reading
1144 people want to read
About the author
O. Carter Snead
2 books9 followersAmerican legal scholar and bioethicist. His research explores issues relating to neuroethics, enhancement, human embryo research, assisted reproduction, abortion, and end-of-life decision-making.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
August 2, 2024
This is basically MacIntyre’s ethics of dependability applied to contemporary bioethical issues. The framework this book suggests for approaching bioethics is exactly right. I cannot more highly recommend this book. If you are interested in bioethics at any level and it’s public/legal import, this is perhaps the most important book I could suggest you read.
October 3, 2022
Absolutely accomplishes what is sets out to do, very much a "steelman" argument against abortion and assisted suicide. Far more accessible than your average law book but still rather technical in its tone. Only major complaint is that the book often punts when it comes to solutions, but in fairness, it sets out a far more limited aim from the start.
March 1, 2025
The two phrases repeated throughout this book are "expressive individualism" contrasted with our human networks of "uncalculated giving and graceful receiving".
He hammers those two ideas home because they really do (or should) color the 3 bioethical issues discussed: 1) abortion 2) artificial reproductive technology and 3) end-of-life decisions/euthanasia — things Christians should be considering more robustly & engaging with more thoughtfully than perhaps we are.
I love the way Leah Libresco Sargeant has incorporated his themes of human dependence (articulated in this book) throughout her work at Other Feminisms: https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p...
He hammers those two ideas home because they really do (or should) color the 3 bioethical issues discussed: 1) abortion 2) artificial reproductive technology and 3) end-of-life decisions/euthanasia — things Christians should be considering more robustly & engaging with more thoughtfully than perhaps we are.
I love the way Leah Libresco Sargeant has incorporated his themes of human dependence (articulated in this book) throughout her work at Other Feminisms: https://otherfeminisms.substack.com/p...
February 8, 2021
This is a book that should be read, discussed, read again, and absorbed by everyone who wants to think seriously about our future politics, law, and jurisprudence. If you are an attorney, you must read this book. If you are a judge, you must read this book. If you work in the government, you must read this book. If you are a citizen and a serious thinker, you will find that this book contains very important work with practical guidelines for how we need to articulate our position moving forward.
Not only does Snead give a compelling critique of some of the false, destructive, and dehumanizing underlying assumptions in much of our law and court decisions, but he points the way forward for how we can shape and form our arguments for a more coherent and persuasive position. It is time for those who value life to stop making partisan and juridical arguments, and instead start making arguments which are more whole and humanizing. Snead argues that too much of our law is "forgetful of the body." Too much of our law assumes that it is dealing with disembodied, atomized, wills whose "good" is the potential ability to freely choose from amongst an infinite display of consumer choices, which are only freely contracted between fully consenting parties.
The reason this premise is so destructive is that disembodied autonomous wills do not actually exist. To assume that they exist privileges the powerful to the disadvantage and detriment of those who are in need. Human beings are embodied beings, and with embodiment comes finitude, needs, dependence, vulnerability, and unchosen relationships and obligations. Snead's book is so valuable because the future debates in our law need to take our embodiment into account. Our jurisprudence needs to acknowledge the unchosen relations and duties that derive from being relational human creatures, and the needs of those who are poor and disadvantaged and in need of our care.
Our future leaders have to begin the work of practically applying the principles of this book to both legislation and judicial decisions. Other thinkers need to begin the research and study in order to write, build, and establish the historical, constitutional, and common law foundations upon which such laws and jurisprudence can be based. Hopefully, this book can be the start of something better in these areas than we have at present - something that will protect those who are most in need and something that will motivate us to care for and, as Snead argues, make the good of others the good of our own.
Not only does Snead give a compelling critique of some of the false, destructive, and dehumanizing underlying assumptions in much of our law and court decisions, but he points the way forward for how we can shape and form our arguments for a more coherent and persuasive position. It is time for those who value life to stop making partisan and juridical arguments, and instead start making arguments which are more whole and humanizing. Snead argues that too much of our law is "forgetful of the body." Too much of our law assumes that it is dealing with disembodied, atomized, wills whose "good" is the potential ability to freely choose from amongst an infinite display of consumer choices, which are only freely contracted between fully consenting parties.
The reason this premise is so destructive is that disembodied autonomous wills do not actually exist. To assume that they exist privileges the powerful to the disadvantage and detriment of those who are in need. Human beings are embodied beings, and with embodiment comes finitude, needs, dependence, vulnerability, and unchosen relationships and obligations. Snead's book is so valuable because the future debates in our law need to take our embodiment into account. Our jurisprudence needs to acknowledge the unchosen relations and duties that derive from being relational human creatures, and the needs of those who are poor and disadvantaged and in need of our care.
Our future leaders have to begin the work of practically applying the principles of this book to both legislation and judicial decisions. Other thinkers need to begin the research and study in order to write, build, and establish the historical, constitutional, and common law foundations upon which such laws and jurisprudence can be based. Hopefully, this book can be the start of something better in these areas than we have at present - something that will protect those who are most in need and something that will motivate us to care for and, as Snead argues, make the good of others the good of our own.
July 14, 2022
Re-read in light of recent events, and even better the second time around. It was, however, a bit repetitive in certain respects and so I feel I can't quite give it 5 stars.
The director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity at Trinity has called chapter 3 the best (somewhat) concise account of the history of American abortion jurisprudence he's encountered. Although this alone is very helpful, the way Snead brings insights from Alasdair MacIntyre's work to an evaluation of American public bioethics is invaluable.
The director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity at Trinity has called chapter 3 the best (somewhat) concise account of the history of American abortion jurisprudence he's encountered. Although this alone is very helpful, the way Snead brings insights from Alasdair MacIntyre's work to an evaluation of American public bioethics is invaluable.
December 16, 2021
A persuasive argument that current bioethics is rooted in an impoverished view of human nature. Snead draws on range of philosophers and social scientists (e.g., Charles Taylor, Robert Bellah, etc.) who have identified the phenomenon of expressive individualism, and applies their insights to the current laws of American public bioethics.
October 7, 2022
This book is more dense than I first anticipated it would be and I wish I'd read it instead of listening to the audio version. Snead made several good points about human vulnerability and gave a thoughtful overview of the history of American law regarding embodied & dependent humans.
From his conclusion:
As living bodies in time, we are vulnerable, dependent, and subject to natural limits, including injury, illness, senescence, and death. Thus, both for our basic survival and to realize our potential, we need to care for one another. We need robust and expansive networks of uncalculated giving and graceful receiving populated by people who make the good of others their own good, without demand for or expectation of recompense.
From his conclusion:
As living bodies in time, we are vulnerable, dependent, and subject to natural limits, including injury, illness, senescence, and death. Thus, both for our basic survival and to realize our potential, we need to care for one another. We need robust and expansive networks of uncalculated giving and graceful receiving populated by people who make the good of others their own good, without demand for or expectation of recompense.
Want to read
May 25, 2021
March 23, 2022
Necessary, terrifying and inspiring. An exploration of the gap between expressive-individualist conceptions of humanity and the reality of embodied human beings and the catastrophic moral results of that gap in law and society. In other words, in one conception each person is an isolated consciousness, defined by their will and certain cognitive abilities. In the other conception every human being is automatically granted personhood and we recognize them as already born into a vast network of "uncalculated giving and graceful receiving," and as such are all equally entitled to the love, care, and rights granted to others on the community. This paradigm shifting idea places the spotlight of our compassion firmly on the most vulnerable in our society, including certain minorities, the poor, pregnant women, the ill, elderly, disabled and, most controversially though I believe convincingly, the unborn. The ideas, and policy proscriptions (of which there are intentionally few), defy any easy political categorization, defying large constituencies on both left and right and challenging them on their basic moral presumptions.
August 9, 2023
The finest book I’ve read this year. A beautifully moving account of the significance of embodiment in public bioethics. Embodiment is essential to any account of the human person. Our embodiment entails great gifts and natural limits. As embodied beings, we are vulnerable, dependent, and finite. We are embodied beings in a complex web of social relations, depending on networks of “uncalculated giving and receiving.” In short, our embodiment renders us vulnerable and dependent on the beneficence of others; thus, we ought to become the kinds of people who make the goods of others our own.
Snead examines and highlights the deficient anthropological assumptions undergirding much of American law and policy. The prevailing anthropological assumption is that of expressive individualism. Society thinks of persons as disembodied atomized will. In Alastair MacIntyre’s words, we are “forgetful of the body.” By contrast, Snead offers a most compelling framework of embodiment and dependence that seeks to support the flourishing of the most vulnerable in society, namely, children, the disabled, and the elderly.
A beautiful book.
Snead examines and highlights the deficient anthropological assumptions undergirding much of American law and policy. The prevailing anthropological assumption is that of expressive individualism. Society thinks of persons as disembodied atomized will. In Alastair MacIntyre’s words, we are “forgetful of the body.” By contrast, Snead offers a most compelling framework of embodiment and dependence that seeks to support the flourishing of the most vulnerable in society, namely, children, the disabled, and the elderly.
A beautiful book.
August 16, 2021
no :)
January 17, 2023
Writing some cons I have of this book that I wish he would elaborate on? First, this whole idea of doing things because we have to and to be graceful and do uncalculated giving because of human obligation. However in real life people always do things for an end goal that is fundamentally selfish. How then does he reconcile this with embodiment theory in anthropology? Sorry I’m mostly word vomited but let me see if I can reorganize my thoughts. He says that we raise children because that’s our duty to that since we were children too! Which I agree with however people have children for fundamental selfish reasons. In practice and in animals, we generally raise children for selfish reasons. Of course we mostly love our children but I don’t think we consciously do it because we have to. Example number 1 is people that poorly raise their children think third world countries where children are expected to work early in life. You give them the basic necessities because you are getting something out of it. Hence you are enforcing your will. To add more conversation to this, people raise kids better or better care because of expressive individualism. You want your kids to be the best (but not necessarily) your neighbors. Fundamentally we are not jerks but let’s be honest. We navigate this world selfishly. Yes we depend on each others humanity for survival but we don’t do this by rejecting expressive individualism. In fact, I don’t think being “alone” in expressive individualism is bad thing because generally you are doing things to advance your needs and since your needs are fundamentally human you are in theory continuing to the advancement of humanity.
Again I love this book because it really help me reflect on things that are important to me and other things that I haven’t paid attention to. Ultimately, with any philosophy, there is not one true answer. If we do need to find an answer, then it usually falls somewhere in the middle. I am an optimist in a sense that I think society is exactly where it needs to be based on different field of philosophy. We can’t live without individualism just like we can’t live without anthropology. However I am curious how anthropology navigates ai. Is Ai fundamentally an anthropology since it’s human made? This ai is in it self human? Does Ai have humanity and thus render it a part of who we are as a whole. Anyways ranting about the cons of this book. I highly recommend. Author is great and you learn a lot about the jurisprudence on highly contested issues. I am grateful in snead showing me a different way of thinking about things. Didn’t necessarily change my minds in things but it does help me get perspective on the why it should matter. Our individualism drives us to greatness and we should not reject it. Individualism saves and drives humanity forward. There is a social cost to be paid and as of right now we are okay with that. This books argues you can have both but I don’t see it. It dabbles on socialism which is good on paper but we are too complex to live in the type of society Snead wants us to live.
I obviously word vomited and haven’t considered a lot more that was said here but again these are my initial thoughts. Kudos to Snead and look forward to reading more on philosophy in general.
Will come back to this review to edit and formalize it. So far 5 stars and doubtful it will change even though I see some dislikes on my end.
Again I love this book because it really help me reflect on things that are important to me and other things that I haven’t paid attention to. Ultimately, with any philosophy, there is not one true answer. If we do need to find an answer, then it usually falls somewhere in the middle. I am an optimist in a sense that I think society is exactly where it needs to be based on different field of philosophy. We can’t live without individualism just like we can’t live without anthropology. However I am curious how anthropology navigates ai. Is Ai fundamentally an anthropology since it’s human made? This ai is in it self human? Does Ai have humanity and thus render it a part of who we are as a whole. Anyways ranting about the cons of this book. I highly recommend. Author is great and you learn a lot about the jurisprudence on highly contested issues. I am grateful in snead showing me a different way of thinking about things. Didn’t necessarily change my minds in things but it does help me get perspective on the why it should matter. Our individualism drives us to greatness and we should not reject it. Individualism saves and drives humanity forward. There is a social cost to be paid and as of right now we are okay with that. This books argues you can have both but I don’t see it. It dabbles on socialism which is good on paper but we are too complex to live in the type of society Snead wants us to live.
I obviously word vomited and haven’t considered a lot more that was said here but again these are my initial thoughts. Kudos to Snead and look forward to reading more on philosophy in general.
Will come back to this review to edit and formalize it. So far 5 stars and doubtful it will change even though I see some dislikes on my end.
May 17, 2022
What I read: What It Means to Be Human by O. Carter Snead
Why I picked it up: I read an article on America last week by someone who invites people from both sides of an issue to come debate and talk in their home. She shared that she asks everyone to do some homework before and gives them a few articles, but if she could give them a book, this would be one of them.
How I read it: On audio because it’s all the library had, but this would be a good physical copy to own, mark up, and refer back to often.
What it’s about: The philosophy and bioethics the laws is the US are based on. It shows the holes where we haven’t considered a different perspective. The foundation the author proposes is “expressive individualism” whereby one can pursue the life plan of its own authentic design. He dives into three issues: Abortion, assisted reproductive technology, assistance to end one’s life. Published in October 2020, it provides a solid foundation of the past fifty or so years.
What I liked: I appreciated the perspective, not convincing one way or the other. Rather a new foundation is proposed. The basic theme of the book is summed up in the final sentence: “More wise, just, humane and fully human public bioethics that begins by remembering the body.”
What I disliked: I needed to read it on paper so I could go back, but that’s an issue I have with me not really the book.
Genre: Non-fiction, life issues, bioethics.
Rating & Recommendation: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ and yes. I’d love to have it as a common foundation with someone I discuss the upcoming SCOTUS decision for Mississippi v. Dobbs.
Why I picked it up: I read an article on America last week by someone who invites people from both sides of an issue to come debate and talk in their home. She shared that she asks everyone to do some homework before and gives them a few articles, but if she could give them a book, this would be one of them.
How I read it: On audio because it’s all the library had, but this would be a good physical copy to own, mark up, and refer back to often.
What it’s about: The philosophy and bioethics the laws is the US are based on. It shows the holes where we haven’t considered a different perspective. The foundation the author proposes is “expressive individualism” whereby one can pursue the life plan of its own authentic design. He dives into three issues: Abortion, assisted reproductive technology, assistance to end one’s life. Published in October 2020, it provides a solid foundation of the past fifty or so years.
What I liked: I appreciated the perspective, not convincing one way or the other. Rather a new foundation is proposed. The basic theme of the book is summed up in the final sentence: “More wise, just, humane and fully human public bioethics that begins by remembering the body.”
What I disliked: I needed to read it on paper so I could go back, but that’s an issue I have with me not really the book.
Genre: Non-fiction, life issues, bioethics.
Rating & Recommendation: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ and yes. I’d love to have it as a common foundation with someone I discuss the upcoming SCOTUS decision for Mississippi v. Dobbs.
July 9, 2024
Great (the author is from Notre Dame though so what would you expect!), super technical which could be helpful if you were in one of these situations. I think Dr. Stigall copy and pasted a ton from this book for his lectures because it all sounded familiar, down to the cases and McIntyre!
His scholarship is well-researched, and not just his opinions and preferences. He tries to show the reasoning behind his opponents, as well, which is rare and refreshing in the ethics space :)
I LOVE the focus on the importance of community in human flourishing, and on the body.
"With the freedom to define oneself anew in a plethora of identities has also come an attenuation of those common understandings that enable us to recognize the virtues of the other."-Bellah, quoted
"Another good that flows from both retrospective and anticipatory gratitude for the care and concern of others, as well as the giftedness of life more generally, is humility... This "ethic of giftedness," as Sandel called it, awakens the felt need to share with others."
"An anthropology of embodiment is mindful of this connectivity and the obligations and priviliges that flow from it that compromise one dimension of the network of giving and receiving necessary to human life and flourishing."
His scholarship is well-researched, and not just his opinions and preferences. He tries to show the reasoning behind his opponents, as well, which is rare and refreshing in the ethics space :)
I LOVE the focus on the importance of community in human flourishing, and on the body.
"With the freedom to define oneself anew in a plethora of identities has also come an attenuation of those common understandings that enable us to recognize the virtues of the other."-Bellah, quoted
"Another good that flows from both retrospective and anticipatory gratitude for the care and concern of others, as well as the giftedness of life more generally, is humility... This "ethic of giftedness," as Sandel called it, awakens the felt need to share with others."
"An anthropology of embodiment is mindful of this connectivity and the obligations and priviliges that flow from it that compromise one dimension of the network of giving and receiving necessary to human life and flourishing."
June 20, 2022
This is an excellent book! The author was recommended to me when I asked for bioethics resources as I was thinking through issues related to human embryo adoption. Although this book does not directly address embryo adoption, it provides a humane way of thinking through any bioethical issue. The author looks at the good that a particular law seeks to advance “and then the underlying assumptions of human identity and flourishing on which such goods are premised.” I was so refreshed and encouraged by this book. I appreciated the discussion around the idea that no matter how much individuals of our era desire to live as atomized wills in the “unencumbered pursuit of a destiny of our own devising,” the truth is that we are “embodied beings, with all the natural limits and great gifts this entails.” This is important and it is a reminder of why the Incarnation is so shocking and is such good news for God’s people! I could not recommend this book more highly.
January 9, 2026
This was so well done and helpful. His basic argument is that the default anthropology of Americans is “expressive individualism,” or each person’s right of self determination based on their personal hopes and dreams and current opinion of what’s best for their life. The problem is, this excludes the youngest and oldest people and those with mental disabilities, who are unable to self-actualize. (Worth noticing here that’s the top categories of Maslow’s hierarchy but is incredibly western.) He says we are all on a “spectrum of disability” because at the very least we all started as entirely dependent babies. By identifying this underlying anthropology we can then begin to question its use in policy regarding abortion, assistive reproductive technology, and physician assisted suicide. How do these conversations change when we bring in the idea of relationships and responsibility for each other? I’ll be thinking about this for a long time.
November 13, 2021
I read half of this and took a long break followed by the second half - wish I had read it all together BUT it's an excellent read. Some of the phrases that will have me pondering for quite some time: living "as bodies through time"; "openness to the unbidden" (in regards to the demands of what it means to live embodied with others); laws and society that uphold thriving as "embodied" beings.
The author says over and over that this this book is just the starting point for future conversations, which I agree with, while an excellent book for discussion, more would need to be discussed as far as practically creating a society built on what it means to be embodied human beings and what it means to thrive as embodied humans.
Heavy on articulating laws and court cases that have created the laws we have.
The author says over and over that this this book is just the starting point for future conversations, which I agree with, while an excellent book for discussion, more would need to be discussed as far as practically creating a society built on what it means to be embodied human beings and what it means to thrive as embodied humans.
Heavy on articulating laws and court cases that have created the laws we have.
July 19, 2021
I agree with Professor Snead insofar as we need an alternative foundation for contemporary bioethics founded on an understanding of human beings as social creatures, based on ourselves being embedded in mutually dependent physical bodies, rather than based on "expressive individualism" which heretofore has been the case. With the ideas of this book as a framework for moving ahead in making substantive changes to the law and public policy, it is the task of America now to go forth and make these needed changes that will so enhance our country's and our society's wellbeing.
June 28, 2022
This is a difficult book to review. I do not agree with Professor Carter Snead's conclusions and a find them largely driven by motive masked as error in procedendo.
That being said, as a legal scholar I do admire his competent account of complicated jurisprudence and commend him for bringing rationality to a debate that so often lacks it.
That being said, as a legal scholar I do admire his competent account of complicated jurisprudence and commend him for bringing rationality to a debate that so often lacks it.
December 31, 2022
Wow, this was an incredible book. It has completely changed my vision of what it means to be human - giving me a philosophical vision that is consistent, has intellectual rigour, and is grounded in an ideal that is beautiful - worth the challenge of striving for. It opened my mind to a new way of looking at the world, and to the concept of virtue ethics.
December 18, 2024
Wow, what a book! Snead takes expressive individualism to task and enjoins a magnanimous and humane alternative in the field of public bioethics. The humanity of the unborn, the terminally ill, and other vulnerable persons is on full display in Snead’s work, and any ethicist explicitly or implicitly denying this humanity needs to reckon with this powerful book.
September 8, 2025
Introduction to US laws dealing with human life. I liked the way the author uses the concept of embodiment and anthropology to lay out how human flourishing and the respect for human life can be accomplished. He considers three key areas: abortion, artificial reproduction, and euthanasia. He does leave out capital punishment and the death penalty.
January 24, 2025
This was written by a Notre Dame Law professor before the fall of Roe V Wade. I learned so much about law history in regards to abortion, euthanasia, embryos, and more. It’s a dense book with lots of material but very well done!
July 6, 2021
Suck my dick, O. Carter Snead. I hope that is embodied enough for you.
August 1, 2021
Excellent book
March 15, 2023
Good historical perspective
August 12, 2024
MacIntyre applied to bioethics. A little outdated after fall of Roe v Wade, but still important in other current bioethical issues
February 5, 2022
Expressive individualism and the bio-ethics! What a work. This is a crucial read to understand the undergirding philosophy of our day and how deeply in runs in ethics, anthropology, and public policy.
May 5, 2021
What it says on the tin
“It is a proposal for a more wise, just, humane, and fully human public bioethics that begins by remembering the body.”
“It is a proposal for a more wise, just, humane, and fully human public bioethics that begins by remembering the body.”
September 11, 2021
This is a book that talks about the unavoidable obligations, unconditional giving, and graceful receiving that we humans do for each other. Human misery largely derives from the fear of the suffering of "not good enough."-Disability, physical pain, deformity, nonproductive, isolation, and exile. Through loving each other during these anguishes, the fear can and will be conquered, by Love, the Grace of God. As embodied vulnerable beings, we were born with dignity, the right to thrive, worthy of protection and care, regardless of the perceived worth by the industrious expressive individualism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews