Abortion: Three Perspectives

Point/Counterpoint

by Michael Tooley, Celia Wolf-Devine, Philip E. Devine

Moving beyond traditional "liberal versus conservative" arguments for and against abortion, Three Perspectives is an up-to-date, accessible, and engaging exploration of this highly contentious issue. Featuring a triangular debate between four prominent moral and political philosophers, it presents three different political Michael Tooley argues the "liberal" pro-choice approach; Philip E. Devine and Celia Wolf-Devine argue the "communitarian" pro-life approach; and Alison M. Jaggar argues the "gender justice" approach. However, each of the authors' self-identifications is also challenged by one or more of the other authors, who offer alternative interpretations of liberalism, communitarianism, and feminism, as well as of what it means to be pro-choice and pro-life. All of these viewpoints are controversial, among both philosophers and general readers. Furthermore, because the arguments do not rely on religious authority, they are directed at all readers,
regardless of religious affiliation.
Three Perspectives is divided into two the authors first develop their ideas in depth and then briefly critique the other positions. Drawing examples from real life, they also integrate logic and empirical data into their arguments and consider views of abortion across other disciplines. As philosophers, the authors possess expert skills in critical analysis; their debates provide students and other readers with a model of dialogue among those who very strongly disagree. Three Perspectives is ideal for courses in contemporary moral problems, introduction to ethics, bioethics, medical ethics, and feminist philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Feminism, Womens

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 13, 2009

Reviews

[Joshua Stein · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about reviewing this book. I think that the three opening essays are really worth reading. I disagree with all of them at various points, but found them well argued, well written, and thought provoking. They have a diverse field of opinions, from the fairly conventional views of Michael Tooley on moral status to the more serious feminist views of Alison Jaggar to the "communitarian" view of Wolf-Devine and Devine. My major problem with the Wolf-Devine and Devine essay is that it does a lot of work to offer fairly conventional pro-life views instead of spending the time advancing and developing its own argument, which was fascinating and really engaging for me. (I look forward to reading some of their other work to see the argument developed elsewhere.)

The problem is that the exchanges are really antagonistic, and they don't tend to focus on the really important philosophical substance. Sometimes serious philosophical critiques are made, but in a way that is off-center and, so, not particularly clear and doesn't get an adequate answer in the follow up. While the first essays themselves represent the best of academic writing, thoughtful and careful, developing arguments with pause and acknowledging tangential lines of reasoning and points of tension, the responses represent the worst of academic writing as they become lost in the convention of competition for the rhetorical upper-hand rather than an exploration of the argument. I do think the book is worth a read for those interested in the subject matter, but really focus on the philosophical substance of the first three essays and expect less of the responses.

[Lauryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like this book was very informative so I give it 4 stars for contributing to my understanding of issues regarding abortion rights.

However, 2 out of the 3 perspectives were pro-abortion rights, with only one considered “pro-life”. And, personally, I did not find the pro-life argument to be very compelling or convincing. I already lean “pro-choice” and was hoping to better understand a pro-life argument beyond the “don’t murder babies” mindset. In trying to make an informed decision on which abortion issues to support or oppose, the first pro-choice argument is just disturbing (I worry for Michael Tooley’s sanity), the second one is not convincing, and only the last one is worth consideration. I will have to find another book with a better pro-life argument to really feel like I’ve considered both sides of the coin adequately.

[edenstephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alison Jagger's contribution deserves a "4"; however, the other contributions were not good at all, and not because I disagreed with their viewpoints. (Eden)