What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice
Appealing to reason rather than religious belief, this book is the most comprehensive case against the choice of abortion yet published. The Ethics of Abortion critically evaluates all the major grounds for denying fetal personhood, including the views of those who defend not only abortion but also infanticide. It also provides several (non-theological) justifications for the conclusion that all human beings, including those in utero, should be respected as persons. This book also critiques the view that abortion is not wrong even if the human fetus is a person. The Ethics of Abortion examines hard cases for those who are prolife, such as abortion in cases of rape or in order to save the mother’s life, as well as hard cases for defenders of abortion, such as sex selection abortion and the rationale for being “personally opposed” but publically supportive of abortion. It concludes with a discussion of whether artificial wombs might end the abortion debate. Answering the arguments of defenders of abortion, this book provides reasoned justification for the view that all intentional abortions are morally wrong and that doctors and nurses who object to abortion should not be forced to act against their consciences.
256 pages, Paperback
First published September 8, 2010
19 people are currently reading
379 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Kaczor
29 books34 followersDr. Christopher Kaczor (Born 1969 ) is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. He graduated from the Honors Program of Boston College earned a Ph.D. four years later from the University of Notre Dame. He did post-doctoral work in Germany at the University of Cologne as an Alexander von Humbolt Foundation, Federal Chancellor Fellow and returned as a Fulbright Scholar.
Dr. Kaczor's research on issues of ethics, philosophy, and religion has been in The Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, National Review, NPR, BBC, EWTN, ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, MSNBC, and The Today Show.
Dr. Kaczor's research on issues of ethics, philosophy, and religion has been in The Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, National Review, NPR, BBC, EWTN, ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, MSNBC, and The Today Show.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 27, 2016
Very well thought out rebuttal to pro-choice arguments from a logical and philosophical perspective. Well thought out and well written.
August 14, 2016
I tend to make a distinction when I've writing reviews between whether or not I agree with a particular piece of philosophy and whether I find it to be a good or interesting piece of philosophy, allowing my reviews to focus on the latter. I like to think that the two co-occur more often then not (since, after all, the views I hold are a result of good and interesting philosophy) but there are certainly times when they come apart. Some of my strongest reviews are of work that I ultimately don't agree with. I assumed, going into this book (based on the way it was recommended to me), that this would be such a book. No one recommends books on philosophy to other philosophers with the idea that the book will totally change their outlook (there are only a couple of books in each domain every generation) and so "good and interesting" is a strong recommendation when a book is about a position with which I disagree.
The problem is that this book actually turns out not to be a very good piece of professional philosophy. I assume (I think rather safely) that this book is written for the informed and serious thinker considering their position on abortion, but given this, the book is pretty seriously problematic. I will outline a few of the problems here, in order from least serious to most.
1.) Minor among the problems is Kaczor's Aristotelean assumptions, which often just insert themselves in weird ways into the discussion. It's actually perfectly fine to do this in professional philosophy, for the most part, given that you acknowledge the source of these biases. (Kaczor does at various points, though not consistently.) The problem here isn't that this is an enormous violation of philosophical standards and practices; just that it is unnecessarily intrusive and often highlights a reader who disagrees with those assumptions (which will be most readers) is going to disagree with Kaczor on the basis of these assumptions.
2.) Somewhat confusing is Kaczor's choices of methods throughout the book, which range from the method of cases to traditional Oxbridge ordinary language philosophy to typical conceptual analysis. There's nothing incoherent in using a variety of methods this way, but it is annoying, and often yields bizarre passages (like a refutation of psychological theories of identity based on our recognition of birthdays, which can easily be turned against Kaczor's own position and is, anyway, not a very serious objection) without any clear upshot.
3.) More serious is the philosophical weakness of Kaczor's case. There are some gaping holes in the positive case he outlines for development at conception based on the continuity of identity, and it is insufficiently developed to even subject it to the rigorous criticism you would want at a professional conference. He basically draws the assumption that it is most plausible based on the failure of psychological theories of identity, though he fails to clearly demarcate these various theories or sufficiently generalize his criticism; he also completely ignores theories of identity as present in philosophy of language, which are totally incompatible with his pro-life view, and (because of the way that he introduces identity as an ultimately metaphysical and mereological issue; he says this is going to be empirical, but it is obviously a conceptual case) actually are methodologically admissible, as opposed to being obviously weaker on the basis of being in insufficiently empirical, the way that those who use an identity approach get to say they are.
4.) The most serious problem is that, while Kaczor says repeatedly that he is interested in working hard to correctly understand pro-choice interlocutors, it is not at all clear that he has even a sufficient (much less proficient) grasp of their positions to comment on the work adequately. His mischaracterizations of Warren and Singer are serious red flags for me, as those are the two people I have worked on the most extensively. I suspect those who have worked more heavily on the work of Thomson or Tooley might be even more frustrated with those chapters of the book than I am. Still, Kaczor gets wrong enormous portions of these cases; my marginalia overflows with crankiness as a result. The project is ambitious, but the book is also short, and so there is a serious problem about the seriousness of such a critique addressed in such a brief span. Insofar as the book fails on this point, it seems fair to say that the book fails in its principal goal, to respond to the strongest pro-choice cases in professional philosophy; further, it doesn't even make an attempt, because those cases are not even presented passably.
The book has its heart in the right place. I think that it is a good idea to try and respond seriously to these arguments, but it is also misguided in thinking that such a critique can be given in such a short span, and that the characterizations can be given so generally. Kaczor was clearly misguided in trying to develop this project, and the result is a disappointing and frustrating for someone who really wants a serious philosophical book, and too misleading for someone looking for a general introduction.
The problem is that this book actually turns out not to be a very good piece of professional philosophy. I assume (I think rather safely) that this book is written for the informed and serious thinker considering their position on abortion, but given this, the book is pretty seriously problematic. I will outline a few of the problems here, in order from least serious to most.
1.) Minor among the problems is Kaczor's Aristotelean assumptions, which often just insert themselves in weird ways into the discussion. It's actually perfectly fine to do this in professional philosophy, for the most part, given that you acknowledge the source of these biases. (Kaczor does at various points, though not consistently.) The problem here isn't that this is an enormous violation of philosophical standards and practices; just that it is unnecessarily intrusive and often highlights a reader who disagrees with those assumptions (which will be most readers) is going to disagree with Kaczor on the basis of these assumptions.
2.) Somewhat confusing is Kaczor's choices of methods throughout the book, which range from the method of cases to traditional Oxbridge ordinary language philosophy to typical conceptual analysis. There's nothing incoherent in using a variety of methods this way, but it is annoying, and often yields bizarre passages (like a refutation of psychological theories of identity based on our recognition of birthdays, which can easily be turned against Kaczor's own position and is, anyway, not a very serious objection) without any clear upshot.
3.) More serious is the philosophical weakness of Kaczor's case. There are some gaping holes in the positive case he outlines for development at conception based on the continuity of identity, and it is insufficiently developed to even subject it to the rigorous criticism you would want at a professional conference. He basically draws the assumption that it is most plausible based on the failure of psychological theories of identity, though he fails to clearly demarcate these various theories or sufficiently generalize his criticism; he also completely ignores theories of identity as present in philosophy of language, which are totally incompatible with his pro-life view, and (because of the way that he introduces identity as an ultimately metaphysical and mereological issue; he says this is going to be empirical, but it is obviously a conceptual case) actually are methodologically admissible, as opposed to being obviously weaker on the basis of being in insufficiently empirical, the way that those who use an identity approach get to say they are.
4.) The most serious problem is that, while Kaczor says repeatedly that he is interested in working hard to correctly understand pro-choice interlocutors, it is not at all clear that he has even a sufficient (much less proficient) grasp of their positions to comment on the work adequately. His mischaracterizations of Warren and Singer are serious red flags for me, as those are the two people I have worked on the most extensively. I suspect those who have worked more heavily on the work of Thomson or Tooley might be even more frustrated with those chapters of the book than I am. Still, Kaczor gets wrong enormous portions of these cases; my marginalia overflows with crankiness as a result. The project is ambitious, but the book is also short, and so there is a serious problem about the seriousness of such a critique addressed in such a brief span. Insofar as the book fails on this point, it seems fair to say that the book fails in its principal goal, to respond to the strongest pro-choice cases in professional philosophy; further, it doesn't even make an attempt, because those cases are not even presented passably.
The book has its heart in the right place. I think that it is a good idea to try and respond seriously to these arguments, but it is also misguided in thinking that such a critique can be given in such a short span, and that the characterizations can be given so generally. Kaczor was clearly misguided in trying to develop this project, and the result is a disappointing and frustrating for someone who really wants a serious philosophical book, and too misleading for someone looking for a general introduction.
February 10, 2021
An excellent book. A wonderful case for the pro-life view. Kaczor offers reasonable critiques of many of the arguments brought up in Boonin's A Defense of Abortion, as well as offering a reasonable case for the pro-life position. He even has a chapter on artificial wombs and their possible affect on the abortion debate. A must-read for anyone wishing to make an informed case for the pro-life position.
February 26, 2019
Re-read this for an ethics class. Simply the finest critique of the pro-abortion/pro-infanticide arguments available. He is extremely careful to accurately state the opposing views and criticize them in a careful and powerful manner. This book is an absolute must-have for anyone who is interested in the topic whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion.
July 17, 2017
Christopher Kaczor's The Ethics of Abortion evaluates the philosophical issues associated with abortion. A central consideration is when personhood begins--after birth, at birth, sometime during pregnancy, or at conception. How one answers that question has implications for how we treat infants, mentally handicapped, and the elderly. Because abortion is such a personal and emotional decision, it can be difficult to step back and look at its broader implications. This book does a good job of doing that; it's just dry (hence the two stars).
July 26, 2017
4.5 stars
July 29, 2016
Solid, absolutely thorough deconstruction of abortion & pro-life ethics. Steady, unflinching logic, breaking down the issue from all angles with precision, and clearly demonstrating that human beings are persons from the moment of conception. A critical point he brings out is that all cases of major human rights violations have stemmed from attempting to make distinctions between human (species) persons and human non-persons. As soon as that category is allowed (human non-persons) permission is granted for all sorts of grotesque abuses. If you are not already versed in the schools of logic and philosophy, it will be heavy sledding. With that being said, Kaczor is on the more readable side of philosophers.
March 25, 2012
This book is SO GOOD. This and Beckwith’s Defending Life make for a dynamite duo.
April 25, 2014
This book was absolutely amazing. Over 9000/10 would recommend.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews