Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights

by Francis J. Beckwith

Thorough explanation of sixty-nine ethical and philosophical arguments sometimes given to defend a proDchoice position and persuasive proDlife responses to each. This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0801010500
• ISBN13: 9780801010507
• Release Date: January 1993
• Publisher: Baker Publishing Group (MI)
• Length: 256 Pages
• Weight: 1.20 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 7.0" x 9.9"
• Age Range: 18 years and up
• Grade Range: Postsecondary and higher

Customer Reviews

fantastic presentation of the pro-life position

Dr Beckwith does a fine job here of offering refutations to the argumentation provided by the pro-choice crowd - from the popular "run of the mill/ garden variety" to the more philosophical objections to the pro-life position. This is a must read for anyone involved in the pro-life movement, as it gives the necessary introductory scientific background on embryology and catalogs the different pro-choice objections that are often raised. Additionally, I think it would behoove the pro-choicer to read this work; to reconsider their own position in light of Dr. Beckwith's argumentation.

Rat has a name...Craig Young

A wonderful resource, I am yet to hear a coherent pro-abortion rebuttle of any of it. Sensible rational discussion that cuts away all the emotive, sociological/philosophical babble uttered by the pro-abortion movement.There is a rat, one person behind all of the meaningless incoherent babble of heuristic syllogisms empirical data rubbish, he is based in New Zealand and is called Craig Young - a research officer for the dying ALRANZ NZ's only pro-abortion group. He impersonates people to gain/impart information - he admits this is an article on the Massey University New Zealand Web Site in the Women's Deparment section of the site. You can tell all these critiques were by him as the same misuse of philosophical terms, exact same spelling mistakes of SOUL NZ's Ethical Advisors name by 'different reviewers' from all over the world occur in his postings plus others. If this is the New Zealand pro-abortion movements 'golden boy' then there is nothing to worry about. Mr Young cannot offer one coherent criticism of Beckwiths argument, not only because he is not capable, but because there are none.

Do I smell a rat?

I truly enjoyed Dr. Beckwith's point-by-point refutation of the most common pro-abortion arguments. This book has greatly improved my ability to winsomely and intelligently respond to pro-abortion catchphrases. I look forward to reading Dr. Beckwith's revised version as soon as it appears.New topic: I'd like to point something out to folks reading the reviews posted here. I've been reading many of the negative reviews on this page, and I think I see a pattern.Each review of the type I'm talking about awards the book one star. Each review is by an anonymous person identified only as "a reader," typically writing from Canada, Australia, the UK, or South Africa. Each review uses terms that an average reader would have a tough time understanding: "hermetic and self-referential rationales," "stacked and constrained syllogisms and heuristics," "factors of early zygote-blastocyst miscarriage and totipotency," "neoplatonic chora," "self-referential epistemologies," "monocausal presuppostions" ... you get the idea.A common feature in these reviews is a rather vague criticism of Aristotelian logic, without any explanation of why such logic is bad. Another recurring theme is a claim that Beckwith's work cites too few reliable scientific sources ... again, without specifics.All in all, I think this pattern strongly suggests that there's one person behind a great many of these damning reviews. This person detests the book, has lots of free time to devote to vague, critical, unsupported but intellectual-sounding reviews, and appears to be trying to overwhelm the rest of us by flooding this page with his/her own opinion (masquerading as lots of different people). When I also consider Dr. Beckwith's unanswered requests for a substantive critique, I must declare that I smell a rat here.Whoever you are, please spare us your heaps of airy rhetoric. Either give us or Dr. Beckwith a detailed, well-supported critique and prove your point in the objective marketplace of ideas, or get off your soapbox and spend your time more productively elsewhere.Kudos, Dr. Beckwith. Keep poking holes in the arguments of pro-abortionists and moral relativists.

Beckwith Persuades with Logic and Science

In "Politically Correct Death" (hereafter, PC Death), Dr. Francis Beckwith argues that the unborn entity is fully human,hence elective abortion is morally unjust.This is, of course, the standard pro-life pitch for the last 25 years. What makes Beckwith unique is his rigorous logic and argumentation in support of his thesis. You will not find emotionally charged rhetoric or religious sentiment here. In fact, some of Beckwith's critics attack him precisely because he is so logical. Now there's a new twist: careful thinking a sin?In PC Death, Beckwith demolishes popular abortion rights rhetoric by showing that most pro-choice arguments beg the question. That is to say, they assume the very thing they are trying to prove. Take, for example, the popular coat-hanger argument that states women will die by the thousands if abortion is restricted. But as Beckwith points out, unless you begin with the assumption the unborn are not fully human, this argument is tantamount to saying that because some people will die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so. Should we legalize bank-robbery so that it is safer for felons? In my opinion, Beckwith is at his best when confronting academic arguments for abortion rights, in particular, his analysis of Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous violinist argument. Thomson is unique in that she bites the bullet: she concedes the humanity of the unborn, but argues that abortion is justified because no woman should be forced to use her bodily organs to sustain the life of another against her will. This is a potentially devastating argument against the pro-life view.Beckwith, however, presents a nine point rebuttal to Thomson's carefully argued piece, and does so in a fair and even-handed manner. To sum up Beckwith's response, Thomson's arguemt is flawed because it fails to distinguish between our right to withhold support and our duty not to actively kill another person--which is what elective abortion does.PC Death is truly refreshing for its careful consideration of facts and arguments. I'm surprised, however, at the response from some abortion rights advocates who resort to name calling instead of refuting Dr. Beckwith's arguments. Now it may be the case that PC Death is a poorly reasoned piece. But this must be proven by appealing to evidence, not launching ad-hominem attacks against the author. If abortion rights advocates are to have any credibility with clear thinking individuals, they will have to do better than that. Dr. Beckwith has presented a carefully reasoned case for the pro-life position. Prove him wrong if you can. But please, dispense with the childish name calling.

The Utimate Rational and Logical Pro-Life Handbook

Beckwith does a fantastic and thorough examination of the abortion debate. He handles contentious and emotivly charged issues with clear logic and rationale without doing away with compassion. His arguments are clear and easily understood by the lay-person but by no means lack any technical coherence. An absolute must to have to answer pro-choice arguments rationally, logically and non-emotively. The responses of pro-choice advocates really says it all: to see Beckwith's debate with Socrates as a 'contradiction' demonstrates their narrowmindedness and lack of ability to deal with the rationality of the actual argument. Beckwith's book dealt with abortion, not gay rights or rational suicide, it is his abortion arguments that must be answered. Those pro-choice who failed to answer Beckwith's arguments simply give evidence of their inability to doing so by focussing on irrelevant alleged 'contradictions.' If you want to reach everyday people, particularly those who are secular in belief, Beckwith arms you with the necessary arguments and info unlike any other book I have found. In fact every other book I have read on this topic (many I assure you) pale in comparison. Beckwith simply is that good. Read it.