The Unaborted Socrates

by Peter Kreeft

Book Overview

Is abortion a woman's right?
When does human life begin?
Should we legislate morality?

What would happen if the Socrates of old suddenly appeared in modern Athens? Peter Kreeft imagines the dialog that might ensue with three worthy opponents--a doctor, a philosopher and a psychologist--about the arguments surrounding abortion. Kreeft uses Socratic technique to strip away the emotional issues and get to the heart of the rational objections...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0877848106
• ISBN13: 9780877848103
• Release Date: July 1983
• Publisher: IVP
• Length: 155 Pages
• Weight: 0.50 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 5.5" x 8.2"

Customer Reviews

A Hard Read

This is one of those books that will surprise you in many ways. It was not what I was expecting - of course I did not have the subtitle, only the main title at that time. I was expecting a book on philosophy from Peter Kreeft, a professor of Philosophy. But it was three debates on issues surrounding abortion lead by Socrates. The format is three discussions led by Socorates with three groups of people. The first is with a Dr. Rex Herrod (King Herrod) held in a hospital in Athens in the present time. The second is again with Dr. Rex but also with his friend, a philosopher, Professor Atilla Tarian (Atilla the Hun) who is an ethicist, and it is held at a Philosophy convention. The final is in a Psychiatric ward with "Pop" Syke, (Pop Psychology) the psychologist. Each debate is written as a mini morality play, like those of classical Greek plays. Each is written as a dialogue and written somewhat tongue in cheek, filled with puns and word plays. This book was not an easy read, in that the material it deals with is very difficult and very controversial. It raises many questions that most people on both sides of the abortion debate probably do not think about. It is easy to read in that it was written in an easy style and flows nicely. The main focus of all three debates is when does life begin, and who will speak for the most helpless, the unborn. This is a tough read but one that will not leave the reader unchanged.

"The Unaborted Socrates" Forces the Real Issue

Peter Kreeft, who is famous for his religious/philosophical dialogues, has another witty materpiece here. As the title suggests, Socrates is playing the role of the questioner against those who might defend abortion on demand. Socrates engages a doctor, lawyer and philosopher who argue for the pro-abortion position. The great thing about this book on the abortion issue is that Kreeft forces the reader to see what is at stake in this issue. He strips away emotionally loaded cases and bad arguments for abortion. This is a must read for anyone who isn't sure where they stand with abortion. If you don't get why pro-lifers are so uptight about about abortion, you need to read this book. The dialogue is easy to read, and it is unapologetically honest about where the truth leads.

Listen to logic

Peter Kreeft does not oversimplify a complicated issue -- he shows how UNcomplicated the issue of abortion can be, once it is seen as justification for the convenience of some. If you'd like to read a condensed, and very logical, refutation of some of the arguments of those who advocate abortion, visit members.aol.com/pladvocate/person.html and read Kreeft's thoughtful piece.

Outstanding and Entertaining Defense of the Unborn

Professor Kreeft (philosophy dept., Boston College), through the character of Socrates, eloquently and convincingly demolishes all the major arguments for abortion rights. He shows that unless one holds that human persons are more than physical property-things (that is, beings that can be exhaustively described by science), then there is no basis for "autonomy" (since there is no absolute substance or agent existing over time), no "rights" (since moral properties do not exist in a universe exhaustively described by science), and no purpose or nature to human persons (and thus, pro-aborts could not say that prolifers are "ignorant," for objecting to ignorance means that human beings have a natural purpose to know). The unborn, according to Kreeft, have an instrinsic dignity because they are human persons by nature. Whether they are able to act "autonomously" is irrelevant, for they are individual substances whose nature is human. A comatose person, a newborn, and someone sleeping lack the present ability to act autonomously, though they have the natural inherent capacity to do so. The unborn, because it is a human person, has the same natural inherent capacity. When a being lacks a particular function (e.g., it is unconscious, cannot speak, cannot hear), it does not lose its nature; it simply cannot perform the function. In fact, the lack is testimony of its nature. For example, rocks don't "lack" the ability to speak; they cannot speak by nature. Newborns, the dumb, and fetuses lack the ability to speak, because they are human persons by nature. It seems to me that those who label such thinking "Aristotelean" think that name-calling is sufficient to refute a viewpoint. The question is: Is it correct and do the arguments for it work? Also, if this view is wrong, which one is right and why? And can this alternative view ground the notions we think are intuitively correct: rights, the wrongness of prejudice, etc. If one were to call Kreeft's view "Feminism" rather than "Aristoteleanism," it would not make a wit of difference as to its cogency. The secret is to refute the position with real arguments. Some people think that reciting postmodern feminist mumbo-jumbo gobbledy-gook rather than actually making an argument is academically respectable. It isn't. And by the way, appealing to "science" as arbiter in a metaphysical debate is flawed in at least two ways: (1) it is a category mistake, and (2) the appeal to science itself is philosophical (and metaphysical) since it is something not discovered by science but something concluded as the result of philosophical reflection.

Socrates questions abortion

In this imaginative work, Socrates is resurrected and finds himself talking with various specialists about the issue of abortion. The questions he asks are appropriate for considering the ethics of this issue. A good book for those reflecting on the morality of abortion.