The Unaborted Socrates: A Dramatic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion
Book Review • Kreeft, Peter. The Unaborted Socrates: A Dramatic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983. Kindle Edition. $12.01.
Read time: 10 min
Peter Kreeft is a professor of Philosophy at Boston College. At nearly eighty years old, he is a Christian apologist and still a prolific writer, having written well over fifty books on philosophy, religion, theism, and Christianity. Kreeft studied as an undergraduate at Calvin College in the late 1950s, receiving an M.A. and later his doctoral degree in 1965 from Fordham University. Having been raised in the Calvinist tradition, Kreeft’s life took a dramatic turn with his eventual conversion to Catholicism. As a Christian, as a Catholic, and as an apologist, Kreeft has spent a great deal of time interacting with the moral and social matter of abortion. The book under consideration here, which he wrote in 1983, The Unaborted Socrates: A Dramatic Debate on the Issues Surrounding Abortion, is one such example.
Summary
Socrates debates abortion advocates? Why, yes. Though the acclaimed father of Western Philosophy died twenty-five-hundred years ago, he being dead yet speaks. At least, that is, Professor Peter Kreeft has donned a tunic and the Socratic method and launched into dialogues with hypothetical, modern, pro-abortion advocates. The Unaborted Socrates is a fictional conversation between a pro-life “Socrates” and three pro-choice characters: a physician, a philosopher, and a psychologist, each in turn. Throughout the guided dialogues, Kreeft touches on key arguments, presuppositions, fallacies, and evasive maneuvers employed by abortion advocates today. On the back cover of this book are the most central questions he enlists: Is abortion a matter of women’s rights? When does human life begin? Should we legislate morality? Throughout the book’s three movements and 157 pages (in the paper version), Kreeft walks the reader through these issues and more.
“Socrates” engages his opponents as a self-proclaimed “abortionist,” an aborter of fallacies, inconsistencies, and ignorance, and thus claims also to be an intellectual midwife, helping others to think about, articulate, and justify what they advocate (45). This tact wholly shapes the dialogues, as he questions the questions and questions the answers of those he debates. This Socratic Method consistently reveals the assumptions of each respective abortion advocate. Socrates’ first dialogue is with Dr. Rex Herrod, an abortion doctor (think: “King Herod,” who slew the male young of Bethlehem). Herrod, we come to see, assumes a great many things. For example, abortion is a medical procedure not a moral issue (75), and if it is a moral issue, it is morally good since it provides society a service (84).
Throughout the tense dialogue, the crux of Herrod’s rationalization about his abortive work hinges upon the assumption that the fetus is neither a human nor a person (178). This comes into play as Socrates draws links between the immoral treatment of slaves or minorities—because they are humans with rights—and a fetus. Herrod must hold that a fetus is a blob of tissue and not a human, and part of a woman’s body and not a person. Therefore, drawing a link between the two is comparing apples and oranges (291). Other assumptions include being unsure about the ontological status of a fetus and whether it is a person or not, which could mean it is fine to abort (494); a fetus is a potential and not an actual person (488); and a fetus is part of a mother’s body, over which she has the final say (605). Socrates adeptly argues that the mere fact that a fetus is smaller in size, less developed, more dependent, and less mobile than a two-year-old, for example, does not mean, in its essence, it is less human or less a person. This follows from the fact that just because a two-year-old is smaller in size, less developed, more dependent, and less mobile than an adult does not make it less human or less of a person than an adult.
In the second dialogue, Socrates reveals the abortion-minded assumptions of the philosophical community in the person of ethicist Professor Attila Tarian (think: utilitarian). Attila begins his remarks by claiming that opposition to abortion is basically ecclesiastical (1218). That is, anti-abortion activity is the tyrannical opposition of churches and religious movements on women’s rights. He reasons that we should not legislate morality since restrictive abortion laws are unenforceable and since every child should be a wanted child (1234). Basically, “You can’t stop a woman who wants an abortion from having one in an alley,” and “it’s better to terminate the life of an unwanted fetus than bring it into a world unwanted. Attila then makes it more personal. He asserts that cultural foes of abortion are typically two-faced—advocating a “sanctity of life” in the womb but not on the battlefield (1416).
To these arguments, Socrates responds by simply saying that none of his own arguments against abortion are religiously motivated (1317). Kreeft means to show here that there are plenty of arguments against abortion that have nothing to do with one’s religious persuasion. For example, he argues that abortion is wrong because it harms not only a fetus but its mother. In fact, abortion harms the mother more than the fetus since doing harm is worse than suffering harm (1343). In this logic, the pregnant mother, who being moved by social evils, personal pressures, and legal protection, harms her unborn baby is harming herself by doing this evil. As the pro-life saying goes: “Abortion hurts women.” He presses Atilla, who retreats into the shadows of Relativism by demonstrating that Relativism is a self-defeating and inadequate basis for avoiding the murderous realities of abortion (1443). Is truth relative? If so, is it absolutely relative, or only relatively relative, Socrates asks?
Similarly, the so-called “ethic of tolerance” Attila says he wishes pro-lifers would display is ultimately hypocritical, Socrates exposes, in that those who seem intolerant because they disagree with abortionists (viz. pro-lifers) are often treated with intolerance by pro-choicers (1452). Turning the tables on his philosophical foe, Socrates presents pro-lifers as true libertarians since they uphold the value of the right to life as higher than the pro-choicer’s values of the convenience and personal comfort of the mother at the expense of the life of her child (1472). Again, as before, the issue comes back to the status of the unborn fetus—is it a human life, a person? If a human, if a person, it too has inalienable rights that trump the prerogative of a mother to kill it (1491).
Finally, Socrates, debates a third abortion advocate, Dr. “Pop” Syke, a psychologist (think: pop psychology). Throughout the discussion, Syke betrays some of his assumptions, which fall under the scrutiny of Socrates. For example, Syke maintains that people who oppose abortion must have some kind of pent-up guilt or fear or need, which is why they are so rationalistic and moralistic (1823); they make moral judgments about people involved in the abortion industry because they have guilt they are trying to salve (1979). One tact Syke employed was upholding the rights of women to reproductive freedom to terminate their pregnancy. This includes doing as she pleases with “her own body,” which, of course, assumes the fetus is part of her body (2096). At the zenith of his effort to justify the legitimacy of abortion, Syke asserts that the right to have an abortion is necessary for women to be equal to men in all respects, to not uniquely have to bare the “burden” of pregnancy (2264).
Socrates’ responses, no surprise, are on point. The philosopher calls out, with ease, the circularity of intolerance at “intolerance.” He explained to Sykes that to judge pro-life advocates for “judging” those involved in an abortion is to be judgmental and thus self-contradictory (2013). In terms of women’s reproductive freedom, Socrates offers four legitimate alternatives to illegitimate abortion: chastity, contraception, adoption, and motherhood (2154). As in his dialogues with Drs. Herrod and Tarian, so with Dr. Syke the debate finally arrives at the crux of the abortion debate: is the fetus a human and a person? If a person is not merely part of a woman’s body and thus does not fall under the purview of women’s rights. “If the fetus is a person, it is not part of the mother’s body, since persons are not parts of other persons. So she does not have rights over it, not the right of life and death, at any rate” (2233). They ended their debate touching on abortion in the event of rape. Socrates dealt with this matter with this: “Can you show me any other case where you would say it is right to answer the problem of being victimized by turning around and victimizing another person?” (2391). So, Kreeft gave the reader a remarkably wide experience of the arguments advanced by pro-choice advocates.
Critical Analysis
The imaginative nature of Kreeft’s fictional dialogues, the controversial topic, the witty humor, and the penetrating logic provide much for our evaluation. In my estimation, there are both significant strengths and decided weaknesses of this work. The Unaborted Socrates has three strengths in particular: its content, its humor, and it’s dialogical format.
Strengths
First, Kreeft offers the reader excellent content, displaying a tremendous grasp of the issues surrounding the abortion debate. Not only does he cover a broad range of issues within the debate, but he also makes nuanced and detailed arguments. His rebuttals to common arguments and allegations of the Pro-choice camp are useful. The best example of truly helpful content is that each of the three dialogues winds up facing the same question: is the fetus a human being and a person? Before reading this book, in the fog of cries for gender equality, problems with legislating morality, and making sense of abortion rights for rape victims or mothers whose health is jeopardized by a pregnancy, I would not have been able to put my finger on the crux of the abortion debate. I saw the status of the fetus as an issue and not the issue. For if the fetus is a living human being—if a unique person—then abortion is murder and all the laws and ethical norms regarding the murders of babies, toddlers, and adults alike all apply.
Second, Kreeft effectively uses humor to engage the reader. I found myself laughing aloud every few pages at Socrates’ turns of phrase. Upon meeting Socrates, the ethicist, Tarian remarks: “I guess I mean to ask: What do you want me to call you?” Socrates answers, “My name, if you please. What do you want me to call you?” Tarian: “You might call me a taxi. I’m not sure I want to stay.” Socrates: “Well, then, you’re a taxi. But please stay” (1287). But even better than slapstick comedy was this line: Herrod: “My friend is a professor in a theological seminary. He also does not believe in gods.” Socrates: “I met someone like that a while ago. He was a Christian Scientist, and he taught physical chemistry.” Herrod: “I don’t see the connection.” Socrates: “Neither did he” (1084). And there was an occasional one-liner worthy of remembering: “You know, you’re really fascinating, Socrates. I’ve never met anyone like you before.” Socrates: “That is indeed a great defect in your educational experience. I trust we can remedy it” (2113). To be sure, Kreeft’s Socrates lacks no confidence.
A third strength of the book is its dialogical format. The back-and-forth argumentative style makes for a quick and interesting read. With each move, there is a reaction, a repositioning, a checking. The instant feedback this format offers is rewarding in that you do not have to wonder how someone might respond to a given argument. In this very respect, Kreeft has achieved a remarkable feat of putting into witty and believable conversation such highly philosophical issues. Kreeft seems fond of the Socratic Method of interacting with ideas. His numerous books along these lines are a testament to that. In addition to the book under consideration here, in which Kreeft assumes the person of Socrates, are others: Socrates Meets Jesus (2002), Machiavelli (2003), Marx (2004), Sartre (2005), Descartes (2007), Kant (2009), and Hume (2010). Writing in this format is a strength of Kreeft and perhaps how he processes ideas himself.
Weaknesses
As for the weaknesses of The Unaborted Socrates, there are at least three in my estimation: its argumentative tone, its hypothetical nature, and its limited accessibility. First, the book is purely argumentative in tone. In this sense, it eventually becomes wearisome. I think Kreeft knew this too, for on several occasions, each of Socrates’ opponents themselves become weary of the incessant argumentation of Socrates and nearly give up conversing. One-hundred-and-fifty-seven pages of non-stop, argumentative banter is a lot to consume. But beyond the eventual tedium of the Socratic method is the argumentative tone that I fear could be contagious to the reader and replicated when engaging others in conversation about abortion matters. It's understandable that the profoundly rational Socrates argues doggedly and mercilessly, given the circumstances and his opponents. But the same tone could hardly ever be appropriate for a pro-life reader to employ with others. In that the tone is driven, unrelenting, and focused on one thing—following the Master logic—for obvious reasons, such a unidimensional approach is impractical at best (one might endure it for a minute or two) and likely damaging at worst.
Second, its hypothetical nature is a weakness in my estimation. Though featuring both sides in the abortion debate, in that the entire conversation is crafted by the author to prove the points of the author, the book lacks real objectivity. In this way, it greatly differs from a real, written debate featuring two or more scholars advocating their divergent views and rebutting and cross-examining each others’ positions. Kreeft’s hypothetical debate is much less winsome and attractive to pro-choice readers. Picture this, for example: how receptive would the average Christian reader be to picking up a fictional “debate” featuring a conversation between David Hume and a well-meaning but outmatched Christian on the topic of God’s existence—written by Christopher Hitchens? If, from the outset, it is evident that the author intends for Hume to demolish the arguments and capitalize on the missteps of the unfortunate Christian in the fictional dialogue, it could actually be quite repulsive to read. For similar reasons, if I were pro-choice, I would have little confidence that Kreeft represented my position as well as possible in the likable yet at times bumbling forms of Drs. Herrod, Tarian, and “Pop” Syke.
A third weakness I see is the limited accessibility of Kreeft’s fictitious debate. To be sure, the book itself is a respectable achievement. As stated before, the skits are witty, the arguments penetrating, and the transitions masterful. Still, due to its densely philosophical nature (it is Socrates talking, after all), it will likely fit the bill of a much smaller readership than other pro-life works, which focus on more existential or social considerations. Of course, all kinds of weapons are needed in this culture war. This limited accessibility extends beyond its headiness to its usefulness as an educational tool. Though scores of arguments and counterarguments are utilized in the book, since they are not listed, categorized, or organized concisely, it is challenging to learn the arguments and responses efficiently. A basic primer that lists the critical arguments for both sides of the debate, complete with summarized counter-arguments, could cogently outline in only a few pages the same arguments woven throughout the 157 pages of imaginative conversation and humorous banter.
Conclusion
Though Kreeft may be somewhat presumptuous for assuming the person of none other than the great philosopher Socrates, the tact is engaging and full of personality, and the Socratic Method itself serves the reader well, on the whole, in creating a stimulating and enlightening survey of the issues surrounding the abortion debate. I would recommend Peter Kreeft’s The Unaborted Socrates, especially to any reader unsure or unaware of the profound philosophical bedrock undergirding the pro-life position. In my estimation, this work is plenty to bolster one’s confidence that to oppose the barbarism of abortion today is to be on the right side of the debate and on the right side of history. ❖
