I was told this was 'the' book to read on this topci. Have never been so badly put wrong in my life. It was total rant, no arguments offered, the position was just stated without evidence or sources offered most of the time. The conclusions were jumped to by psycho-analysis into objectors' childhoods and prudish tendancies "these people hate sex" "this entire class of people hate women" all the while assuming without argument that anyone who likes sex and likes women will agree with her. If its feminist rant you want for the purposes of convincing other feminist ranters who don't would rather hear about their oponents women/sex hating tendencies than why their arguments are invalid then buy this you will love it. On the other hand if you want to engage in an academic arena and employ logic and arguments steer clear and don't waste your money.

Simply the best treatment of the historical, religious, theological, medical, ethical issues regarding abortion. Period. Any real discussion of abortion must deal with Harrison's work. Regrettably, I loaned that book to somebody (who I don't recall), and it was never returned. I trust they needed it more than did I.

Dr.Harrison was Professor of Christian Ethics at Union
Theological Seminary. She uses theological scholarship
and scientific data to make a case for a pro-choice
feminist morality of abortion. Her work is one of
the classics of pro-choice political theory. Also
recommended- her book "Making the Connections."

When I read this I couldn't beleive that anyone could take this methodology seriously. Firstly, Harrison wants to change the way Christian's think on the issue of abortion and other social stances typically taken by Christians. She completely fails to take into count that this cannot happen given that true Christians follow the Bible and the Bible has certain teachings on issues like abortion that the church is powerless to change, much less Harrison with her meaningless dialogues.

Harrison states that "Women's competence as moral decision makers is being denied" and states, not argues, that women must have the right to procreative choice. In doing this she totally missed the point and her argument is circular.

Harrison totally fails to engage the abortion issue - the question that must be answered is: is the unborn child a separate moral person with a right to life? If the unborn child is a human being with a right to life then no one has the right to take that life so talking about women's procreative choices without answering this question is as irrelevant as me talking about my procreative choice to refuse to use my body to feed my infant and assume that that somehow settles the matter about the morality of infanticide. If the unborn is not a human being with a right to life then perhaps its fate is less important and the woman, giving it's existence affects her body might be able to make that decision.

By demanding a woman's right to make her own procreative choice and waahing on about women's competence as moral decision makers on abortion, Harrison demonstrates that she has already decided this issue and from there uses her position to claim that her position is right. This proves nothing.

From the outset Harrison has already decided that the unborn's life is less important than the woman's, this is obvious as she assumes that its fate can be decided by the woman. If we were talking about five year olds and whether women were morally capable decision makers on the issue of whether they could choose to kill them or not we would all be laughing out loud at Harrison's methodology because no one, not even a five year olds mother for any reason is justified in killing a five year old because a five year old has a right to life regardless of how physically and emotionally dependant it is on its mother.

Starting out assuming that women are morally capable of deciding to kill five year olds when discussing the issue of infanticide and whether it is morally acceptable, clearly shows that you don't value the life of the five year old or view it's moral status as equal to the woman's. It is clearly flawed to approach the issue of the morality of killing five year olds by stating that women are capable of deciding their fate and that the state should stay out of it. Generally, when the issue of human life is at stake we trust in the state to protect it, we don't give individual people the right to decide based on how they feel if we live or die.

Yet this is where Harrison starts on abortion, she assumes what she is trying to prove; because it is ok to kill them, it is ok to kill them, and therefore proves nothing except the fact she cannot reason and this book is a waste of your time and money.

Beverly Harrison is one of the most well respected social ethicists of the twentieth century, and this book provides an excellent sampling of her contributions to the field. She has a formidable intellect, and her essays reveal an extensive knowledge of Christian history and philosophy. She is well known for her development of a Christian ethic of procreative choice.