Bertha Manninen defends a woman’s right to have an abortion, but she argues that those on the pro-choice side share values with those who are against a woman’s right to choose.  It is possible to simultaneously concede that abortion involves a significant loss, and that women should be allowed to make that choice.  So she argues that pro-choice activists should allow that a fetus may have value, and that it is more than just a “clump of cells,” to use the phrase that often gets used to dismiss the ideas of those who believe that a fetus has the same moral rights as a baby.  Pro-choice activists can also regret the large numbers of abortions that are performed, and can work towards reducing the need for abortion.  They can acknowledge that the men who had sex with the women to cause the pregnancy may have genuine feelings about the fetus and its future, and may feel profound regret if the woman does not carry the pregnancy through.  Manninen argues against those who think that men should be able to force their partners to either have an abortion or not to have an abortion, and also argues that the biological father should have financial responsibility for his child even if he wanted the woman to get an abortion and the woman refused.  Nevertheless, she argues that it is reasonable for women to include men in their decision-making process and even to take into account their preferences when deciding what to do. 

So Manninen’s views are far from being at some mid-point between those who favor a women’s right to choose and those who are against it.  She is firmly on the pro-choice side.  Nevertheless, she argues that the debate has been distorted by the apparent need for both sides to take extreme positions and deny any truth in what their opponents say.  In terms of principle, she is very convincing, and her points are exactly right.  The question she addresses less is whether it is wise in political terms for the pro-choice side to make any concessions to the religious right in the USA when the need to tirelessly defend women’s right to abortion is under constant attack and potential reversal from the US Supreme Court.  Which is more effective: the politics of compromise and finding middle ground, or the politics of relentless attack?  Certainly, it would seem to reasonable people that it is better to find a middle ground where most involved in a debate can agree on the best way forward.  However, what should we do when dealing with unreasonable people?  Compromise and attempts to find mutual ground may just lead to loss of ground. 

Nevertheless, there are many arenas for discussion which are not heavily politicized, and college classrooms are among those.  Manninen’s book will be a valuable addition to the philosophical literature on abortion.  Its strength is not in adding yet another layer to the already long-running and all-too-often tortuous disputes about the rights of the unborn and the nature of personhood.  Instead, the text side-steps most of those and shows how it is possible for those on the pro-choice side to concede many of the points made by their opponents without fundamentally changing their position.  She includes some autobiographical elements in explaining the development of her ideas, and this humanizes her position even more.  Her writing is clear and her arguments are carefully considered.  The book contains a good deal of information both about recent legal decisions, political developments, and also philosophical discussion. Pro-Life, Pro-Choice: Shared Values in the Abortion Debate is a valuable contribution to the literature.

© 2014 Christian Perring

Christian Perring, Professor of Philosophy, Dowling College, New York