Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom 
asked by freedrink on November 21, 2006 4:57 PM
One of the country's most distinguished scholars presents a brilliantly original approach to the twin dilemmas of abortion and euthanasia, showing why they arouse such volcanic controversy and how we as a society can reconcile our values of life and individual liberty.
Reviews
0%
0%
Not light reading or a polemic, but rather a carefully and closely reasoned investigation of how one comes to decisions about matters involving the taking of life, with particular emphasis on doing so under the US Constitution
ý
>
ý
Starting with an in-depth look at the arguments about abortion, Dworkin moves out to wider considerations of euthanasia and suicide. He shows how many of the classic arguments in these areas are actually closer to each other than most participants would think or admit, and then shows where continued dialog and discussion might be useful, without asking either side to compromise basic principles. One of Dworkin's main concerns is to show that a principled interpretation of the constitution should be both a liberal and a conservative mandate. Even in the divisive issue of abortion, principled stand based on the inherent value of life helps both sides:
ý
ý
>
ý
Starting with an in-depth look at the arguments about abortion, Dworkin moves out to wider considerations of euthanasia and suicide. He shows how many of the classic arguments in these areas are actually closer to each other than most participants would think or admit, and then shows where continued dialog and discussion might be useful, without asking either side to compromise basic principles. One of Dworkin's main concerns is to show that a principled interpretation of the constitution should be both a liberal and a conservative mandate. Even in the divisive issue of abortion, principled stand based on the inherent value of life helps both sides:
ý
reviewed by bigben on November 29, 2006 6:23 PM
0%
0%
I was actually looking forward to reading this book. I came with an open mind and yet the poor writing and lack of credible arguments astounded me. How is this author a scholar and still able to write weakly biased material that is published by a major house?
I would recomend not reading this book no matter what your stance is on these topics. If you agree with the author, you may be blinded by your beliefs to embrace his scewed logic, and if you disagree, you will get a bad impression of the actual arguments his side could give.
I would recomend not reading this book no matter what your stance is on these topics. If you agree with the author, you may be blinded by your beliefs to embrace his scewed logic, and if you disagree, you will get a bad impression of the actual arguments his side could give.
reviewed by librarian on November 29, 2006 7:29 PM