GOOD, IF FLAWED, book review in the Weekly Standard, looking at three books on abortion. The author, David Tell, has a keen eye for the interesting nuggets that complicate the oversimplified stories preferred by both supporters and opponents of abortion. Flaws: His tone is way too strident for my taste, and in my opinion veers into condescension; and in emphasizing the sharp difference between contraception and abortion (a difference in kind, not in degree*), he glosses over the causal (contraception enables promiscuity which then spurs demand for abortion) and philosophical (pleasure vs. family-making as the goal of sex**) connections between the two. But these flaws should in no way keep you from checking out his piece.

* although some contraceptives can also cause early abortions under some circumstances.

**EDITED TO ADD: By this I mean, “contraception opposes pleasure and family-making,” “family-making is thought of as a detriment to pleasure.” I don’t mean, “contraception is bad because sex shouldn’t be pleasurable,” or whatever. Sorry if that was unclear.

One of the books reviewed is Back to the Drawing Board, a book of assessments and critiques of the pro-life movement by its participants. Tell is absolutely right that the mere presence of this book is a good sign–a movement needs internal criticism and self-judgment. I only leafed through the book last Sunday at the National Shrine bookshop, but even from a cursory reading I can recommend Nat Hentoff’s essay. Hentoff’s reasons for becoming pro-life were very similar to my own, and he includes a moving quotation about the Left as defender of the powerless that gets at some of the less philosophical, more emotional reasons I changed my mind.