The indictment is clear, but the argument for it is still rather sketchy and limited. Those who perpetrate abortions are murderers (though a woman who allows her fetus to be killed is merely an unwitting murderer, tricked by modern philosophy). This is a somewhat brief, breezy, and entertaining look at the question of abortion, and it is surely no surprise that Peter Kreeft, a Catholic apologist of some fame and doggedness, has his rational Socrates come down squarely against the practice. Still, you've got to give Kreeft some high marks for not once refering to the Bible or religion to make his case against abortion. The three quick dialogues wander a bit, seemingly to make the characters appear real and their conversations off-the-cuff, but when the participants finally get around to making their best points, they all make fairly good ones. In my view, Kreeft is correct to center the entire moral argument for and against abortion on the personhood of the human embryo and fetus. Nevertheless, his case for considering the human fetus as a person -- made through Socrates' question-answer dialectic -- is sound but weak. Much more could be said in objection to Socrates' rapid, blithe conclusion that the human zygote should be considered a person than Kreeft allows his pro-choice opponents to say. Also, Kreeft does not even enter the world of law and democratic politics, which are, of course, as firmly in the center of the abortion debate as the definition of the fetus. Still, let me be clear, I am pro-life and agree with Socrates' conclusions. I just don't think his opponents in this debate are given the best or fullest challenges to the pro-life position. All in all, this is a worthwhile read. Sad to say, though: it has probably had little to no affect on the abortion debate. But all those who are pro-life must keep on talking, trying to persuade people to see the evils of this practice, in the dim hope that some day we shall overcome. We have no other choice.