Home Purpose About Us Blog Articles Search Media Links Culture21 PodCasts Subscribe
Book Review: Ramesh Ponnuru's The Party of Death
February 2, 2010

 Matthew Cochrane


  

Widely recognized as one of the leading conservative minds in the country, Ramesh Ponnuru, the senior editor of National Review, felt compelled to write a book on the cause for life after finding his own opinion shifted dramatically upon examining the issue closely. 

At first glance many might think the title of his book, The Party of Death, refers solely to the Democratic Party. Not true. The Party of Death refers simply to the group of people, whether on the right or left, who support legalized abortion and other related measures (e.g. euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, etc.). 
 
The Party of Death is not your typical pro-life apologetics book. Rather than carefully constructing a pro-life worldview using sound reason and logical arguments, the book labors to debunk the myths, lies and faulty logic that have propped up legalized abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Along the way, Ponnuru reviews the fascinating political history of legalized abortion and offers a hypothetical glimpse into the future of a post-Roe world.
 
Ponnuru begins by dispelling some of the common myths surrounding Roe v. Wade.  Since many such myths have persisted for years, despite being demonstrably false, this seems a good place to begin. Since many myths surrounding the infamous Supreme Court decision purposefully cloud exactly what types of abortions were legalized, his primary point is that Roe v. Wade, along with its sister decision, Doe v. Bolton (handed down by the Supreme Court on the same day), effectively allowed legalized abortion on demand in the U.S. Ponnuru writes:
 
So: Roe required that any ban on late-term abortion include an exception allowing abortion to protect a woman’s health; Doe defined that exception so broadly that it swallowed up any possibility of a ban. How could anyone ever be prosecuted for violating a ban on late-term abortions under this rule? The “attending physician” – in real life, very often an abortionist with a financial stake in the decision – can always say that in his medical judgment, the abortion was necessary to preserve the woman’s emotional “health,” especially considered in light of her “familial” situation. Any prosecution would have to be abandoned as unconstitutional. 
 
Other myths surrounding Roe v. Wade that Ponnuru addresses here deal with the existing state laws (in all fifty states) that prohibited abortion, the prevailing public opinion at the time Roe was decided (overwhelmingly pro-life) and whether or not the Constitution recognizes unborn persons (it makes no such distinction between the born and unborn within any relevant context). 
 
As radical as these Supreme Court decisions are, Ponnuru points out (in subsequent chapters) that they are not radical enough for most Democrats. While the Supreme Court allowed abortion on demand, the Democrats have consistently fought for abortion to also be government and taxpayer subsidized.  In fact, the Democratic Party even supports the subsidization of abortions overseas. Ponnuru writes:
 
Pro-life administrations have stipulated that no international family-planning funds will go to organizations that perform abortions or advocate the legalization of abortion overseas. Pro-choice groups have protested bitterly. In December 2005, Democrats even held up a bill to combat the sexual trafficking of women and children in order to get funds flowing to pro-abortion groups.
 
Days after taking office, President Obama overturned these commonsensical laws. Thus, in a time of record national debt and deficit-spending, American taxpayers subsidize the international abortion industry.
 
In another chapter, Ponnuru tackles the commonly spread liberal myth that legalized abortion dramatically reduces the crime rate. Summarizing the argument made famous in Levitt and Dubner’s bestseller, Freakonomics, “Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.” This argument, however, does not stand up to close inspection. Ponnuru writes:
 
If Levitt’s theory were correct, one would expect murder rates to have dropped among younger teens before it dropped among older teens…
 
…this is the reverse of what happened. Between 1983 and 1993, murder rates went down among people older than twenty-five and went up among those younger. “The first cohort to survive legalized abortion went on the worst youth murder spree in American history.” The murder rate among the over-twenty-five set started falling in 1981. It started to go back up only when the set started including people born after Roe.
 
Other chapters on abortion deal with the brutal practice of partial birth abortion and the Democrats’ attempts to keep the practice legal at all costs, debating when a human being becomes a “person,” and abortion advocates attempts to rewrite American history, portraying abortion as a common practice in colonial America.
 
In the second section of the book, Ponnuru deals with the other major practice the “Party of Death” is pushing on America: euthanasia. Published just a year after the travails of Terri Schiavo and the highly explosive political debate over her fate, The Party of Death uses her case to illustrate euthanasia’s dangers and to craft an intelligent pro-life response to it.   First, Ponnuru acknowledges that pro-lifers lost a lot of ground during this high-profile case. Specifically, he believes pro-lifers “barely made the principled argument against euthanasia.” He writes:
 
For understandable political and legal reasons, those who wanted to keep feeding Terri emphasized that it was not clear that she was in a “persistent vegetative state.” But in so doing, they let the notion that it is acceptable for people who are in that state to be starved to death slide right by. It made tactical sense to question whether Mrs. Schiavo really would have wanted to die this way. But in asking it, pro-lifers failed to challenge the notion that it is acceptable to kill those who wish to be killed.
 
After acknowledging the pro-life movement’s shortcomings during this debate, Ponnuru proceeds to correct the errors. He makes it clear that there is a “perfectly rational case against euthanasia” starting with “the idea that human beings have inherent worth and dignity, and therefore are equal in fundamental rights, simply by virtue of being human.” He continues:
 
The right to life has to be among these rights, which means that it cannot depend on race, or age, or health, or sex. It cannot depend even on whether the person who has it wants it: He doesn’t cease to be a human being with the full complement of rights simply because he wants to die. (It is because the right is intrinsic to human beings that it is also inalienable, as our Founders, who were not theocrats, put it.)
 
The case for euthanasia, however, “almost inescapably rests on what might be described as a kind of irrational spirituality.” This brings us to dualism, the philosophy abortion and euthanasia are forced to employ. Dualism is the concept that the “person” is separate from the physical body. This philosophy holds that the person is “the ghost in the machine” or the “tune in the music box.” Ponnuru believes this dualism is “untenable,” however, when examined through the lens of “everyday experience.” Earlier in the book, Ponnuru addresses this philosophic fallacy:
 
We sense and perceive, which are clearly bodily actions, but also engage in conceptual thinking, which cannot be reduced to bodily actions; and it is clearly the same subject who does both types of things. The dualist who utters his idea refutes it in the act of voicing it.  We are (among other things) our bodies.
 
So it is, in a strange twist, that we find the pro-life argument rests on physical and scientific truths, while abortion and euthanasia advocates are forced to depend on a quasi-spiritual philosophy to defend their practices. Ultimately, Ponnuru takes a nuanced but principled stance, stating that there is a difference between taking actions that purposefully end life and not doing everything one can to prolong life.
 
Ponnuru dedicates other chapters in the book to related topics, including embryonic stem cell research, the anti-life bias found in the media, and even that strangest of breeds, the pro-life Democrat. Ponnuru concludes with a brief, but riveting, political history of abortion, showing why pro-choice approval peaked in public opinion in the early 90’s and why it has been in decline ever since. In the final chapter, Ponnuru briefly describes the challenges that await the pro-life movement once Roe v. Wade is overturned, a very real possibility in his estimation. 
 
Ultimately, The Party of Death does not build an airtight case for the sanctity of life, but that does not seem to have been its purpose. Rather, Ponnuru’s goal was to debunk and demystify the many misleading and deceptive arguments of abortion and euthanasia advocates. On this level, the book largely succeeds. By carefully discrediting and exposing these myths, lies, and disingenuous arguments, Ponnuru makes an important contribution to pro-life literature; a book that many conservatives would find enlightening and helpful in this most important of crusades. 

  


Comments

This article is interesting and well written.

it makes no such distinction between the born and unborn within any relevant context

it is irrefutable that every instance of person in the Constitution is referring to someone who has been born and it is birth that establishes citizenship.  The Constitution does not establish that the 4th or 14th amendments may be applied to the fetus or that a fetus may take the lab or the woman doing the bearing to court.  Find a state that will or has passed a law to protect embryos and see what happens to it at the Supreme Court.  Their decision would probably rest on the decisions made by the egg and sperm donors.

I think you'll have a hard time making a law that takes away a person's right as follows: "Do not resuscitate" as long as the family does not override it.

Roe and Doe merely say it is not the state's purview to limit choice.

- c

States had anti abortion laws before Roe.  I'm not so sure all did, but no states having anti abortion laws after Roe is like no states eventually doing away with having a state religion after the first amendment was ratified.

- c

see map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_before_Roe

"In 1970, New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. A law in Washington, DC, which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being," essentially allowing abortion in Washington, DC. In order to obtain abortions during this period, mother would often travel from a state where abortion was illegal to states where it was legal."

Maybe Ponnuru's info is better?

- c

If New York allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy then it stands to reason they had laws outlawing abortion after the 24th week.  A handful of states, including New York and California, had more liberal laws than the rest of the country. That's one of the great things about federalism - each state chooses their own laws allowing for a far more democratic process than the national government, especially the judicial branch, forcing all states to have the same law. 

When Roe was decided, however, it overturned all laws prohibiting abortion from more conservative laws in most states to more liberal laws in others.  No state allowed abotion on demand. Roe forced all fifty states to adopt abortion on demand as the law of the land.

- Matthew Cochrane

oh, so you didn't mean that all 50 states prohibited abortion thanks for clarifying

- c

that's an easy mistake.  prohibit means forbid.  restrict means to limit

but it is an important distinction esp. for law experts

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/CJST/Officer-Requirements/LE-Ethical-Standards-of-Conduct.aspx

- c

so I guess that reduces Ponnuru's myth count by let's see.....one

- c

and the myth about Roe and Doe sounds like a strawman to me, even I knew that...make that two

- c

btw, have you actually read Freakenomics?  I have.  Most of what Levitt says is valid and he himself admits that his conclusion is problematic.  Darn, there goes the myth that I don't read.

- c

...and P'ru myth number three....gone

- c

this most important of crusades

myth

On the subject of abortion, Ponnuru's thrust seems to be to halt the march towards laws that facilitate abortion by encroaching on the conscience of others for ex by paying for them with our tax money and restricting things like partial birth abortions.  On these points, I agree.

- c

abortion advocates attempts to rewrite American history

myth

both sides are doing that

especially confusing for example is those who try to say important founding document writers like Jefferson and Madison were Christians

makes one wonder if they know what a Christian actually is

- c

and just to be clear for those that are confused, a Christian is someone who relies only on Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins.  There are many admonishments and warnings that Christians are to adhere to but none are able to fully live up to them.

Christian principles could mean just about anything which is why people like to refer to them so much for example, "Christian principles for success."  Christian principles are based on his the teaching of Jesus.  In one case at least, Jesus emphasized the two greatest commandments.  In brief, love God and love your neighbor as yourself.  He went on to say that the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments.  Note: neighbors have been born, a fetus hasn't.

- c

I haven't read this book, but I'd like to see states excersize their individual rights. If they want to make it a felony for abortions, then states should be allowed to do that... regardless of what the Supreme Court says. After all, don't the states have rights that can superceed those of the Federal level if they want to?

By the way, C, there was a piece in the latest National Review about minimum wage and how it destroys communities. It's very interesting. The theory was that minimum wage forces employers to pay a certain amount which forces them in some respect to hire only people they feel are going to be worth the money. As apposed to of course, being allowed to hire multiple teenagers at lower pay (to give them their first job, for example).

Anyway, the guy who they were using as their example was known only as "C".

- Todd

Thanks, Todd. I can never remember the editorial slant of NR but that article sounds about right.

The problem with states rights is that the Supreme Court in a power grab applies Amendment XIV in a way that supercedes Amendment X.  That's not opinion.  That's just what they do.

The states will have to call their bluff in some way to reset things back to Amendment X.  States have their Army and Air National Guard.  It's them versus only nine SCOTUS people.

- c

C, hmm... in this example, I guess they are referring to Article 1 of the 14th amendment, right? The rights of a citizen granted at the federal level,

IE: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This seems it could only apply to conditions such as that. It's a hair vague I suppose... which is exactly the way liberals like it so they can interpret it in any way they want. I guess the condition of life at conception would remain the argument... the rights of the fetus apparently do not apply.

As far as I'm concerned, if the heart beats, there should be absolutely NO question as to whether or not it's alive. I mean... the baby is by any factual sense of the word... "alive".

 

- Todd

I think you have described the dilemma.  Btw, I think of a fetus as a he or she.

- c

It's interesting to me that liberals in their perceived omnipotence, have this idea that they can foretell when life starts. That somehow the beating of a heart doesn't signify that... that life begins once the baby somehow enters into another physical area... then suddenly, even though nothing has changed with the baby from one second to the next, the baby is then somehow alive.

I had a friend of a friend who had 4 abortions. All of the abortions were nothing more than a form of birth control to this lady. Then suddenly in her late 30s, she wants to have a child, and somehow she can't get pregnant. It simply doesn't do enough justice.

- Todd

TOdd, there probalby are a lot more liberals who are pro choice I suppose, but not all pro choice advocates are liberals.  The key aspect of a pro choice opinion is that it recognizes that someone like your friend has the right to chose what she did as abhorent as it may be.  We are all lucky to have made it to and out of the delivery room alive (assuming one is happy to be alive).  The split opinions on this topic is a significant reason why I don't really understand why a "conservative" blog like this one even goes there.

I'm surprised the Tebow advocacy commercial hasn't been mentioned here yet maybe because is Thug U country (or the school formerly known as Thug U?), but I guess you 're all waiting to see what is actually on the commercial -- good move.  Then, there's a statement about it already released by Gloria Alred that the Tebows should disclose that in the Rep. of the Philippines where Pam Tebow was when she "decided" [quotes implied by Alred] not to abort.  It's strange that she would say that because isn't that like admitting it's a good thing (for UF fans anyway) that it was illegal because Tim wouldn't have been born otherwise (sorry 'bout the runon sentence)?

- c

C, I actually tend to agree with you. As abhorrent as abortion is, I actually prefer to focus this site on politics with regard to "Free-Trade", "Fiscal Conservatism", etc... but... I am not the only member of the site so it is by no means my call. I've never personally made a blog post about Abortion or Gay Rights, or anything that deals directly with the issue of morality (unless there is a direct fiscal association).

My wife went to University of Florida. I'm interested in seeing the commercial. Personally, I enjoy the fact that so many people are apparently going to be upset by it. It's hilarious to me how angry the pro-abortion side is getting over this.

- Todd

On morality, it is interesting that very few amendments deal with it.  One that did, prohibition, didn't last long.

- c

Whether we realize it or not, morality plays a huge part in the way our society works. Almost every piece of legislation is based around the ideology of morals. Take for example "Capital Murder" chargers. This is undoubtedly about morals "thou shall not kill". Everything from the Emancipation Proclimation to Insider Trading regulations in the stock market are all forms of morality.

As much as some people hate to admit it, almost all of these morals that we define as "laws" which were put into place by our founding fathers, were taken from Christianity when we used the Bible as a template.

Never the less, it's a good system, and as my Democrat friend says "you gotta give them props".

By the way, I still think you're the "C" they were referring to in National Review.

- Todd

Sorry, I forgot to debunk the NR article.  That ain't me.

Seems to me I read somewhere that our laws are based on British Common Law and that has something to do with Anglo-Saxons and Romans, but there's probably some Judeo-Christian stuff in there.  For example, the quickening of a fetus is in the British Common Law.  But murder's pretty much not condoned in any cultures I'm aware of.  The Code of Hamurabi was around about the same time as Mosaic law and similar so they say.  If a bill became a law without Supreme Court intervention which said murder is okay would people need to quote the Bible to get an amendment to override it?  I don't think so.  Of course, one might kill all the legislators that voted for it in the meantime.  It's just not a practical concept.

My point on the constitution is that it is more procedural than moral.  Three parts of government and how they work.  It does have some strong statements about religious freedom implying we each practice as we like.  The Bill of Rights amendments were added to Madison's draft to limit the federal govt from imposing on states rights and to limit federal and state govts from imposing on individual rights.  Later amendments expanded some procedures and freedoms such as voting rights and abolition and in the case of Amendment XIV increased federal power esp. in the Judiciary Branch.

- c

Ramesh Ponnuru has graciously decided to address some of these questions here, in a separate blog post.

- Matthew Cochrane

too bad he got the wrong questions

- c


Comment:
Name:
Enter the letters:


Articles this Month:

  1. The Twenty-One Best Conservative Movies of the 21st Century, Part 2 (#8-14)


  2. The Order of the Knights Templar


  3. The Twenty-One Best Conservative Movies of the 21st Century, Part 3 (#1-7)


Recently Viewed Articles:


Top Ten Hits All-Time

  1. Self-Reliance: The Virtue of a Conservative



  2. Bush's Legacy



  3. Bad Medicine: The Top Five Reasons Why Obamacare is Bad for America



  4. Eight Glasses of Water a Day Keeps the Masculinity Away



  5. The Fair Tax Proposal: Making Taxes Fair



  6. What is Conservatism? Defining the Philosophy of the Right



  7. How Christian Faith Fueled the American Revolution



  8. Book Review: America Alone - Western Civilization's War Against Radical Islam



  9. Conception, Not Birth: A Revealing Look at the Beginning of Life



  10. C21's 2009 Christmas Gift Guide





Feeds / Connections:



Add to My AOL Add to Google

 


©2010 Conservative 21