Mmm...Facts
Wesley J. Smith reviewing The Party of Death, observes that Ponnuru's "thesis about Democrats is unassailable. Supporting the 'right to choose' is an uber litmus test for any ambitious party member seeking national influence." Unless you want to achieve national influence by, say, becoming Minority Leader of the United States Senate, that is. And David Bonior was Minority Whip in the United States House of Representatives until he stepped down to run for governor.
Obviously, there's no sense in denying that the Democratic Party is, generally speaking, the pro-choice party and that conforming to the predominant Democratic view on abortion policy will aide an elected official's efforts to rise within party ranks. At the same time, though, you have the Republican Party in which I believe . . . zero of the pro-choice members of the House hold leadership positions in that body, while zero of the pro-choice Republican Senators hold leadership positions in that body, and Arlen Specter was forced to promise that he wouldn't actually act on his nominal pro-choice beliefs when considering judicial nominees in order to hold on to his spot as top Republican on the judiciary committee.
I just tried a little experiment. I did a search on the campaign web site for Amy Klobuchar, the endorsed Democrat running for the US Senate in Minnesota. I searched "abortion": zero hits. I searched "pro-choice" zero hits.
"Cut and run" would seem to apply.
June 25, 2006 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smith: The first third of the book effectively deconstructs most, but not all, of the arguments in favor of abortion rights. Ponnuru quotes embryology textbooks to demonstrate unequivocally that, scientifically, human biological life begins with the completion of fertilization. This refutes Mario Cuomo's nonsensical assertion that only religious belief leads to the conclusion that life begins at conception.
Oh dear. Unequivocally that scientifically that "human biological life" etc. Argument by a pile-up of adverbs and adjectives.
Where are venomous rabid sheep when we need them? It is scientifically unequivocal that Smith is biologically unable to understand logic.
By the way, what is wrong with sperm and ovum before the completion of fertilization? Aren't they alive? Aren't they human? I guess that embryonology textbooks provide good illustration of immortal soul entering the embryo at the exact moment of "completion of fertilization"
June 25, 2006 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it Ezra Klein that noted the neat convience of Ponnuru's decision to regard abortion, stem cell research, and assisted suicide as the only relevant political issues to consider when thinking about The Party of Death. How different his book might have been if he'd instead settled on the death penalty, health care for the poor, and military adventurism!
What happy coincidence that Ponnuru's personal opinions as a conservative Catholic and partisan Republican are so congruent to the conclusions he reaches in The Party of Death!
But, of course (as others have also said, better than I), there was never any risk that would have fallen out any other way. For all of Ponnuru's supposed intellectual heft (we are told again and again what a fine mind he has), The Party of Death is not a book of popular philosophy, either personal or political. It is merely a polemic, a partisan cudgel with which he hopes to get in a few quick kneecappings while covered by his supposed acedemic seriousness, while we are all fooled by his disapointment with our failure to engage his ideas.
June 25, 2006 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that a good argument could be made that the ovum should be considered just as alive as fertilized eggs. Of course, the ovum can't become a baby without sperm--but nor can it become a baby without implanting itself in the womb and gestating for months. To call the sperm equal in significance to the egg and more significant than all those months of care by the mother seems somewhat male-centric.
Fertilization is just one more minute change, no different from any other part of the "slippery slope". If you judge ova to be non-human, next thing you know you'll be sending French Canadians to the gas chambers or something.
Every cycle a new person is created, and without fertilization that person is allowed to die. Thus, birth control and abstinance campaigns alike are a vast holocaust vastly overshadowing anything that has happened to the born.
But even that holocaust is overshadowed by the bajillions of microorganisms with greater complexity than those ova destroyed every day. (Pardon me, but I missed the part in biology class that proves that human life is the only life worthy of protection--I was under the naive impression that this was a religious or philosophical rather than biological claim.)
This was a good link I saw sometime ago: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9219-rhythm-method-criticised-as-
June 25, 2006 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tiny acorns grow into mighty oaks, but only an idiot thinks they ARE mighty oaks. The problem is, only idiots think saplings are only acorns, too.
The idiocy of the pro-life movement at the start of pregnancy finds it's twin in the idiocy of the pro-choice movement at the other end.
June 26, 2006 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obviously, there's no sense in denying that... conforming to the predominant Democratic view on abortion policy will aide an elected official's efforts to rise within party ranks."
Huh? Any evidence for this? Just going with my gut, it seems like the probability any given Democratic leader is pro-life is approximately equal to the fraction of Democratic politicians who are pro-life.
It's possible my perspective is colored from being from Massachusetts, where we have a respectable number of pro-life Catholic Democrats in politics, and we've had a few rise to major leadership positions both in the state and in Congress.
About the only thing I've observed is a lack of visibilty. Many pro-life Democrats do not go out of their way to advertise their positions. Furthermore, they usually do not try to use their leadership position to push pro-life position.
June 26, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't Harry Reid's pro-life views about as "nominal" as Arlen Specter's views in the other direction? They certainly don't seem to have affected Reid's views on judicial nominations. (With some controversial Bush nominees, such as Janet Rogers Brown, there were other reasons to oppose them, but Reid also led the charge against Priscilla Owen and Bill Pryor, where abortion was unquestionably the primary reason for Democratic opposition.) And if I recall correctly, Reid is in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
Two mid-level leadership posts in the Republican party are held by pro-choicers (not full-blooded, partial-birth-abortion-should-be-legal pro-chiocers, but persons who are on record as favoring Roe v. Wade and believing that abortion should be generally legal): vice-chairwoman of the Senate Republican Caucus (Kay Bailey Hutchison) and chairwoman of the House Republican Caucus (Deborah Pryce). Alan Simpson's tenure as Senate Republican whip was only a little bit longer ago than David Bonior's tenure as House Democratic whip. Not to mention the two consecutive Republican secretaries of state who have been pro-choice, and the current attorney general whose views are doubtful at best. As a pro-lifer, I would be only too glad if these facts were not true, but since they are, the record ought to be set straight.
June 26, 2006 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, the once-common Massachusetts pro-life Democrat (e.g., Ed King; Tip O'Neill at times, although he waffled; Ed Boland; Joe Early; Joe Moakley; Billy Bulger (considering his family connections, better described as "anti-abortion" than "pro-life); Tom Finneran) is now an endangered species generally relegated to posts like Secretary of the Commonwealth that have no power over abortion. The candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor vie with each other to see who can pledge himself or herself the most whole-heartedly to unlimited abortion rights, as well as gay marriage and the rest of extreme social liberal agenda.
June 26, 2006 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what bluebell is trying to say, but I did a search on the campaign website of Mark Kennedy, the Republican candidate for Senate from Minnesota. I searched abortion, pro-life, and pro-choice: zero hits. Perhaps if bluebell is still around he or she can tell us what conclusions we should draw.
June 26, 2006 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention reproductive therapy and the natural operation of the female body, during both of which numerous fertilized eggs (oops, I mean human beings), are sacrificed.
June 26, 2006 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is altogether unsurprising given that Massachusetts is a liberal (but hardly extreme under any normal definition of the word, and certainly not as liberal as Kansas or Oklahoma are conservative -- there have been how many consecutive GOP Governors???) state.
Pro-choice voters are likely to vote for pro-choice politicians. What's your point?
June 26, 2006 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one wrote a book called "Party of Death" about the GOP (although as earlier commenters have noted, they certainly could have)!
June 26, 2006 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A commenter above claimed that there many pro-life Massachusetts Democratic officeholders; I pointed out that this was no longer true. I don't find it shocking either; I was just correcting an error.
Speaking of errors of fact, Kansas and Oklahoma have Democratic governors, so they were poor examples. Massachusetts is probably less liberal than Utah or Mississippi is conservative, however.
June 27, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy's web site has been in the local press this week due to its purge of anything Bush related. It appears the candidates are competing to see who can most stand for nothing. You certainly won't confuse either with Paul Wellstone.
June 28, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink