However, Roe allows for exceptions in the latter 2 trimesters for the health of the mother. In Roe's little known but very important companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court then proceeds to define the health of the mother so widely the result is the most radical abortion law of any nation on the planet: Ponnuru argues that this misconception that Roe allows only first trimester abortions , fostered by the pro-choice movement, the media, and pollsters, is the decisive factor when polls show nearly two thirds of the public support the Roe v.
Another common error in regard to Roe v.
- Cody and Friends (Cody Books Book 2);
- Customers who viewed this item also viewed.
Wade is the sentiment that its reversal would ban all abortions. But this would not be the case - the issue would merely be relegated back to the state legislatures, where it was before Roe swept aside all existing abortion laws and restrictions in Ponnuru then addresses the central question itself: He argues that a human embryo, far from being a "clump of cells" or mere "protoplasm", is simply a human being at the earliest stage of development.
Pro-choicers have sometimes argued that an embryo isn't like a "real" human being because it doesn't look like us: But, again, an embryo is a human at the earliest stage of development: The question, then, is whether every human being is to be afforded the right to life. There is no difference in kind whether an embryo a few days old is destroyed, or a fetus 6 months old, or a newborn baby.
The pro-choicer must eventually argue that there is such a thing as a human being which is not also a person. Just being a living and functioning member of the species homo sapiens will not be enough. Personhood will have to be defined as having consciousness and some knowledge of one's own being.
But this will lead us down a very thorny path. The author shows that by pro-choicers' own logic, it is very hard to admit a right to abortion without also positing a right to infanticide. For if a fetus 6 or 8 months old can be destroyed, why should parents not be allowed to destroy their newborn child? The newborn infant will not be a "person" by this definition either. Neither will the disabled and infirm. Indeed, we will be forced to come up with a definition of whose life is worth living and whose is not. If someone loses their consciousness, but is not dead, are we allowed to kill them?
The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life
Is a person like Terri Schiavo, whose brain could perform all the functions necessary to live and who lacked only the ability to feed herself, dispensable? Once we've established that some human beings are not persons and therefore have no right to live, why not go a step further? The severely handicapped and disabled will never have the quality of life an average person does. In the unborn and infants, the problem can be dealt with quickly - those who are not up to standard can be liquidated.
For example, Down-syndrome cases have declined in the U. Those who perform and argue in favor of such policies congratulate themselves on how compassionate they are in deciding that the unfit should never be allowed to live at all. It was thought that the dogma of eugenics had died in the ashes of Nazi Germany.
The inherent dignity and worth of every human is also belied by embryonic stem-cell research. The exciting promise of stem cell research is the cure for a range of diseases. Stem cells, theoretically, could be used to grow a tissue culture matching any cell of the human body - for instance, generating new neurons to inject into Alzheimer's patients to cure their affliction. The potential of this research has generated wild exaggerations - like the media repeatedly referring to "magic cures" or Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards telling an audience that "Christopher Reeve would get up out of his chair and walk" if he and John Kerry were elected.
One problem with these claims is that they're overblown - the research probably will not lead to a cure for Alzheimer's. Another is that in order to get these supposed miracle cures, a human embryo has to be created and destroyed. Again, every human embryo, from the moment a sperm cell and an egg cell join, is a unique member of the human species at the earliest stage of development.
There is no other definition for it. It possesses its own DNA and a distinctive genetic makeup that will allow it to grow into an adult human being. For embryonic stem-cell research to work, a few skin cells from a person would be taken and implanted into an embryo. The process rips the embryo apart and destroys the unique human it was to create a tissue culture matching the skin cell donor's own DNA. The skin cell donor has destroyed another member of its species to produce a clone of himself - and yes, clone is the correct word. This is where euphemisms come in.
The public reacts very negatively to the term "cloning" and so its advocates try alternatives - "therapeutic cloning" or, to make sure no one knows what he's talking about, "somatic nuclear cell transfer".
The Party of Death - Wikipedia
The advocate must rely on obfuscation or deception to pursue his goals. It is hard to truly gauge the public's stance on abortion and other life issues - Ponnuru shows that the results of such polls are highly dependent on the language used by the pollsters. As mentioned earlier, a generic "Do you support the Roe v. Wade decision" question will generate a roughly two thirds majority in favor. But polls also show that a majority of Americans oppose abortion after the first trimester and support restrictions like parental notification. Likewise, a poll question such as "Do you support stem-cell research that may lead to a cure for Alzheimer's?
But a question that makes clear an embryo is destroyed in the research usually finds opposition. The key for pro-lifers is to educate the public as best they can while not taking any steps that frighten them. Abortion has been the key to unlocking these other evils - infanticide, the devaluation of human life, embryonic stem-cell research, and so on.
Wade, and the public's subsequent acceptance of abortion, put us on a slippery slope and we've been sliding ever since. Ponnuru believes that incremental steps are necessary to finally win the battle for the pro-life side. RTL-ers are welcoming Party of Death very joyfully, though, and they are right to do so, as it is an exceptionally fine piece of polemical writing in support of their Party of Death is obviously inspired by religious belief. The philosophical passages strictly follow the Golden Rule of religious apologetics, which is: The conclusion is known in advance, and the task of the intellectual is to erect supporting arguments.
Possibly in response to these accusations of having an overtly religious viewpoint in approaching the issue, Ponnuru states: For the record, my views on abortion have not changed since I was an agnostic Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. The Party of Death: If you look at their agenda they are.
- Born to Teach!
- See a Problem?.
- Cinematic Savior: Hollywoods Making of the American Christ!
- Eugene Delacroix: 150 French Romantic Paintings - Romanticism!
- Account Options?
- Infant Baptism: A Part & Pillar Of Popery!
- Frequently bought together;
The Party of Death is roaring into the White House! In The Party of Death, Ponnuru details how left-wing radicals, using abortion as their lever, took over the Democratic Party—and how they have used their power to corrupt our law and politics, abolish our fundamental right to life, and push the envelope in ever more dangerous directions.
Follow the Author
In The Party of Death, Ponnuru reveals: How Hillary Clinton could use the abortion issue but not in the way you think Why the conventional wisdom about Roe v. But he also shows how the tide is turning, how the Party of Death can be defeated, and why its last victim might be the Democratic Party itself. Hardcover , pages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about The Party of Death , please sign up. Lists with This Book. Dec 03, The other John rated it it was ok Shelves: I decided to read this book based on its full title: The title was so provocative, I wondered what, exactly, Mr. Ponnuru had to say. I suppose I could claim that I first encountered the title in China, where I was reading anything, so I added all sorts of things to my reading list.
- Die Regierungsjahre des Getulio Vargas: Ein Beitrag zur Modernisierung Brasiliens? (German Edition).
- I Hate You, Grover Cleveland.
- Le jour avant le bonheur (Folio) (French Edition).
- Public Relations As Activism: Postmodern Approaches to Theory & Practice (Routledge Communication Series)!
But excuses aside, I did read it. It wasn't quite the wacko diatribe for which I subconsciously hoped. It's a decently writte I decided to read this book based on its full title: It's a decently written, pro-life manifesto bashing the Democratic Party's stand on the issues of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic medical research.
Biased, certainly; but not whacked out. As a pro-lifer, I found myself in total agreement with many things Mr. As a Democrat, however, I was also aware of the times he was trying to push the reader's buttons.