Customer Reviews

The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(27)

 

 

A QUCIK NOTE: I read and review books that are on both sides of the political spectrum but a disturbing trend has shown up. If a book appears to be right of center it will be assailed with many 1 star reviews that the reviews obviously have not read the book, they will use ad hominem attacks and incivilities in their reviews. While there are some on the left-of-center books they in no way match the amount you will find on the opposite side.

This book unfortunately is no different. So just to set the record straight here are some simple facts
1) The Party of Death does not refer to the Democratic Party it simply refers to any person right or left who favors abortion and the logical siblings of euthanasia and research on embryos.
2) The book uses ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, NONE, NOT-A ONE theological arguments.
3) The author painstakingly shows abortion from the women's point of view.
4) The author shows very clearly and concisely the difference between killing in war, capital punishment and abortion. He does not endorse wars or capital punishment but shows the arguments that try to link Abortion to those are absurdly fallacious.

THE REVIEW

When I was a left winger I too reflexively supported Abortion. That was my party's position and I had heard all of the talking points to replete blindly without thought. Than something happened I became aware of the fact that many of the cherished ideologies that I was holding didn't seem to fit the facts. I began to question certain ideas and was immediately told by the higher ups in these left-wing organizations to not think about the subjects. There were those with more intelligence and ability that have already thought for me.

This condescension started me on a path of pondering and fact checking. The more I researched my leftist's dogmatic ideals the more trouble I had reconciling what I had been told to what was the truth. This is one of those books that if you are truly searching with an open mind you will be blown away with.

The author has used logic and reason and NOT one theological argument against abortion.

The argument is straightforward. If human beings have intrinsic dignity and worth, then they have this dignity and worth simply because they are human beings. It follows that all human beings have this dignity and worth. They are equal in the fundamental rights that attach to being human. The flip side is that if you believe in abortion than the notion that all human beings are created equal becomes a self-evident lie.

The author goes on to show how Roe v. Wade is almost unanimously thought of as a legally incompetent decision. It circumvented the normal democratic policy making. But in the much deeper sense" It violates the principle of human equality that is the basis for democratic self-government, and specifically for American democracy.

This book is very accessible for those who wish to view the arguments against abortion. The logic is clear, concise and thought-provoking. I highly suggest this to any person, but especially Americans who have a concern for our great country.

The abortion debate is subtler than many people realize. Others do realize it, yet they want the whole ugly thing to go away. Then you have those who realize it and try to explain. Ramesh Ponnuru falls in the third camp, and we should be thankful for that. For the most part, the book is both crisp and clear. Some of the important points Ponnuru makes:

1. The pro-life argument can be made in a completely secular manner. The pro-life argument will work without faith in the Trinity, Krishna, Zeus, or any god for that matter.
2. Abortion is legal in the United States through nine months of pregnancy due to the broad language of the abortion laws.
3. A support of infanticide is difficult to separate from the pro-choice argument. i.e. see Peter Singer and other pro-choice academics.
4. Pro-lifers are winning the abortion argument via an incremental approach toward abortion law.

Though most of his work is focused on the lengths Democrats go to cater to the pro-choice ideology, to his credit Ponnuru criticizes Republicans as well as Democrats. If some Republicans rely on flimsy pro-choice arguments, they should be called out on it just the same. I would have given the book 5 stars, but I think one weak point is the essay format. What I mean is, the book is more like a collection of essays. The chapters are short and easy to read, but sometimes that's a disadvantage. At times, I would like a little less rambling about examples and a little more explanation of arguments. Examples can help illustrate a point, but they can also get a bit cumbersome at times.

Minus this minor criticism, I very much recommend the book. The light Ponnuru shines on the mostly weak pro-choice logic is worth the price. Some good history lessons are also included.

For a very in-depth secular pro-life argument, check out Patrick Lee's Abortion and Unborn Human Life. Randy Alcorn's Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments is a good supplement. See Peter Singer's pro-choice arguments in Practical Ethics for some overview on the pro-choice argument (though Singer relies on some rather feeble consequentialist arguments).

Given the nature of the abortion issue, and the emotions evoked on both sides, it is nearly impossible to have a reasoned, objective discussion or debate. Ramesh Ponnuru succeeds in presenting the reasoned, objective arguments in behalf of the pro-life side. The book is devoid of so many of the emotion-based arguments and instead takes a more cerebral look at abortion and how the intellectual basis supporting it ultimately leads to other ends such as euthanasia and infanticide.

Ponnuru's book lays the case for opposing abortion. Ultimately, I think that presents a challenge to those on the pro-choice side. Rather than responding with incendiary rhetoric and character assassination, Ponnuru's book should serve as a challenge to the pro-choice side to produce equally objective, reasoned and dispassionate arguments in favor of abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. Can it be done?

I disagree with the choice of title for the book. It does detract from the well-written and well-presented content. Nevertheless, beyond the title, the book succeeds and is a must read for pro-life supporters to understand the objective rationale for their positions, and also for pro-choice supporters to truly understand the pro-life view and to enable them, if possible, to respond in kind.

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.

"The Party of Death" will unsettle those who lean towards or favor abortion, embryonic stem research, and/or euthanasia. Author Ramash Ponnuru, a senior editor at the National Review, writing with razor-edged moral acuity, skillfully debunks the excesses and hypocrisy of those promoting these as morally acceptable by scrupulously sticking to non-religious arguments.

Ponnuru begins his book by correcting several myths relating to the Supreme Court's Roe V. Wade decision - that it is a grand compromise between extremes, that the decision is more limited than it is, and that overturning Roe would criminalize all abortions. Ponnuru methodically demonstrates that these are not true.

Roe and its companion case, Doe v Bolton, make abortion on-demand a constitutional right up until moments before the birth. States may regulate abortion in the second and third trimester, says the court, but not if they run afoul of the mother's "health." This is not a compromise when the interpretation of a "mother's health" is understood. "Health," as Ponnuru shows, can mean anything under the elastic category of a woman's overall "well-being."

Ponnuru adds that the Supreme Court overreached and acted as a legislative body with the Roe decision. A point also eloquently made by former Senator John Danforth in his recent book, "Faith and Politics." Ponnuru notes that the public actually favors many restrictions on abortion and believes that the issue should be returned to the states where favored restrictions can be legislated.

"The Party of Death" moves from a detailed discussion of abortion to how the "culture of death" has been extrapolated and now threatens the elderly and disabled with weeding out the unfit, cloning, and euthanasia.

The hypocrisy of these positions was further amplified by Nathanael Blake, in his June 2006 column: "Why do so many ardently support such a morally and logically untenable position, even though it contradicts their own stated principles. Those distressed by the clubbing of baby seals don't mind the murder of the club-footed. Those who support extending legal protection to apes because their abilities resemble those of mentally disabled humans encourage the killing of mentally disabled humans in utero... People have been killing those who get in the way of the life they'd like for all of history. Even abortionists can be understood - those who will murder for money have long been among us."

The "Party of Death" is not the Democratic Party but rather those who continue to spawn a convenient cultural disregard for "human life." Unfortunately, for the Democratic Party, these people have made the Democratic Party their home and have made it synonymous with abortion and death.

Ponnuru's title is provocative. His book states bluntly what many people would rather couch in euphemism or, better yet, not say at all. Death is the important word. Ponnuru shows us how these choices, right or wrong, are a choice for death. And unfortunately, the debate, today, is over "what" is killed and who gets to decide.

This is a must read for anyone interested in the landscape which the "Culture Wars" are being fought and in the future of western society.

THE PARTY OF DEATH by Ramesh Ponnuru is quite possibly the most important book published thus far into "The Aughts" (the year 2000 through 2006). This book goes straight to the heart of its subject, abortion, with penetrating logic, powerful arguments, and probing theories. This is hardly a diatribe; rather it's reasoned fairly, but still a persuasive defense for Life, written from a purely secular position. This book deserves to be read and seriously contemplated by every single concerned adult, regardless of where they stand on this controversial and crucial issue. Are you pro-choice? See if your outlook can withstand Ponnuru's insight and contentions. If so, you will finish the book more informed about your opinion. And if not, you will find yourself driven into the Light of Truth by a nonreligious text.

Five questions:

1) Do you understand the great "misconception" about the Roe v. Wade ruling, and why it leaves the United States alone among its peers in offering no legal protection to the unborn at any stage of development?

2) Did you know that when defenders of the Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion cited the fact that no medical schools taught it as evidence for the claim that it had little medical value, some major medical schools began teaching it in time to affect the litigation?

3) Are you aware that the much ballyhooed claim that the 1973 Roe decision was necessary to save the lives of women who were dying in large numbers due to illegal abortions is utter nonsense? The Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, while 24 women died that same year from the legal variety.

4) Would you like to know how an offhand remark about the music group, The Beach Boys, was instrumental in transforming NORMA McCORVEY (the REAL name of "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade fame) from an abortion clinic employee into a dedicated antiabortion protester and dogged proponent of a Roe v. Wade ruling reversal?

5) In 1984, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (himself an occasional abortionist at the time) asked his friend, Jay, another doctor, who was then performing 15 to 20 abortions daily, to tape his next operation with an ultrasound device. Dr. Jay did so, and what he saw during the playback in the editing studio later, left him so unnerved that he never performed another abortion. Does this tell you anything?

A November 2004 poll found that 55% of the public thought abortion should either be illegal altogether or illegal with only rape, incest, and for saving-the-life-of-the-mother exceptions. 31% thought it should be legal for any reason but only during the first trimester. Only 9% felt that abortion should be legal for any reason at any time. So, why has the federal government agreed to enforce a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a social issue that only 9% of the population concurs with? (And if you think I've misrepresented the ramifications of the Roe v. Wade decision, then you should certainly have answered "No" to question number one above!)

In THE PARTY OF DEATH, Ramesh Ponnuru also illustrates with fine diamond clarity the interrelatedness of abortion, embryo destruction, and euthanasia, and how the slippery slope of the first two will logically and inevitably lead to a snowball effect concerning the last, and subsequently, a severe degrading of society's regard for life in general. Ponnuru's writing style did not especially appeal to me, and I wish he had spent a little more time detailing the physiological reactions to CHEMICAL birth control forms, so readers would better understand why these are considered abortifacients by pro-Lifers such as myself. [For additional information on this point, see THE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION (AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE'S LIFE GUIDE SERIES).] Regardless, Ponnuru's mental acuity and scalpel-sharp theoretical comparisons makes THE PARTY OF DEATH a true "must-read" publication.

Many years ago, an 18-year-old girl calling herself "TOO YOUNG IN LAS VEGAS" wrote a letter to Dear Abby. She told how she had become pregnant as a result of being raped (a very rare occurrence, by the way). But TOO YOUNG gave birth to the baby anyway and then put the boy up for adoption. Three years later, she was still wearing around her neck, a locket containing a photograph of her son. I saved that article because I thought then (and still do) that this was the greatest example of following Saint Paul's exhortation, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21) I will always love that woman, whoever she is, for her brave, bold, life-affirming and evil-conquering act! If only we all had the spiritual sight of TOO YOUNG and could equally see the glory behind the grime.

In THE PARTY OF DEATH, Ramesh Ponnuru effectively dismantles the myth that colonial America did not consider abortion to be a common law crime. And in The Declaration Of Independence, this country's establishing document, our Founders wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Now, what part of "Life" doesn't America understand?

It was not many years ago that both major political parties tiptoed around abortion as a party platform, with both fearing to take a stand either way. However, beginning with the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Far Left, the full panoply of death on demand became the calling card of that party. In THE PARTY OF DEATH, Ramesh Ponnuru describes the current state of the Democrats as the ones who support the right of women to choose the death of their unborn child through abortion. As if abortion were not stringent enough, he details how a lack of concern for the fetus is but the stepping stone on the not so slippery slope that leads to areas allied with abortion: euthanasia and stem cell cloning.

Ponnuru traces the transformation of the Democratic Party as one that used to boast of such stalwarts as John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Scoop Jackson to Ponnuru's aptly named Party of Death. Beginning with the nomination of George McGovern for President in 1972, the increasing secularization of the Left removed it from viewing society as one based on ethics shaped by law to one as law untouched by ethics. Ponnuru notes that this switch to death on demand was a gradual one with many democrats not even aware of what their leaders were planning. He further adds that none of this could have happened in a political isolation. What was needed was the willing connivance of the Supreme Court to incrementally alter the Constitution via creative interpretation so that Roe vs. Wade would become the inevitable result.

Ponnuru savages those who advocate late term abortion as the nearest thing to state sanctioned killing on a massive scale. No one has ever come close to defining exactly what a person is or when the fetus is sufficiently close enough to qualify as a sentient being with full Constitutional rights, but he makes it pretty clear that the current leaders of the Democratic Party do not concern themselves with such troubling thoughts. It is no surprise that allied issues like euthanasia are seen by democrats as yet another example of the de-valuing of human life for political gain. Ponnuru suggests that abortion probably will be a part of human life--however ugly or unwanted--for the foreseeable future, but if there is truly a moral line that distinguishes human beings who have some moral qualms about sucking out the brains of a fetus in a late term abortion from those who see absolutely nothing wrong with that, then his appellation of democrats as the Party of Death will be a most deserved one.

Ponnuru crafts a tight, well argued case for the intrinsic value of human beings and the ramifications for the Democratic Party for fully abandoning this basic value. It begins with a close examination of Roe v Wade, and ends with a realistic look at what would occur if Roe v Wade was reversed. In between, Ponnuru tackles abortion, euthanasia, destructive embryonic stem cell research, and infanticide with arguments that are accessible, but not overly simplistic. Instead of focusing only on the politics of the issues at hand, Ponnuru examines bioethics from a variety of viewpoints. We get a good look at media bias, an ideological bent to the historical perspective on abortion, and the Court's tortured reasoning behind the defense (and offense) of the culture of death. Ponnuru frequently takes on the argument that there are such entities as human (non-person) beings, and exposes the drift in classical liberalism from being for the "little guy" to advocating the death of the littlest human beings because they are not "one of us."

Regarding the title of the book - I can see how some can see it off-putting (especially from the other side), but Ponnuru explains his use of the term very well. He mentions that liberal thinker Ronald Dworkin states in Life's Dominion that abortion and euthanasia are "choices for death". I understand the left's anger at being portrayed in such a way, but such anger is more likely the result of the stripping of more friendly euphemisms (where they lie closer to an uncomfortable truth) than an unfair use of the term.

Other highlights of the book to me were the descriptions of the change of heart that so many democrats have had to make regarding abortion in order to secure the party's endorsement. Surprising fact: five of the seven Democratic presidential hopefuls in 1992 were former pro-lifers. My favorite quote comes from the transformation of former pro-life Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich used to be a solid pro-life voter who, as a result of this article in the Nation, abandoned his pro-life beliefs in order to gain the endorsement of far lefters like Ani Defranco. I laughed out loud when I read Ponnuru's comment:

It's a sad day when a man can be corrupted by power he is never going to have. (p218)



In short, this is an excellent entry level book on this issue that is entertaining, informative, and presents very strong, tightly constructed arguments that are accessible to the public. My only criticism is that the scale of the book did not allow a more thorough examination of the individual arguments supporting the pro-life position. This is minor, for such arguments can be found in other books (like Frank Beckwith's forthcoming tome), and the lack of such depth keeps the pace of the book moving along.

It is rare to find a book about the abortion issue brings new light to the debate. The Party of Death was a pleasure to read. It needs to be read by those who believe in the intrinsic value of human life. It also should be read by our opponents - for these are the arguments the next generation of pro-lifers will be equipped with.

It still shocks me people will actually bash a book without reading, or reading the title and 1.5 pages and calling that reading it. Ponnuru's writing style is very calm and concise, bringing some sanity to the table mostly dominated by people who scream "Extremist!" at the other side all day. While I don't entirely agree with his views, especially on stem cell research, I found them logically and politely expressed. Overall, this is an excellent read for understanding one version of the "consistent life ethic," and in completely secular language.

A new hobby has sprung up in America--crush the Amazon rating of a book. I cannot say whether those on the right are doing it, but the left has attacked this and Kate O'Beirne's book with a viciousness and hostility that is, like their protests on campuses against speakers they don't like, designed to foster communication and mutual understanding. Oh, sure.

Well, prospective reader, what do you think? Do you have an open mind on the topic? Really? Would you like to read how subterfuge, deceit, mis-representation, euphemism and outright lying have been used to sell abortion? Then read this book. Even if you support abortion rights, know how the arguments have been shaped. And see how logic, science and truth have all been subjugated to an agenda. An agenda that is spreading from abortion to euthanasia and infanticide. Kill `em when they're inconvenient, when they're crippled, when they're without prospects, when their time is up.

The withering assaults by those who have not read it can be safely ignored. So can the critiques that ask for common ground and solutions. When millions of innocents (whatever you choose to call them, they are certainly innocent) are slaughtered, where do you find middle ground? Abortions on Tuesdays, Thursdays and alternate Fridays? Or in even-numbered months? Be real folks. If something is evil, it is evil all the time, not part of the time.

Where this book loses a star for me is in its "why?" Why do good people, people who mean well and truly want good things for others, believe that killing them will be beneficial? Why has the abortion creed become the centerpiece of much of the left? Why have pro-life Democrats become nearly an oxymoron? Using the kindly, sweet and compassionate Dutch as a model, why has this nation of genteel bankers and merchants become a country that kills who-knows-how-many of its oldest and youngest citizens for no reason other than that someone decided they should go? I was once a fervent believer in the right of a woman to control her body, disregarding that the living thing inside her was not part of her body but a separate , complete entity. OK, but how did that extend to the old, the infirm, the disabled, or the weak? Why did so much of America seem to watch gleefully as Terri Schiavo was killed? The left was once the defender of just those people. Where did they lose that?