To resolve these debates categorically--as Mr. Ponnuru does--is to commit an error that has been exposed by thinkers as diverse as Michael Oakeshott, Russell Kirk and Friedrich Hayek. The error consists of attempting to judge the complexities of morals and politics through the reductive lens of natural science, under the bright light of pure reason, from the cold heights of abstract theory. What gets lost is the ability to make relevant distinctions, to discern the wisdom embodied in custom and common sense, to acknowledge the ambiguities, mysteries and tragic choices of lived experience.
-- Peter Berkowitz (Wall St. Journal)
Well, the other side can rest easy -- The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life -- was finally reviewed by the NYT, though they used a conservative leaning sort (Jonathan Rauch, whose right leaning sentiments on some issues make him a favorite "alternative" pro-gays rights speaker) to do so. Thus, as with Berkowitz, Ramesh Ponnuru can hope for a friendly ear. [National Review's blog called it a "fair and sensible" review.]
Thus, his "soul of fair-mindedness" is suggested by comparing him to Ann Coutler, even though the title is the usual Regnery (the publisher) kneejerk crap that forced him to look like an idiot when trying to backtrack from it. I want to say upfront that I find this path the most distasteful part of the enterprise. Doesn't the importance of the subject matter require one to speak beyond the choir, even if it might hurt sales to true believers? Guess not. We also are told of his "razor-edged moral acuity" and "of a searching seriousness" that apparently people like I can learn from. This is shown by such statements as [comments are of reviewer]: "'But of course the embryo looks exactly like a human being,' he writes in a knifelike sentence that pulled me up short 'It looks like a human being in the embryonic stage of development.'"
Wow! I wish I could right so well! Of course, a corpse looks exactly like a human being. It looks like a human being in the dead stage of development. Close? But, and yes, this sort of thing leads to sarcasm, I am part of the party of death, "those who think that the inviolability of human life is an outdated or oppressive concept." Sure. I oppose needless wars carried forth in ways that will lead to horrible death and violence. I want an intelligent health care policy mixed with a human social welfare policy so that people will not needlessly suffer, some dying before their time.
And, yes, I want to prevent unwanted children or those parents cannot handle, including contraception that might work after fertilization, and in various cases abortion. Ponnuru wants to ban abortion, but not necessarily make woman involved criminals. In fact, maybe even only fining the doctors would be necessary. This is interesting, since they are murdering human beings, yes? [Heck, assault is liable to get ya more than a fine.] The review notes such problems, which absolutist sorts like RP fall into -- they simply cannot quite keep up with their utopian absolutism. I reckon they are the "party of hypocrites." You know, the Republican Party. Well, not all of them, but the party might rightly be called a "wholly owned subsidiary."
In real life, people do care about life. It is not some outdated concept. They just have very different views on the subject, views that simply should not be all mandated by law. Thus, fine that Jenny and Greg (friends of the reviewer) have decided that "reducing" their triplets would have been wrong. Perhaps, if it turned out one would have died at birth, doing so at the beginning of the pregnancy would have been okay for them. Enough with strawmen like those who think abortion is akin to appendectomy. And, hey, we hear of "fertility doctor." Hmm. In vitro with use of disposed embryos, perhaps?
So, no I do not find such overcooked boilerplate an "unsettling challenge." Abortion is something that has fascinated me for some time, given all the things involved and the broader themes dealt with in the discussion. So, I have thought about it more deeply than some, but generally speaking, quite a few on the pro-choice (even to the degree of keeping it legal) have come upon their stances with a good amount of reasoned analysis. They know what they are doing, know what the other side offers. They rightly would shake their heads at statements like "[e]ight-week-old fetuses do not differ from 10-day-old babies in any way that would justify killing the former." They are tired of tomes that speak to absolutists as if they are the people who drive policy. This is especially so when the alternative offered is as absolutist.
[I'd also like to underline that it is misleading on various levels to use "fetus" as some sort of catchall word for anything between conception (or implantation) and birth. The fetus represents a certain stage of development -- both medically (about twelve weeks) and morally (floating, though eight weeks would meet that definition for some people). It offers a certain image, clearly ideal for some people, of deep development.
Not quite the same thing as embryos (or even fertilized eggs) in the first weeks after conception. And, the author is concerned with such things, including stem cells. In fact, even talking about "eight-week-old" embryos as some sort of representative sample is misleading in an important way since the book would not support abortion of two-week-old embryos. Finally, especially with advancements in birth control pills -- btw it has been noted that even traditional sorts might work after conception, but are interestingly not tossed into the Plan B mix -- often we are not talking eight weeks at all.]
Those absolutists apparently "reject common-sense regulations requiring parents to be notified if minors seek abortions. They insist that abortion must be not just legal but subsidized." They support partial birth abortion that is said to be akin to infanticide. Speaking as a member of this clearly meant to be misguided group, a few quick comments. The idea is that if you are going to subsidize childbirth, even for a tenth child, you should also subsidize abortion -- especially in various cases. A blanket notification policy, even if the parents will abuse the child and so forth, in the real world causes problems. Finally, an attempt to target a particular procedure seems almost silly. If the abortion is legitimate, perhaps for health reasons [are we required to keep risks to our life nearby in other cases? even if a proverbial lifeboat?], should we just use a more risky procedure? Maybe one that will prevent further pregnancies?
Sure, that is a way to promote life. The review says that the book "has little to say" to the middle that the author finds nonsensical. Perhaps, that explains the title -- if you are going to publish such over the top claptrap, someone has to be found to read the darn thing. Now, when strong pro-choice sorts (hard to call them "absolutists," since they are willing to compromise women's liberty and lives more often than not in practice ala William Saletan) can be a pain, such polemical material probably can be forgiven. All the same, perhaps the other side can write a few more books a little less over the top.
Obviously, there is something to be said in promotion of a stance millions support ... the millions (and maybe even the unborn and born they so passionately speak for) deserve a bit more balanced approach than this. Sacred cows on both sides deserve some strong critical analysis, some pointed edges quite acceptable. Doing so in a way that more than the choir will find useful might be somewhat difficult, might require "razor-edged moral acuity," but I'm sure there are some people out there that can do the job.
Note: Have not read this book except for a few glances at the library. Yes, along with Ann, he did invade the NYC public libraries. So, some might say I cannot properly bash a book I have not read, which is true up to a point. But, hey, if The Corner finds a review fair, what else does one need? And can't we trust the Wall St. Journal?
Seriously, take my entry with the grain of salt required, but I do think my general sentiments here would hold up even if I read the darn thing. Since I tend not to read over the top pro-choice tomes -- reading an "abortion reader" with historical stuff from both sides now -- I really have no desire to read this thing. And, when conservative leaning sorts discuss it in this fashion, my mind is sadly not changed.