Abortion Nonsense: Ramesh Ponnuru Taken To Task

The Party of Death (cover)In today’s Wall Street Journal, Peter Berkowitz reviews Ramesh Ponnuru’s anti-abortion tour de force The Party of Death. In this critical review, Berkowitz puts forth the same pro-abortion arguments that have been refuted time and again by pro-lifers. He writes:

Invisible to the naked eye, lacking body or brain, feeling neither pleasure nor pain, radically dependent for life support, the early embryo, though surely part of the human family, is distant and different enough from a flesh-and-blood newborn that when the early embryo’s life comes into conflict with other precious human goods or claims, the embryo’s life may need to give way (source).

The problem with Berkowitz’s critique is that none of the deficiencies he lists make a human a human. His argument is essentially this: “Since the unborn are really small, since they are not fully developed, since they are after all invisible to us in their mother’s womb, and since they are dependent upon another for life support, they therefore do not have a right to life as other persons do.”

Is this really what Berkowitz believes? Do we treat small people as less human than bigger people? Do we treat one-year olds as less human than the fourteen year olds because the one-year olds aren’t fully developed yet? Do we treat the person who depends on insulin or kidney dialysis as less than human because of the degree of their dependency on another for life? Of course not. We don’t treat such people as less than human because we all know that personhood is not dependent upon size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency.

Berkowitz really misses the point here, and his critique of Ponnuru rings really hollow precisely for this reason.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Abortion Nonsense: Ramesh Ponnuru Taken To Task”

  1. Denny,

    I posted this on my blog today. I hope that’s ok with you. I cited you as the source. Thanks for always giving me something good to read!

  2. actually, the problem is that we strive to ensure that nobody kills off their children. Then we do nothing for those children once they are born. The kids that are at the highest risk for being aborted are also the kids with the highest risk of being born into poverty, sickness, single homes and all sorts of societal ills that we need to face if we want to be pro-life without being hypocritical.

    This idea of legislating morality without wanting to legislating compassion…the pro-life ideal is where this is fleshed out to the largest degree. And that’s a shame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s