Redstate

get a record number of "reviews" on Amazon.

I coined the term... Deathocrats while posting in the Hannity forum.  I could almost feel the fury, radiating from my screen.  I can only imagine the cries of mortal foul, and the calls for a media Jihad against this author and his work.

I am grinning at the thought....

Phil

Pro lifers come at it from a religious perspective. I wonder if Ramesh is a Christian, or religious at all, or if this is more of a philosophical stand rather than a metaphysical one?

It's time to call the donkey by its name.  This whole nonsense of abortion being a "painful" but it-must-be-permitted (or even championed) decision needs to get its rug pulled and it seems that Ramesh's pulled the feat.

But the book is not from that perspective.

If I wrote a book that resulted in WFB saying that I could die happy!

All the collectivists (communists, socialists, progressives) are active practitioners of the black death arts.  The communists murdered something close to 100 million innocent people during a seventy year reign in the Soviet Union, China, and Asia.  Russia is even now suffering from alcohol, drugs, and illnesses to the extent that the Russian population is declining.  Native European socialists are not reproducing themselves, leading to inevitable decline, with no end in sight.  The same is true of Blue State progressives.  

The Liberal Baby Bust By Phillip Longman

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

What kind of person practices death when there is so much life to be celebrated?  And why does this happen on a global scale?

and Democrats.  Ludwig Von Mises referred to collectivists as destructionists  for their efforts to live off and ultimately destroy economies.  Their stance today mirror all three of the above, the three D's.  Ponnuru must be a brave man or he just doesn't care what the necrophilliacs say about him. Either way, a book whose time has not only come but is past due.

While I agree with your condemnation of centralized rule, I don't conflate secularism and progressives with 'practicing death'. That seems like a reach. Granted, that may not have been what you intended to convey in the short format of your post.





I and my wife did not want to have children, and have not regretted our decision. I have contributed to the development of my nieces and nephews over the years, as the notion of family to me extends beyond the nuclear family.  

Regarding population growth: I cannot agree that, given current trends, adding more people to this planet is an unalloyed good thing. There must be, by definition, an impact on the environment when populations increase. Check out articles on fisheries decline, runoff from huge poultry 'factories', etc.  

Note that I am NOT making any reference to climate change, as this is too broad and ambiguous a concept.

to just generally talk about "population growth" as a problem.

Excessive population growth is a problem in countries that have significant poverty and lack of resources- ie the third world.

Population shrinkage is a problem in many first and some second world countries- pretty much all of Europe, Japan and Russia is the worst of all. In America the birthrate is around replacement rate and we get ~0.5% population growth per year through immigration. You need to understand that it is important for developed countries to at least maintain their birthrate or they are at risk of real problems- Russia particularly is in a death spiral. What you should be concerned about is what is Mexico, Nigeria, India, etc doing to manage their birth rate- and if you look into population trend info you should see that while less developed countries still have birthrates in excess of replacement levels, it has been on a significant downward trend for the past 30 years- so good news, if the trend continues, world population should stabilize sometime this century.

But you can't mix the issue of concerns about birthrates below replacement level in the first world with concerns about birthrates above replacement level in the third world- they are two differnt issues with different implications that need to be understood and addressed separately.

It helps no one and is downright insulting to compare half this country's voters to the worst mass-murderers of the twentieth century.

As much as you may hate it, the fact remains that the majority of the people in this country (how big a majority depends on how the question is asked) want abortion to be legal in at least some circumstances.  And for all your protests and attempts to shame peoople into not having abortions and attempts to restrict access to abortions, lots of women in this country get abortions for lots of different reasons.  Not all of them are Democrats and I bet a good number of them consider themselves "pro-life".  Even the Catholic Church, in its own studies of the issue has discovered that Catholics are just as likely to get abortions as the general population.  I know many Republicans, including my wife, who are strongly pro-choice.  The last Republican convention seemed to make a point of displaying them prominently.    

To blame the Democrats, or "collectivists" in general, for this mythical "culture of death", is absolutely ridiculous.  To call Democrats collectivists is just plain silly.

mass murderer eventually had to face it. History will judge us harshly for abortion just as it does for slavery, which, for many years was endured in denial by those that profited from it in the North and the South. It was a sign of decadence that eventually would not be ignored by a significant minority.

Mass abortion is a sign of decadence in the US now, as well, and I include my pro-life self in that decadence as well.

Why? Because if we really treated the killing of these unborn babies like the humans they are, like we hopefully would treat the equivalent killing of BORN human beings,

we would be at war.

and as much as the democrats/liberals will want to deny the "paryt of death" tag, they are going to have a hard time doing so.  Truth sometimes hurts.

both triviliazes true mass murder and demonizes people who support abortion rights.  Genocide is a justification for aggressive war so if abortion is the equivalent of genocide then war is justified to stop it.

You speak with absolute certainty about the fetus being human life.  That is your philosophical and religious viewpoint.  It is a point you may be able to convince others of but you or anyone else will never be able to prove and that is the distinction of why the two issues are not the same.

better? Clearly, murder requires malice aforethought, which, as a criminal defense lawyer, I would argue is not present in most abortions. I was pro-choice for many years and paid for a convenience abortion in my young manhood so when I demonize or imp-ize the act, I do so to myself as well.

At what point is a developing human being, not a human being?

I was in denial for years, as you remain, because I enjoyed having my cake and eating it too. We all know what's in the womb and the better cameras get the sooner less folks we be able to stay in denial without being seen as

monsters.

I am a reformed monster because I didnt need a camera to know what was in the womb.