I really think you would be better off reading the book. I said the book was well-reasoned, and you refute this statement without even having read it. I have no idea what all he said in this interview, and I’m not exactly sure why you think that the death penaty is somehow equivilant morally in any way to abortion, so I’m not sure even exactly what I am supposed to be justifying.
It’s not as though his argument is hard to suss out based on what I’ve heard from him so far:
a) there is a pervasive attitude in the world today that it is OK for certain classes of people to die.
b) to have this attitude is essentially to believe that these classes are less than human, and not worthy of human life and rights.
c) Those who possess this attitude or unwittingly carry out the wishes of those who do, form a de facto party of death.
d) Democrats, the media and certain judges (the people listed in the book’s title), among others, can be placed within this party of death based on their actions and statements regarding such areas of human experience as abortion and euthanasia.
Please let me know if I have missed anything crucial so far.
When asked point blank, on at least two separate occasions, whether regarding 2500 American 30,000 Iraqi deaths as a reasonable and acceptable outcome for a prolonged war that has accomplished nearly nothing is representative of the same sort of dehumanizing attitude, placing the president and others currently in power in this party of death as well, the author has answered in the negative.
If his reasons for such an answer are not spelled out in the book, then I find his “reasoning” to be of no value whatsoever, and I can not justify taking part of my life to read it.
If you can say definitively that it does, I will see if my local library carries it.
I can say definitively that it does not. I don’t believe any reference was made to war in general, or this war in particular. The book has nothing to do with war, justifications for wars, or whether or not pro-lifers or anyone else ought to be for or against wars in general or this war in particular. The author is specifically talking about abortion, ESC research, end-of life issues, and other bio-ethics type issues, and no, he did not have a chapter in the back explaining how these issues are reconciled with supporting the war.
In reference to the insult you gave me regarding my assertion that the book is well-reasoned, I maintain that it is, given its subject matter. Whether or not he is capable of justifying our participation in the war, or whether or not he thinks the President has sincere regard for the sanctity of life, I cannot speak to, as I have never heard the guy speak or be interviewed, and ALL I know of him is what I read in the book, which does not address these issues. As far as my understanding of the pro-life position, as I personally live it, this book explains the reasoning behind it better than just about anything I have ever read.
The problem with comparing this pro-life philosophy with the situation the country is with the war is that the former is exactly as I say…a PHILOSOPHY, not a specific circumstance. The war, on the other hand is a specific circumstance with MAY OR MAY NOT be justifiable under whatever philosophy you hold regarding why wars are justifiable. IF you believe there were WMDs, or for some other reason it is a vital matter of national security to have this war, then it does not necessarily contradict the pro-life position. You may think the person who holds these views is completely wrong about the necessity of the war, but it doesn’t make them a hypocrite. Regarding the questions you say the interviewers asked him, his negative answer may be because he doesn’t accept the statement offered in the question as truth…that the war has accomplished nearly nothing. Or it may be because he feels there are other premises at work which make the war worthwhile. Or he may just feel that war is not analagous with killing fetuses. I don’t know. All I know is that when interviewers have asked this question, it was completely off-topic as far as this book is concerned.
Remind yourself…think before posting.
We are talking about a surgical procedure aren’t we? One that can have serious emotional and mental consequences if entered into lightly.
Do doctors consult with patients before a surgical procedure? Do they explain the viable options to allow the patient to make the best choice? Next time make a comparison that relates in some way.
I insulted the author’s reasoning. I didn’t ask you to take it personally.
Actually, the introduction of the purpose and effectiveness of the war I admit are my own.
As you have not seen fit to correct my summarization of the author’s point, I will assume I’m more or less in the ballpark.
There is nothing wrong with examining our possibly dehumanizing attitudes toward life and death. It is an extremely healthy line of inquiry for a society to undertake. But here we have an author who claims that there is what amounts to a cabal of people who wish us to dehumanize each other, to partition ourselves as a species up into the worthy and the unworthy. Actions and words that that reduce the importance of the lives and deaths of others are the way to recognize if a person is in the party of death, says Ramesh.
But this is 2006. I will assert that if you were to ask 100 people who comes to mind when you say the phrase “callous attitude toward the lives and deaths of others”, President George W. Bush’s name is surely on the short list. Here is a man who as governor publicly lampooned death row inmates pleaing for their lives. Whose administration has made a distinct division between the people of the world, by making it damn clear in their words and deeds that 3,000 American deaths call for the invasion of two countries and for the world to be put on notice, but 30,000 Iraqi deaths are just something that country is going to have to suck up as the toll to travel on the road to democracy that we’ve pushed them down. And he’s not alone. The “On Point” host quoted a number of Republican pundits and policy makers who advocated carpet-bombing various suspect countries to be sure we killed all the terrorists. Would the innocent people who would die in droves if such a policy were carried out not thusly be rendered “unpersons” in the eyes of those who would bomb them indiscriminately?
So even though the book talks about end-of-life issues, asking for clarity whether Bush and certain other Republicans, in light of these words and acts, are ALSO members of this party of death is a more than fair question. Ramesh’s answer is No, and his reason, apparently, is, Because I say so, and I don’t wanna talk about anything but abortion and euthanasia.
There are many people who only wanna talk about abortion and euthanasia. And flag burning. and gay marriage. And a host of other things that aren’t war, but that they think they can spin to make certain people look bad. They are called Republicans who are worried how the Iraq War is going to effect the election this fall. Now, Ramesh, as an editor at the conservative National Review, may have just coincidentally released his book to talk about abortion and euthanasia instead of war at a time when negative public views about Democrats and what Republicans like to think of as their pet issues might distract voters enough to help in the elections.
Maybe.
On the daily show interview I was impressed when the author said that he tried to explain the pro life position without resorting to a religious argument. I think you have done a pretty good job of that in these two threads. Then again you are may not be the typical pro life supporter in that you don’t want to make the abortion option illegal.
You have convinced me that it is possible to be pro life and still support a war {not this war IMHO} of self defense. I will be less quick to assume anything about people’s positions because of it. Still, I don’t see how it’s possible to discuss an issue that involves a respect and reverence for human life without relating it to a war that is currently going on where people are dieing and suffering every day.
In abortion the issue is that some are willing because of their view of the fetus as a person to deny woman the legal option of choosing abortion. They want to protect the innocent. Too many of those folks don’t seem to act in protecting the innocent children already in need in this country not to mention all the additional children born if they get their wish and outlaw abortion. You have found a meaningful expression for your feeling and I admire that. That concept works for me as well. Don’t make abortion illegal but work very hard to make sure woman have more choices and know what those choices are.
Your recommendatoin makes the book more attractive to me.
Without too much of a hijack may I ask you a couple of questions on the spiritual side of the issue?
There is a philosophy about what justifies making the choice to declare war on another country. What justifies contining to occupy a country? Certainly when we talk about the value of human life it very much relates to both of these circumstances and philosophies.
I agree and appreciate your expalnation of this. Currently with all the evidence available though I think someone would have to be in deep denial of some sort to still support the war or to not see that we were lied to in order to justify an invasion. The credibility of this administration has been seriously compromised in many areas not just regarding the war. The summation of their goals strongly indicates a lack of reverence for for any life that does not serve their purpose. I can’t understand people willing to disregard or gloss over all the other issues that speak to a lack of revernece for human life while supporting anyone who claims to oppose abortion.
He won’t and shouldn’t get a pass on this. I’d like to hear more about his argument but you can’t title your book the Party of death and put **Democrats ** in the subtitle without this issue being addressed. IMO he will be asked and should give his view on how the justification of the war relates to these issues. I wouldn’t go so far as calling him a political shill but the title is intentionally inflammatory. If he want to use that to spark controversy and sell books then he’d better come prepared.
Hard not to take it personally…I said the book was well-reasoned, and you said “well-reasoned my ass.” That sounds an awful lot like an implication that I can’t tell when something is well-reasoned or not. I won’t mention my opinion of someone who claims to know whether or not a book is well-reasoned when they haven’t even read it.
The rest of your post is interesting, but it doesn’t change the fact that the book is not about the war. He may have sounded like an idiot in trying to talk about the war, and a good case could be made that he should not only know more about it, and be able to defend whatever position he is taking on it when asked. BUT, that doesn’t change the fact that the book itself, on the topic that it addresses, was well-reasoned. I have absolutely no opinion on whether or not he knows what he is talking about on any other subject on earth, because all I know of him is what I learned having read the book.
Clearly you are passionate about the topic, and I’m sure the book resonated with you. Unfortunately, unless I missed it, neither you nor anyone else has been able to convey just what was so well-reasoned about the book. All I’ve seen is the introduction of the concept of “unperson,” which strikes me as neither particularly new, helpful or convincing.
You must understand that one’s reading time is limited. From my perspective, I feel like I understand the pro-life position fairly well. If I see a book on the topic that, in the title, suggests the Democrats are the, or are a significant component of, a “party of death,” I’m immediately predisposed to dismiss it. On the heels of this, I see an interview with the author, who has a chance on national television to get his message out. I can tell you that it wasn’t only the topic of the war on which he appeared out of his depth.
If his message is so well-reasoned, one would hope that the author would be able to outline the argument. Failing that, a champion of the book, such as yourself, should be able to identify what novel and clearly developed reasoning sets this book apart from any other pro-life writing.
The absence of such information leads me to believe that the book does not do anything to advance the understanding of the issues, and instead engages in further demonizing and polemic. I’m just not going to give valuable reading time to such a book, no matter how much boldface highlighting someone uses.
If you’re truly concerned about the mental and emotional well being of women, then get out of the way and let them get the procedure they’ve decided they want. I’m sorry, but DianaG is right about the paternalistic attitude on display here. The “it’s for your own good” and “I’m just trying to look out for you” attitude is how we treat children, not grown women.
Frankly, no, I think that’s a silly thing to worry about. I’ve never heard of any abortion doctors who are rakin’ it in, and considering the amount of scrutiny and danger they put themselves in they way of, it’s not exactly an attractive career.
A “simple waiting period” isn’t going to change anyone’s economic status. You’re still assuming that most women who have abortions wouldn’t do so if given other options. Even if that’s true for some percentage, that still leaves a lot of women who wouldn’t change their minds, and putting obstacles in their way because of your “concern” for some other subset is an unfair hardship.
This whole “I don’t want abortion outlawed, I just want it to be harder to obtain” sentiment is disingenuous. Restricting it to the point that it’s nearly impossible to obtain at the state level is no different than outlawing it at the federal level.
Right, because in American culture, there’s no way someone hasn’t heard every side and option in the abortion debate a million times already. You’re assuming women don’t know what their choices are. I think they do. Even so, doctors are already required to give out information on abortion alternatives.
“Protecting” an adult woman from herself by limiting or hindering her options is not pro-choice. “Mandatory counseling”? I’m sure that someone who wants an abortion as a result of rape, or who just plain already knows that they don’t want a child, are really going to benefit from that.
I’m so glad you know what is or isn’t a hurdle to a woman who is, but doesn’t want to be, pregnant. I’m not aware of any other medical procedure that requires this sort of “concern”. When I got a vasectomy, nobody counseled me about the joys of parenthood I’d be missing out on. They just said “you’re aware this makes you infertile?”, I said “yeah”, and they said “fine, sign here”. Pretty simple.
Thank you for the complement! I don’t know if I am all that atypical, actually. I think there is a wide middle ground between what you might consider the strict pro-choice and the strict pro-life positions (no restrictions vs. complete restriction). My basic belief is that these issues ought to be decided in the state legislatures and not in the judiciary. As a pro-lifer, I know that this would likely not lead to a perfectly desirous outcome for me, but I believe it would at least represent the voice of the people. Additionally, it would most likely also lead to some kind of compromise position, which I think is the healthiest thing for the country as a whole.
I would not disagree with you that, generally speaking, we humans are a deplorable failure at protecting the weakest among us. The reason I support the group I do is because I not only feel that we are helping rescue babies from being aborted, but because I believe that we are helping women & children who are already born as well. Please understand that I am not trying to brag on how much I do, because it is not nearly as much as I should. I am just using it as an illustration that although keeping at least some abortions legal may be important in the fight against poverty, I personally believe that in the majority of cases, there are vastly preferable ways to help women than to be sure they can have an easy abortion.
That is a good question. I am not sure I am equipped to answer it, as I am not sure I have formed a personal philosophy on that yet. In my mind, the decision to go to war is infinitly more complex that the pro-life philosophy I have been discussing. I definitely feel that there are justified wars. A war that is clearly in self-defense is justified, such as the war against Japan in WWII, where they attacked & declared war on us. That’s an easy one…someone attacks you, you defend yourself. The problem is, what defines true self-defense is incredibly complicated in our world. The threats are hugly more frightening than the idea of someone flying over here and dropping bombs on a military base. The weapons are designed for mass killings, and civilians are targeted. A different circumstance is a war that is not fought necessarily in our own defense, but in the defense of others (the European war in WWII is a pretty good example of this.) Was the war against the Nazis justified, even though they never attacked the US? I think most people would say it was. We were aiding our allies, who were clearly put in a position of having to defend themselves against an aggressor. In addition, we helped to stop the mass murder the Nazis were perpetrating, which many feel was the right thing to do. This is where it gets dicey, though. Do we have a right to declare war on a country ONLY in order to come to the aid of people who are living in that country and being persectued by the government? If so, how can we justify it in some circumstances and not others? Is it only OK to do if we can prove that the bloodshed will be minimal? Is it only OK if we don’t have any other possible agenda at work?
I am not saying any of this as a justification of this particular war. I am just saying that I think there are an awful lot of considerations. There are a lot of reasons to have a war, there are a lot of reasons not to. These must be weighed and considered for each individual circumstance. I am not sure it would be possible to form a blanket philosophy that says “war is justified only in such and such specific circumstance,” because the circumstances are not specific or for that matter necessarily predictable.
As far as continued occupation…I don’t know. As with the decision to go to war in the first place, it is complicated, and I am not sure if even believing that it is for the good of that country is a good enough reason.
I understand your feelings about this. My only point was that this was really completely off-topic as far as the book is concerned. He was trying to expose a certain philosophy that he says is far more prevalent on the Left than it is on the Right. It simply has nothing to do with the war, or the Republican attitude regarding what ends justify what means when it comes to foreign policy.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you on any of this. As far as Ponnuru is concerned, as I mentioned before, I have not seen any of his interviews. I agree that it would be a very smart move on his part to be able to at least address the issue of the war, and the Republican support of it (taking it on your word that he has not been able to do this in a reasonably intelligent manner). I also agree that the title is inflammatory, and I sure wouldn’t have named it that, if for no other reason than it guarantees that at least 1/2 the population won’t even think of reading it.
cosmosdan, I would like to thank you for having this reasonable discussion with me. It is so great to to have a conversation with someone who is open to hearing the “other side” of the debate, as well as offer thought-provoking commentary themselves. My husband sometimes asks me why I like to have these message board debates (because he knows how inflammatory some people can be on the internet), and this is the kind of thread I can point to and say “this is why.”
OK. This was my very first post in this thread:
Perhaps I should add, “and if you feel as though you know all about the pro-life position, don’t bother.” But, really, I think I think it is kind of silly to say that a book that you haven’t read is reasoned poorly and isn’t worth your time, and then expect someone else to explain it to you. I guess I could go through the book, make notes, and lay out point by point what Ponnuru’s argument is, but IMO that is a pretty poor substitute for actually reading it. And FYI, my boldfaced highlighting was not meant to reinforce the idea that you or anyone else should read the book. It was only meant to reinforce that I have said several times that I am basing my opinion only on the fact that I had read the book.
It may have been more successful if you added “because…”. Really, your jumping up and down with glee about how well reasoned the argument is doesn’t make it so. Rather than get testy when asked about why you feel it is so, you’d make your case more handily by either a rough sketch of the matter or an acknowledgement that the case, albeit well-reasoned, is just too complex to describe here.
It’s also kind of silly to expect people in general to read a specific book just because you say it’s so great and compelling even though you can’t lay out the barest reasons why this is so, and get testy when asked to do so.
Or, instead, if you wanted someone to commit time to read it, instead of a dramatic and unnecessarily snarky claim that you’d have to give a whole treatise, you could suggest something at all about the book that would make someone else want to read it.
After all this, fairly or unfairly, my sense is that this is a book that will reify the established beliefs of those who are very emotionally involved in the pro-life movement. It contains dogmatic and antagonistic language to make its point. Neither the author nor the book’s adherents can convey the meaning of the book to others. In short, there is no point in my bothering to read it.
Don’t you think that saying I was jumping up & down with glee is overstating it just a little bit? All I said is that if you want to understand the pro-life point of view, it does a good job of laying it out, and that it was well-reasoned. And I am not testy about being asked why it is so. The thing that is aggravating me is that you are asking me to make a defense of something that I never said. What I did say was that it faithfully describes the pro-life position. You now want me to tell you how it is different from everything else you have ever heard about the pro-life movement, when I never claimed in the first place that it WAS any different. I merely said it was a good overview of the pro-life position, and that it was well-reasoned. I said that IF you want a good overview, to read it. What I didn’t say was that there was going to be some sort of revelation in there that would be something you have never heard before. In fact, I specifically said that you might not agree with him. Some people like to be well-informed about any possible arguments on all sides of an issue, and may feel that they are not, and I was recommending the book to these people.
I actually think it is not silly to expect someone to read a book before making statements like “well-reasoned, my ass.” I think that if someone wants to read a book, and then have a discussion with another person who has read the book about why or why not it is well-reasoned, then that is great. I made a suggestion as to why you might want to read the book, and if it’s not a good enough reason for you, then fine, don’t read it. But frankly it makes a person look foolish to claim a book is not well-reasoned if they haven’t read it.
The meaning of the book is easy. It is an overview of an extremist point of view that holds that the meaning of human life is ambiguous, and can be redefined to mean whatever you want it to mean, for the purposes of advancing certain agendas. It shows that most of the people who hold this point of view are on the political left in this country (although he clearly acknowledges that it comes from the right, as well). He shows how this POV is becoming more mainstream, and how the idea that fetuses have no rights can easily extend to babies who are already born, the handicapped, the elderly and otherwise infirm, etc. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
To be quite honest with you, the reason I am not interested in laying out his reasoning is because what will inevitably happen is that I will be challenged on each point I bring up, and I really feel the book (and I) would be better served to stand on its own, without my attempting to try to defend what is written in it.
Fair enough, and you are probably right. However, that goes to your repeated assertion that it is well-reasoned. If you did not suggest that it was particularly novel, then I apologize for conflating your contributions to the discussion with those of others.
Not to engage in the sort of point by point debate you feared, I will point out that from your brief description, I would suspect that the logical argument of the book is as shaky as the author’s in-person discussions might have suggested.
If that is true, then why is it that the law I have to wear a seatbelt? I’m a grown woman.
I’m not sure it’s so silly. Providing abortions is a business just like any other, and if it’s so dangerous, then wouldn’t a profit motive make people more likely to get into it?
Depends on what you consider a hardship. How exactly is it a hardship to have to wait for 3 days, and be given information about social programs designed to help you, that you can review and think about in those 3 days?
I don’t find it disingenuous. I believe that abortions should be restricted to the first 3 months of pregnancy, unless the physical life of the mother is in danger (a very rare circumstance…not the current leeway a doctor has to say the mother is in danger of some psychological trauma if she isn’t allowed to abort her baby at 8 months gestation). I also believe that, allowing the will of the people to prevail, most states would move in this direction. Some will be more restrictive, some less. What is disingenuous about that?
I don’t think the idea is to tell the person, “here’s what you can do…you can have an abortion, you can keep the baby, or you can give it up for adoption.” The point is to give the person information about the support systems that are in place to help her if she does desire to have the baby or give it up for adoption.
No, but giving her information to help her make the right choice for her is pro-choice.
Probably not. But a lot of people don’t fall into either of these categories. And anyway, you can’t say definitively that the person won’t be helped, and isn’t it better to err on that side than the other?
Something tells me you didn’t get that vasectomy when you were 21 years old. Oftentimes if a person is young, and/or has not had any children yet, they are strongly discouraged from being sterilized by medical professionals, and some of them won’t do it at all.
I take it then that you oppose abstinence-only sex education, and the Bush Administration rules against funding any birth control program that mentions abortion?
I’m sure you aren’t this way, but many in the pro-life movement talk about providing information for an informed decision while making rules withholding the information they don’t want out. That’s one of the reasons they come across as anti-sex and anti-woman, not pro-life.
An ideal world would have a very low abortion rate due to an effective birth control information program.
BTW, vasectomies are a lot more permanent than abortions. I was a bit older than 21 when I got mine, but far from being at the end of my reproductive career. No one made me wait, and no one gave me oodles of [del]propaganda[/del] information to read. Does the oodles of information handed out when someone is made to wait for an abortion include birth control information? That might be darn useful under the circumstances.
I don’t oppose or support abstinence-only sex education. This is an issue that should be decided at the local level, in my opinion. And as far as birth contol programs mentioning abortion, I don’t think abortion should be presented as a form of birth control.
Some want to withhold this information, some don’t. If you want to call people who do anti-woman, ok, but don’t assume all pro-lifers are this way. I actually think they are in the minority among pro-lifers (please don’t ask me for a cite…I don’t have one. This is just my opinion based on the fact that I think most people are reasonable.)
True, but I don’t think including information about abortion in a birth control program would support this end goal. And I’m not sure what it would take to make such a program effective.
I don’t know if it does or doesn’t, but I certainly wouldn’t object to it. Did you really think that I would?
Well, it gets funded at the federal level, and that is where the restrictions come from. As for abortions, it is not that abortion is considered a form of birth control (though a compare and contrast to show that using birth control makes a lot more sense than depending on an abortion would be a good thing) but rather that any place that does mention abortion in any context is not eligible for funding - even overseas.
Nobody admits to being anti-woman. But I rather suspect a majority of anti-abortion activists are also opposed to birth control. The Times Magazine had a scary article on how the movement is working on spreading the word on the evils of birth control, in an attempt to limit it. Certainly those who think life begins at fertilization, not even implantation, would support this. So would the Catholic hierarchy. They’re being a bit quiet since a vast majority of the country does not want to see birth control limited.
Whatever is wrong about giving complete information? Certainly abstinence education is good - making this the only option is what I object to. A lot of Europe has very successful birth control programs, which lead to low abortion rates. Like I said, the opposition to birth control information makes it look like pro-lifers are actually anti-sexers, rejecting options that would be more effective in reducing abortion rates than what they are now advocating.
I carefully did not include you in this set. But you might look more closely at the actions of your allies, and what these say about their true motivations.
I’m talking about choices about how we live our own lives. I presume the state enforces seat belt laws, not because not wearing one can get you killed, but because it can get you severely injured and they have to pick up a lot of the resultant medical costs. FWIW I think you should be able to do whatever you want with your own body, including not protecting it–but being forced to wear a seatbelt doesn’t even come close to the same time-zone as being forced to remain pregnant and give birth to a child you don’t want.
I’m just not seeing it. I’m sure it’s a lot less profitable than going into pretty much any other medical profession. Besides, “someone might make money off it” is a pretty dumb reason to deny a medical procedure.
In the ways I already described. Many people don’t have three days. You’re adding the cost of travel and lodging to the cost of the procedure, plus the amount of time a person has to obtain an abortion and recover from it.
Would it make sense to require adoption agencies to tell potential mothers to wait three days before making a decision to continue with a pregnancy, or hand out “Have You Considered an Abortion?” brochures?
Abortion providers provide abortions. There are already plenty of organizations who provide help for mothers in need of it.
I may be wrong, but I think that even most people who want abortion restricted are not restricting it until after the second trimester. Three months is an unbelievably short amount of time to obtain the procedure. Some people may not have even realized they are pregnant by this point.
It’s disingenuous because you say you don’t believe abortion should be illegal, yet the things you propose would, in practice, make it available to only the tiniest minority of people.
As DianaG already pointed out, abortions in the third trimester are incredibly rare, and I would challenge you to find a case where “psychological trauma” came into play at this point (the only case near that vein of which I’m aware involved a woman attempting to obtain a so-called partial birth abortion because the baby, which she wanted, had died in utero, but her body wasn’t close enough to going into labor).
I’m willing to bet that information is already available from any doctor or planned parenthood clinic. There’s no reason to force it on someone who has asked for an abortion. If they want the baby, they’d ask for it.
Again, were talking about the difference between offering and requiring.
I’m thrity-two, but I would have gotten it at twenty-one if I’d had insurance that covered it. Just because a doctor thinks being a parent is the greatest thing on the planet doesn’t mean I do, and it’s none of their business.
Saying the book is about the pro life movement, and does not need to to defend the war is fine, but only if the book is about the pro life movement, or any other topic that the war is irrelevant to.
Unfortunately, “Party of Death” isn’t just about the pro life movement. It also makes a claim that the Democratic party is the party of death. Now, we may disagree on whether the death penalty and the war are compelling counter arguments about which party is the party of death, but I think we can agree that they are relevant to the topic of which party is the party of death.