The Diane Rehm Show

    Nothing better illustrates the folly (and inability) of the G.O.P. to “repackage” its message, instead of changing it altogether, than the caller who kept babbling about “abortion on demand”. That’s simply “code” for banning all abortions. Why? Because there is no such thing in the first place.

    Roe v. Wade (even as contorted by the Rhenquist and Roberts Courts) was very clear: abortions can be regulated to preserve the health and safety of the mother in the second trimester, and can be banned almost completely in the third. It’s only in the first trimester that there is anything even remotely resembling “abortion on demand”. And even then, it’s subject to many regulations, so what that phrase implies (completely unrestricted access to abortion) really doesn’t exist.

    What this is really about, of course, is eliminating abortion entirely under the theory that human beings (or human life, or personhood, or whatever semantical term you prefer) begins at conception. Not only is that false, it is a religious doctrine being imposed through politics. Many faiths do not share that view. Why should their beliefs be “trumped” by those who believe the opposite? They shouldn’t.

    So, in the end, this is really about religious freedom: the same issue that underlies so many of the G.O.P.’s attacks on our rights, whether it be abortion, birth control, gay rights, social programs, foreign policy, or just about everything else in its party platform.

TO BE CONTINUED

    Am I the only one fed up with Harry Reid’s lack of spine? This is the fourth time he had a chance to deal with the filibuster, and once again he’s blowing it! (The other times were in 2007, 2009, and 2011.)

    And all this chatter about avoiding “the nuclear option” is simply nonsense. There’s nothing “nuclear” about what was proposed. The Senate rules can be changed on the first legislative day by a simple vote. That’s part of the very rules which create the filibuster (which isn’t authorized by the Constitution, by the way). Thus, the proposal to change it now is perfectly proper - unusual perhaps, but not improper. (Unlike, say, the way the G.O.P. is misusing and abusing the filibuster by employing it for almost everything.)

    The true “nuclear option” was the one threatened by the G.O.P. - and not because the Democrats were blocking everything they wanted to do (that never happened). No, it was because the Democrats blocked a mere 17 of Bush the Second’s judicial nominees. (This, after the G.O.P. blocked an unprecedented number of Clinton’s, just as they’ve been doing to Obama’s.) And the real nuclear option? Not to put the matter to a vote on the first legislative day, but to use a parliamentary maneuver to get around the rules. A “point of order” would be used to challenge the filibuster as unconstitutional, and the decision would rest in the hands of that great constitutional “scholar” Dick (“It’s just a piece of paper.”) Cheney, who would rule as President of the Senate. Thus, for purely partisan reasons, a practice going back almost to the start of the nation would suddenly be “unconstitutional”. Now, that’s “going nuclear”.

TO BE CONTINUED

"Drew Kelly wrote:

Caller concerned that building the pipeline would not effect gas prices in America, I believe is correct.
America's largest export is now oil and it is shipped to points of greatest profit.
This underscores the hypocrisy of taxpayers subsidizing oil companies as we currently do.
January 25, 2013 - 11:43 am"

NPR, in its usual capacity as Lackey for The Reagan/Bush/CIA/Mossad/FBI/NeoCon/GOP/Jew Media/Military/Hoover Institution/NPR/Bloomberg News/MI5-MI6/ NRA Militia/ Kabal has been 24/7 blabbing (As the whole Establishment has been doing since the Arctic Refuge grab) that they want to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Of course, they export large volumes of American oil, just as they will export the Tar Sands oil, after they extract the Sulfer etc which they will release in order to give Cancer to the poor Blacks and others who live around the Gulf Coast, in order to make the Texas Hospital Magnates even richer on Medicare and Medicaid money, in order to subsidize transplant operations on Millionaire and Billionaire Anglicans, Muslims, Jews and Crypto Jews from all over the World.

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

Monte Haun on January 25, 2013 @ 1:33 pm wrote: “. . . Jew Media . . . Bloomberg News . . . Kabal . . . Jews and Crypto Jews”

      I’m sorry, but I can’t hear your insane babbling over your obvious Anti-Semitism!

"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:

PART TWO

And make no mistake, if the situation ever reverses, if the G.O.P. regains control of the Senate and Democrats use the filibuster even in modest ways, the power hungry G.O.P. will threaten the “nuclear option”, and Reid will cave in just as he’s doing now. I’ve often felt they should have been allowed to “go nuclear” the first time they threatened it, rather than give them the “compromise” they received (10 of those 17 judges were confirmed). Now I think it’s time for the Senate Democrats to get a new Majority Leader - one with a backbone!
January 25, 2013 - 1:33 pm"

Yeah, for all their whining about "Obama cramming Legislation down their throats", it hasn't been so long since they-

1) Would not give copies of the Bills to Democrats until it was time to vote.

2) Stopped important Votes when it looked like they might lose, to go around persuading (Bribing, threatening, etc, etc) the Noes to change their votes.

"...and Reid will cave in just as he’s doing now."

Has it ever occurred to you that the Democrats are terrified of the Bush Kabal????

It was a Jarhead and a Zionist that assassinated our beloved President and the current clamor of from the NRA, CCW, Gun Lobby Militia, Zionists, the Marines and slime bag Nugent is becoming deafening.

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:

hainc on January 25, 2013 @ 11:00 am wrote: “I think we'll see Hillary's ‘what difference does it make’ hurt her chances in 2016. . . . The crying was fake.”

I think we’d all be better off if discussions of “2016” didn’t begin until 2015. But given the preference of the punditocracy and the commentariat to treat politics as a horse race, I know that won’t happen.

And nothing’s more fake than Republi-Con pretense to care about Benghazi, except as a partisan tool for a political hatchet job.
January 25, 2013 - 1:39 pm"

One of the reasons Obama was Nominated was that the GOP thought they could beat Obama but maybe not Hillary, hence their concentrated attacks on her.

Wouldn't it be too funny if they end up getting both???

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

ES wrote:
"What this is really about, of course, is eliminating abortion entirely under the theory that human beings (or human life, or personhood, or whatever semantical term you prefer) begins at conception. Not only is that false"
False? How so? Please set religion aside and argue why the idea that "human life, or personhood, or whatever semantical term you prefer (how about just "life") begins at conception" is "false".

"As far as I know, there is no new life being created and your definition of Life then, must include the two unbroken chains of living matter- living things- that stretch back to the very Beginning and unite to form this new composite being."
mchaun, that is what is known as the "strawman" argument. Perhaps you've heard of it. You take what somebody else says and restate it in a way that no longer represents the other's position. Then you refute THAT argument, not the argument posited. See? For example, the terms "Your definition ... must include" is a red flag. And when ES and I are talking about CONCEPTION, you are talking about "two unbroken chains of living matter" (whatever that means). Get it? So, unless you are talking mitosis or cloning, the key is the "conception" part.
"There is no Child until the fetus can survive outside its Mothers body, even the notion that Life begins at conception is flawed- a fertilized egg that does not attach will soon end up in the sewage system."
Why? Because mchaun has decreed it?
BBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
By the way, here's something else you can obsess on. I never said "life begins at conception". I simply asked ES under what theory "life begins at conception" could be declared "false". By the way, the theory that "even the notion that Life begins at conception is flawed- a fertilized egg that does not attach will soon end up in the sewage system" is certainly not the answer, because pregnancies spontaneously abort for all manner of reasons. The idea that "life does not begin at conception because it can spontaneously end" or that "implantation is necessary for life to exist" is non sequitur. It simply, "does not follow". Life may very well begin at conception and, for whatever reason, spontaneously end, but that is different than ending it in an abortion clinic.

mchaun on January 25, 2013 - 2:21 pm wrote: “It isn't Anti-Semitism, poor poor paranoid Boy, it's inclusivity!!!!”

   Hogwash. If you insist on acting like an Anti-Semite, you deserve to be called an Anti-Semite.

   Here’s a little secret: people who employ a noun (“Jew”) instead of an adjective (“Jewish”), especially in phrases that reek of Anti-Semitism (and are the common language of Anti-Semites throughout much of history), as in “Jew Media”, aren’t interested in “inclusivity”. Those are a few of the tip-offs that they are Anti-Semites.

   Of course, the most obvious one is their eagerness to blame Jews (or Zionists) for anything and everything that happens, without a shred of proof. (Not to mention the fact that neither Jews nor Zionists had anything to do with what you were babbling about.)

   In short, you introduced Anti-Semitic remarks into a discussion that had nothing to do with it (the Keystone pipeline). Neither Jews nor “Crypto Jews” (whatever the heck they are), nor Mossad, are involved. (There might be some Jews involved, in the same way that I’m sure there are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Bahai, Agnostics, Atheists, and members of other faiths in this pluralistic nation of ours. But I’m pretty sure their religion has nothing to do with it.)

   You see the “International Jewish Conspiracy” everywhere, and you call me paranoid? Stop looking in the mirror.

mchaun on January 25, 2013 @ 3:32 pm wrote: “And they are winning. My quick count shows that since Lincoln, there have been 18 Republican Presidents and 11 Democrat.”

   At the risk of defending the G.O.P., it’s important to distinguish the present Republican Party from that of the past. At one time, it was actually the liberal party in America.

   Lincoln, of course, was no believer in “States’ Rights” (at least not in the exaggerated form it was being invoked then, and now), and fought a war against succession. Today’s G.O.P. has prominent members embracing both, at least rhetorically. He also gave us the first Federal income tax - and we all know how much the G.O.P. “loves” that.

   Teddy Roosevelt was a big believer in “trust busting”, and was our first “environmentalist” President. (Back then it was called “conservation”.) He regularly inveighed against “malefactors of great wealth”. He also signed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act - two pieces of Progressive Era legislation that obviously involved “big government” interference with the “free market”. Again, nothing today’s G.O.P. is noted for supporting.

   Eisenhower not only gave us the largest public works project in history (the Interstate Highway System), but used Federal troops to stomp all over Arkansas’ “State’s Rights” when it came to enforcing the liberal Warren Court’s desegregation orders. Oh, and in his final speech before leaving office he warned about the power of the Military - Industrial Complex.

TO BE CONTINUED

ecgberht2 on January 25, 2013 @ 4:12 pm wrote: “Please set religion aside and argue why the idea that ‘human life, or personhood, or whatever semantical term you prefer (how about just ‘life’) begins at conception’ is ‘false’.”

   Hmm, seems to me the burden of proof is on the person who is asserting the affirmative, especially when it’s to be used to support big government intrusion into our personal lives! And here I thought “conservatives” or “libertarians” opposed that. My “mistake”.

   But I’ll play your game. There’s a reason Medical Science did not regard human life as starting at conception. Pregnancy is a process, a continuum. At some point what is developing has gone far enough to begin to enjoy legal rights and protection. But that moment is not when it’s merely a one-celled fertilized egg. (By the way, fertilization or conception doesn’t occur at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg. It takes longer than that, and much more must happen, which can go wrong at any point, before fertilization takes place.)

   Ditto for a multi-celled blastocyte (a hollow ball of cells), or an unimplanted embryo, or even a fetus in its early stages. The qualities and capacities we usually consider essential for humanity simply aren’t present. Which is why Medicine didn’t and doesn’t regard conception as key.

TO BE CONTINUED

mchaun on January 25, 2013 @ 5:44 pm wrote: “There is no Child until the fetus can survive outside its Mothers body, . . . . “

   With all due respect (and I really mean that, it’s not just a form of words), I must disagree. That’s as simplistic as the opposite point of view.

   Read the Roe v. Wade decision. The heart of the opinion is not a discussion of “personhood” (or other esoteric concepts that have baffled the best minds of history), but rather when the government has a legitimate interest in preserving fetal life. In short, it’s a balance of the mother’s rights, and the right of the government as parens patriae ("parent of the nation”) to care for and about everyone within its borders. At the start of pregnancy the government’s interest is subordinated to that of the mother’s. By the end of the pregnancy the situation reverses. Viability was chosen as the standard because it was the best way (at the time) of weighing and balancing those competing interests.

   Of course, medical knowledge has advanced, and there may be other factors that should be included in the process. And at any stage of the pregnancy how the fetus is actually developing (and the potential risks to the mother) are also factors that must be considered. Thus, for example, in the case of Anencephaly (where the brain never develops) I would argue that an abortion should be legal even in the Third Trimester, regardless of any danger to the mother.

   The point is that it’s far more complex than debating when “life” or “personhood” begins. After all, sometimes it never happens.

ecgberht2 on January 25, 2013 @ 8:04 pm wrote: “I never said ‘life begins at conception’. I simply asked ES under what theory ‘life begins at conception’ could be declared ‘false’.”

   And speaking of a “strawman argument”, that little bit comes close. Here’s what you previously wrote:

“Please set religion aside and argue why the idea that ‘human life, or personhood, or whatever semantical term you prefer (how about just ‘life’) begins at conception’ is ‘false’.”

   Notice the words I emphasized? That’s what you asked about, not “just life”. And, of course, you’re being a bit disingenuous. In the abortion debate everyone knows the phrase “life begins at conception” refers to human life, not just any old life. (No one’s proposing a constitutional amendment banning euthanasia for pets, or extermination for pests, and yet they are all examples of “just life”.)

   Or take my example of Anencephaly. There’s no doubt that the development of a “baby” with that condition gets started at conception, but just because it’s “life” doesn’t make it human life (or a “person”), even in the Third Trimester.

(cont)
So as to "how far back"? Certainly not to the sperm and egg forms prior to conception. There is clearly no new life there. That's why mchaun's argument is a "strawman" not a "counter-argument". And by the way, I don't "throw that phrase around too freely". There are a lot of strawman arguments made on this board.
Of course, Roe v Wade was based principally on privacy rights, (which you fail to menion), and by virtue of that the competition between the rights of the mother and the state's interest in protecting the unborn surfaces. And there are sufficient loopholes in today's law to continue to permit abortion at virtually any time, regardless of the intent of the law to prevent it in some circumstances, so the viability provisions of the law are really meaningless.
Oh, and once again, the fact that pregnancies may self-terminate is not an argument that the idea that "life (i.e. new life) begins at conception is false". And, as I pointed out to mchuan, that is completely different than ending that life in an abortion clinic.