Politics As Usual

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
nobody has a clue when life truly begins. Not the GOP, not the Dems, not anybody.

Why do people make comments like this? It is very easy to tell if someone is living or dead.

The court in Roe v. Wade does not dispute that a fetus is a human life. The court in RvW simply said that the mother's right to control her body outweighs the state's interest in protecting unborn humans.

Determining if someone is alive or dead is not hard at all. Neither is determining if a living organism is human. Their DNA determines that. The abortion debate is not about that. It is about whether a mother has the right to expell the contents of her uterus from her body when those contents include her unborn child and what sorts of regulations the government can place on her ability to do that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The abortion language should never have appeared as it did in the platform. As has been established here numerous times, nobody has a clue when life truly begins. Not the GOP, not the Dems, not anybody.

That's just stoopid. Life begins at graduation. Everybody knows that.

("No, son, you WILL do as I say, at least until you graduate. If I kill you before then, it's not murder, it's abortion.")

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Why do people make comments like this? It is very easy to tell if someone is living or dead.

The court in Roe v. Wade does not dispute that a fetus is a human life. The court in RvW simply said that the mother's right to control her body outweighs the state's interest in protecting unborn humans.

Determining if someone is alive or dead is not hard at all. Neither is determining if a living organism is human. Their DNA determines that. The abortion debate is not about that. It is about whether a mother has the right to expell the contents of her uterus from her body when those contents include her unborn child and what sorts of regulations the government can place on her ability to do that.

Big surprise here, but the "when" part apparently went right over your head. Or maybe you are just being argumentative.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ironweed
You will no doubt be shocked (shocked!) to learn that I think Krugman is dead on most of the time, but what I wanted to ask is who you (and any others who want to chime in on this) think gets it right among the punditocracy (if anyone). Safire? Brooks? Coulter? Lewis Lapham (ok, just threw that one in for a laugh).

Tony Blankley (sp?), George Will, and Charles Krauthammer. Peggy Noonan is also great at the sentimental, but not a heavy weight on the big issues of the day.

Safire mistakenly thinks he's a deep thinker, and is about as exciting to watch on TV as paint drying.

Brooks is not bad on sociological commentary, but on politics he misses the mark.

Coulter is great for entertainment value, but far too way over the top to be taken seriously.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Big surprise here, but the "when" part apparently went right over your head. Or maybe you are just being argumentative.

The when part did not go over my head. Can a dead oocyte be fertilized? Can a dead sperm fertilzed an egg? If the egg and the sperm are living when they merge, does the fertilized egg then die for a period before it comes back to life? Of course the fetus is alive (unless of course it dies spontaneously or you kill him or her).

Regarding whether an organism is human or not, this is determined by the organism's genetic material.

These are simple concepts and not part of the body of law regarding abortion rights. The right to an abortion is about substantive due process of the mother, not whether the unborn child is alive or whether the unborn child is a human. Of course the unborn child is alive and is human.

The abortion case law is about whether the mother's right to control her own body outweighs the state's interest in protecting unborn human life. The Supremes then drew a line at viability outside the womb as the point where the state has more ability to regulate the mother. However, they drew that line in terms of trimesters, which doesn't medically make sense since viability varies from fetus to fetus and changes with technological advances.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Tony Blankley (sp?), George Will, and Charles Krauthammer.

I like Bill Kristol, too.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
The when part did not go over my head. Can a dead oocyte be fertilized? Can a dead sperm fertilzed an egg? If the egg and the sperm are living when they merge, does the fertilized egg then die for a period before it comes back to life? Of course the fetus is alive (unless of course it dies spontaneously or you kill him or her).

The question is "when" , not "whether". You sure you are trying to answer this?

Originally posted by Not Me

Regarding whether an organism is human or not, this is determined by the organism's genetic material.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Not Me
These are simple concepts and not part of the body of law regarding abortion rights.

Thats cute. Are you referring to that part of the law that was created during and after 1973?

Originally posted by Not Me
The right to an abortion is about substantive due process of the mother, not whether the unborn child is alive or whether the unborn child is a human.

Oh my. You keep arguing that to the Supreme Court, and let me know where that gets the pro-lifers in 50 or 75 years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not so much, no.

That your majority leader serves as a wonderful boogabear doesn't prove anything about it merely being a RP facade.

I'll grant you that it doesn't conclusively prove that he represents the center of gravity of the GOP, or tell us much about the degree of influence help by the Hard Right, though I might humbly suggest that the fact that he's the majority leader is at least mildly suggestive of it.

Where does the minority house leader stand? middle?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
You will no doubt be shocked (shocked!) to learn that I think Krugman is dead on most of the time, but what I wanted to ask is who you (and any others who want to chime in on this) think gets it right among the punditocracy (if anyone). Safire? Brooks? Coulter? Lewis Lapham (ok, just threw that one in for a laugh).

I don't think any of them ever "get it right" or are "dead on" most of the time. My suggestion was that oped pages allow for both sides to rant. It'd make it much easier and cheaper than having to buy the Times and the Journal and read the opeds back to back.

I was wrong to lump Krugman with Sontag. Nor is he the left equivalent of Culter (who is too smart to actually believe the carp she writes and is obviously whoring it up for $$$).

I loathe Will's social stances, but he has done an admirable job of trying to distinguish the neocons from real republican fiscal conservatives.

Safirs needs to hang it up. He's as nuts on the Iraq terror link as Krugman is on Bush ruining everything for generations to come. Extreme positions are never right. I think Krugman recognizes he is overblowing things, but feels he needs to overhype it because Bush is just that bad. I applaud him for that, but as a writer, he's basiaclly shit away his credentials.

ETA: Sontag is distinguishable from all of them because she hasn't a stitch of practicality in her writing. She's a leftist observer with a massive idealogical chip on her shoulder toward not only Bush, but most of modern society. She's like letting your Fem Lit professor grab the oped lage for a day. Junk.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The question is "when" , not "whether". You sure you are trying to answer this?

I know the question is when. The egg, the sperm, the fertilized egg, the embryo, the fetus are always alive unless there is a spontaneous in utero death or an induced abortion.

There is a simple concept in biology that was proven a long time ago, and that is there is no such thing as spontaneous generation of life. If a fetus is alive at any point in the process of gestation, it was alive at all points prior to that.

If you want to talk about whether the fetus has legal rights, that is a different argument than whether it is alive. Of course a fetus is alive and it has all the genetic material to make it a human organism. Under our current laws, though, an unborn child doesn't have the legal right to life if his or her mother decides he or she is unwanted. We can argue whether the unborn child should have those rights, but there is no question the unborn child is alive.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Thats cute. Are you referring to that part of the law that was created during and after 1973?

I have read all the cases. They talk about substantive due process of the mother and whether the mother's rights to control her own body are outweighed by the state's interest in protecting unborn human life.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Oh my. You keep arguing that to the Supreme Court, and let me know where that gets the pro-lifers in 50 or 75 years.

I don't think it is a winner of an argument, but that doesn't mean that drawing the line at the 3rd trimester wasn't arbitrary.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Where does the minority house leader stand? middle?

Fair point, but remember that mocking the GOPers is the morning class. DEM class is later in the afternoon.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Culter (who is too smart to actually believe the carp she writes and is obviously whoring it up for $$$).

Coulter doesn't impress me as all that smart. She is above average in intelligence, but that isn't saying much. I think she absolutely believes what she writes/says.

[Replaced_Texan]

[Sincere question, no political motivation whatsoever]I heard on the news this morning that the last State Funeral for a President was LBJ in 1973, and I imagine the disgrace / resignation from office is why Nixon didn't get one.

1.) Have no other US Presidents died between 1973 and Saturday?

2.) If there were US Presidents that died in that time period, why didn't they get State Funerals?

3.) What entitles you to a state funeral? What do I have to do? [resume political bickering and inuendo]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
[Sincere question, no political motivation whatsoever]I heard on the news this morning that the last State Funeral for a President was LBJ in 1973, and I imagine the disgrace / resignation from office is why Nixon didn't get one.

1.) Have no other US Presidents died between 1973 and Saturday?

2.) If there were US Presidents that died in that time period, why didn't they get State Funerals?

3.) What entitles you to a state funeral? What do I have to do? [resume political bickering and inuendo]

Well, Nixon's the only one to die since (Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton are still alive).

Dunno if it's automatic (I assume it is), but if you still have friends in political power, you're getting one. Suffice to say, the presidency and both houses of Congress weren't going to say "nope, not for this one" on Reagan.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I imagine the disgrace / resignation from office is why Nixon didn't get one.

Nixon had come back from death before, so no one was sure that he was really down for the count.

Originally posted by Burger
{I}f you still have friends in political power, you're getting one. Suffice to say, the presidency and both houses of Congress weren't going to say "nope, not for this one" on Reagan.

If Clinton had died over the weekend, I am reasonably sure that the federal government would have been shut down for at least a day, but maybe for slightly different reasons.