buddha

so there is no legal opinion that you know of that cites the bible as some source for the outcome of a case. me neither. since the bible is the foundation for western ethics and morality, one could argue its presence is felt in every law that is passed. especially laws that give to the poor (as tater will point out, the ones advocated by democrats and argued against by republicans).

i have no idea about adoption numbers. i merely gave some context to a tweet that was designed to make people angry and provided no context. i find the adoption portion of the argument - if there was one - unpersuasive. alito doesnt really make the argument but is talking about how people's attitudes toward childbirth, motherhood, and adoption have changed since roe. in that part he was correct, but i find the "just put it up for adoption, its not hard" idea to be very simplistic and cruel. of course, the alternative is death so...

im speaking for myself. i dont think i've seen anyone on this board make that claim either. legal wise, the use of outside sources to interpret us law is an argument made by liberals, not conservatives. which legal opinion that cited the bible were you thinking of?

the same people who have never actually read the draft opinion or know anything about the law, sure do have a lot of opinions they saw on twitter.

its not in the bible, it is in a CDC report, which is where he was quoting. its a quote from the cdc that says "nearly 1 milliom women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or in the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."

tater started quoting bible versus in his usual attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with him as some sort of simpleton racist bumpkin, not me. no one has said the bible is a source for us law, not sure where you got that from. roe (and casey, since it affirmed parts of roe and changed the analysis) is a tortured piece of constitutional law. if alito's opinion resembles the majority opinion wjen its released, we'll see where the law goes. in another 10-12 years you may be surprised what it looks like on many states. it may even force republicans to compromise now that they have to govern and win elections rather than just rant about roe.

"you shall not murder" - more places in the bible than you can shake a stick at.

of course its ridiculous. its meant to be as ridiculous as MB's ridiculius provocational shit posting.

so you dont actually think a matter of "when life begins" should be determined by the insurance industry or the vagueries of the american tax code? phew. when do you think it becomes a "baby" worthy of protection? if a third party kills a pregnant woman, the person can face murder charges for the unborn baby. you ok with that?

he a small linebacker taken in the 5th round. he's most likely a special teamer. if he can bulk up and play, maybe he'll be alright? the chances arent great.

nope. youre totally china. what does the chinese tax code say about babies? since you think the us tax code is so relevant?

of course both are important. no offense, its you that keeps bringing up alternative scenarios and "what ifs" and counter arguments to everything i say. ive said a number of times what i think in this thread and you have said you agree with me, so im not sure what youre getting at with this.

they abort babies in china if theyre girls. sounds like democrats are trying to make america more like china.

i would argue that "my body my choice" makes the baby secondary to the debate, which is also sad.

yes.

https://www.genre.com/knowledge/blog/unborn-child-insurance-how-early-can-coverage-begin-en.html you can in some countries. so that obviously proves its a baby before its born. or maybe its just a baby in asia before its born? hoisted by your own petard.

when do you think it becomes a baby? when its born and the mother can claim it on her tax return?

and im sure he would argue that people with your views have allowed the slaughter of millions of innocent babies.

do you respect his views? didnt you post earlier about all the anti abortion people just being old men who have hang ups about sex and controlling women? if that wasnt you then i apologize.

its still very early and theyre very injured. give em some time.

he plays no defense. he'd be unplayable in the playoffs for key stretches. the hope is that he learns to defend because he has a lot of physical tools.

do we want bruce boudreau? is he a guy who comes in and fixes messes by instilling proper habits? ot a burnout guy who rubs people the wrong way for instant success, but in the end destroys a team's chemistry? i dont know enough to know.

if you look at the leaked cowboys board, they had first round grades on 14 players and hutch and williams were both in that group, with williams being the last one.

i think shumer really feels the threat of aoc running against him, so he needs to placate the left more. he used to be much more centrist. the bottom line is that i think more democrats would be fine with a compromise abortion bill than republicans. i think there's probably 25% or so of republicans who will not be satisfied until there is an abortion ban, while only 10% of democrats are really holding out for abortion at any time for any reason. but the pro abortion wing of the democrats is reticent to give up anything because they know that outlier events can occur that still need protection. that makes it hard for the democrats to compromise.

its up to both sides to be reasonable. i regard the democrats' position as more reasonable than the republicans' position. neither side can control their extremes any more. the republican extreme being worse than the democrat extreme, as usual.