buddha

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.

i think it was the right thing for the legislature to do, but they refused or were incapable of doing it. so the court tried to do it for them. i dont think that's the proper role of the court here. getting back to my usual debbie downer persona, its a problem with politicians' inability to compromise and do their jobs.

the democrats are giving lip service to legal language that talks about protecting abortion rights through the end of pregnancy. that's a political loser and lets the republicans off the hook. the problem with trying to write a law on abortion is there are so many medical contingencies that its almost impossible to do. the democrats have the right idea: that you need to leave open the possibility of an "abortion" for any period of time in the pregnancy because things can go wrong that could kill the mother or leave the baby in a horrible physical state. but when you include such language allowing an abortion at any time for "mental health" reasons for the mother, you leave open a potential parade of horribles that republicans can use as a reason to not vote for it. i'm not sympathetic to having an abortion at 8 months because of the mental health issues of the mother, but i think that never happens. i am sympathetic to democrats trying to craft a law that is politically acceptable, while also needing to include language that does not foreclose the possibility of a later term abortion if necessary and decriminalizes it. and i am not sympathetic to republicans that refuse to compromise for any reason and make the process that much harder.

yeah, that's why i'm probably wrong. lol.

i think they wanted to codify what most people actually think the law should be: abortion is ok in the first trimester and then only ok after that in very rare circumstances where the mothers life is in danger or other moral concerns like incest or rape. that's how the opinion reads to me. that's why i think they wanted to "do the right thing." i think most americans would take that as the law today. "viability" has shifted somewhat from roe's time as medicine has gotten better, but if its 22 weeks or 24 weeks instead of 28 weeks, that's ok,i think. the problem is that they are judges and not legislators and what they did has dubious constitutional foundations.

or the people who sent out the addresses for the supreme court justices' homes and told people to go protest in front of them.

then youre calling nonsense on roe and casey too.

this has always been the problem: how to make abortion legal nationally in a country that is evenly split on whether it should be? roe waa an awful way to do that. and as a piece of constitutional law, its very suspect and very easily attacked. the justices had the right idea, but its difficult to put it into practice. the consequences are that roe was bad law and has been sort of a punchline for judges acting as legislators ever since. lots of liberal commentators have felt the same way, including ginsburg (famously). if alito's opinion ends up being the actual opinion (which, again, is far from 100%), then i suspect you'll see an initial rush in many conservative led states to pass onerus and punitive bans on abortions and those who provide them, followed by a backlash and then a general walking back to more tolerable bans (things like what you see in most western countries). that's if this follows the usual patterns. otoh, we may be beyond the point of compromise on such things and perhaps it will get much worse? so is dobbs dred scot II? the decision that hastens the civil war?

of course! the fact that the lincoln memorial still stands is an affront to america.

one of the arguments in roe/casey for finding the right to have an abortion as protected by the 14th amendment is that the right has a long history of being present in the common law/history even if it is not explicitly written into the constitution. roe/casey and the briefs in support of them in dobbs cite this as a reason to find such a right to an abortion. alito, of course, takes issue with this. he goes all the way back to the beginnings of the common law to trace a history of the opposite being true: that abortion has always been different and has never been allowed and almost always been criminalized. he cites to a number of treatises on the english common law (from which american law was based) that talk about the illegality of abortion after "quickening." that's where hale was mentioned. he cites to a number of laws enacted in america in the 19th century criminalizing abortion as well. the argument is a response to the foundation of roe/casey, to contradict its argument that the right to an abortion has always been available in america when the opposite has often been true. he tries to explicitly separate abortion from contraception, sexuality, etc. writing multiple times that abortion is much different because it involves the death of another "unborn person." i'm not saying he's right. but you keep joking about somethint being "deeply rooted in history" so i thought i would at least try to explain why he wrote that. its an argument against the fourteenth amendment argument put forth in roe/casey.

yeah, who needs leaders like abraham lincoln, fdr, or teddy roosevelt. thise guys were just a bunch of christian talibans! you dont elect a "religious leader", but you can and do elect plenty kf good leaders who also happen to be religious.

his second stint in double a.

the evidence is pretty clear now: baez and correa both suck.

joey harrington could throw the ball 50 yards in the air too...

how many games does goff have where he completes 25 passes for 200 yards or so? a bunch. dink dunk dink dunk. checkdown checkdown. now, none of us have the all 22 and none of us know the plays, so we dont know what goff could have done. but i recall plenty of times when guys were open and goff just didnt throw it or didnt see it. look at the denver game. or the chicago game. or the philly game. actually, dont look at the philly game.

i think the older players would have been much better three point shooters if it had been a major part of the game back then. guys like jordan and isiah would have been taking and making more threes if the game was played that way back then instead of being a mid range game.