buddha

"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.

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.