whatdrought

Man, Andy Isabella is one ugly mug... Pats have three there, and two of them are wearing numbers that they can't wear in the regular season... I hate that. Also, I have a strange feeing that number 26 front and center will be the best player from this picture.

I gotcha. Late term abortions are rare now because they're illegal most places... so that's kinda a duh. More to the point, they're more than welcome to use that argument. I'm saying no abortion should be plentiful. Meh, seems like a super sketchy place to get into. What do you do with a rape victim who wants an abortion but was too traumatized to report it until she's 25 weeks pregnant? If you don't give her the abortion, you're saying that her plight is less than that of the other women who are allowed to do that if they're not quite as traumatized. If you do give it to her, then you've violated the standard. I think it's all building answers to questions that don't even need to be asked. I've also seen plenty of articles by people who chose life after a rape who are glad and thankful that they did... I've never seen one by someone who chose life and regrets that decision... This also circles back around to adoption and the way that that's all screwed up and shouldn't be. I do believe it is. More to the point, I think the bigger issue is that we're building systems from a broken premise. Nature dictates that a conceived child left alone in the womb will either grow to a full term baby to be born, or else something catastrophic will happen and a miscarriage/stillbirth will occur. Those are literally the only two options that nature provides for the end of a pregnancy. We're the ones that decided the system needed to be modified, and i've honestly never seen a good reason for that.

I've never much cared for the viability argument because it assumes that someone's viability is determined by someone else not killing them... Essentially we're saying that if it's 19 weeks we can kill it, but if we accidentally get the dates wrong and it hits 20 weeks (literally 7 days, 168 hours later) then it's a human and killing it is wrong. If I leave my neighbor alone, their life is viable and they'll keep living, but if I shoot him in the face all the sudden he isn't so viable. How is that different? I assume you see it so because it's the woman's body, but there are a ton of people dependent on other people, and we don't give them wholesale permission to kill them. If viability means not dependent on other people, then most aren't until they're 18 years old... many even later.

Its not a tactic to point to the statistical reality of the position. If pro-abortion proponents were to come to the table and say “no abortions except rape and *****” we could have a different conversation. I would still say no, but at least we’d be operating from honesty. But they hide behind that while trying to push their ultimate agenda (hello NY). The problem with an exception is that you’re excusing something that is wrong. My belief and the belief of other pro-life people is that terminating a pregnancy is an unnatural taking of life. Supposing the life was conceived in rape doesn’t change that- it’s the old standard of two wrongs making no rights. Another layer in this conversation is that the left is simultaneously off the deep end in trying to re-define rape and sexual assault. Not to even mention the number of women who would lie about the circumstances involved in the conception... how do you prove that? my bottom line is this. Either it’s always fine or it’s always not. That’s why I was slightly pissed at all the pro-life people losing their ***** about the NY law and VA attempted law.. yeah, given our view it’s a travesty, but it doesn’t matter when they’re being killed... they’re being killed.

Don't make up words.

Am I in the minority if I think Christian Bale kicked ass as batman? (granted, Chris Nolan helps)

Failure to answer the question ask is more my meaning. Science does this with many things, so turning to science to set policy does not always work. This is further shown when there is legitimate scientific ambiguity on topics. The science side of things is really irrelevant to the topic anyways, I think, as the left has moved past that and is now simply claiming to failure to allow abortion at any time and any place for any reason is an assault on women's rights. I think the scientific side is all a mirage on this conversation piece.

I just finished reading a Clancy novel where Iran takes over Iraq and then tries to dominate the rest of the gulf states... this is where that’s going, right? ?

This is a more pathetic version of “im taking my ball and going home!” Is there any reason to believe that this grown man has more emotional resiliency than a teenage girl?... Mannings continued vouching for him is actually the one thing that could tarnish the reputation or 18...

I gotcha. That’s the whole basis of a republic. We elect those who have opinions that mirror our own in order that they will create legislation that reflects our values. Science abdicates on many important sociatlile issues, it doesn’t mean we don’t legislate on such topics.

Because we as a society do not advocate murder based on emotional preference... if we agree across the board where the date it becomes life is, then anything after that is murder. Take your point to it’s final conclusion. A woman who was raped and conceived gives birth, raises the child to two years old. When he’s two she sees her rapist at the store, or on the news, whatever, and the sight of him terrorizes her with renewed dreams and flashbacks. Problem is, 2 year old son looks like the bastard. Every time she looks at her son she sees him and she’s taken back to that moment. So one night, when it’s too much to bear, she drowns her toddler in the tub. If she’s allowed to kill that child in the womb because the emotional strain is too much, how is that different? more to the point, cases of rape and ***** (i.e., the abortion lobby’s hobby horse) make up a tiny tiny percentage of abortions. The very high majority are elective. This is just a tactic to muddy the waters.

Interesting. I am seeing what you mean about the scientific uncertainty of it.

But it sounds to me like the DNA is there immediately, is coding towards that end that you're speaking of, and sometimes (most of the time based on what you mentioned) it fails to continue the process... Does that make it less life before it ceases that process? As in, how long does it have to do the processes to become life? I get that that's the whole conversation, but it seems to me that if it's happening at all its life- whether or not it continues past xdays. I gotta be honest, I don't know the science that well on this, and I really don't know what to think about IVF. It's definitely grey to me. I might be reductionist (and i'm sure i'm the kind that bothers you) but I usually default to the idea that there's enough kids out there without families to begin with.. But that's oversimplification I know. Edit: this is a pro-life site, so take it for what you will, but I thought this was a good look at the conversation: https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/ The part of distinct cell and specific functions sounds like life to me. I'm not trying to step on your toes- I also don't disagree that there is a level of ambiguity to it that makes it a moral question, but that seems like the natural extension of when science falls short or leaves us with questions.

Unique in that it has never existed previously. Unique as in when that DNA is fabricated, all the necessary genetic coding is there for a life. I would think that the DNA question is really the answer to the hypothesis... If in fact that DNA is unique in the world, and it is human DNA, is that not the proof of human life? What standard must be met to prove life? Also, thanks for engaging in this conversation- seriously. Im a novice for sure and I know what I believe, but it's great to hear from someone close to the situation. (especially someone willing to discuss in a rational way)

Well, It is, but it leaves the door open to debate because the absence of proof isn't proof.

Those who don't like all the positivity should listen to the around the NFL podcast's QB ranking. One of those schmucks had Allen at like 27 and Rosen at like 15.

Your scientific explanation is that you can’t scientifically say. I appreciate your expertise and your well thought out posts, but I do diaageee with a lot of what you’ve said. Does a zygote have uniqe DNA before implantation?

Is this the same cult that that Smallville actress was a part of?

We’re litigating it because that’s how legislation is supposed to work... not based on the extreme stretching of the Supreme Court to fit a certain topic into an amendment that isn’t really related to the issue. These pro-life laws are begging to go to the Supreme Court honestly. It’s funnt because the left is so worried about the right overturning roe v. Wade one minute, then the next they are screaming about the unconstitutionality of these laws. If the constitutionality of a law is to be challanged, it’s done at scotus. That’s step one to overturning roe v wade. As for the scientific conversation in previous pages, I’ve always been confused why life viability is determined by someone not terminating it... the argument that a baby is only viable at 20 or so weeks is really not asking when it’s viable, but rather is asking “when is it viable if we want to mess with it/not leave it to do it’s natural processes.” An adults life is less likely to continue if I shoot them in the stomach, but does that change their viability?

Thanks! I was way more passive during the Rex years and only caught bits and pieces until I plugged back in during the 2017 season. edit after reading link: Dang... that’s some serious career implosion...

remind me what happened?

Damn.. I thought Bodine was legitimately one of our better offensive linemen last year, and now I can't find a spot on the 53 for him... That's a heck of a job done by the FO to reboot this. I wonder if Boettger can be stashed on the PS? I loved how he went after Alonso after the cheap shot.

And to me. And to probably everyone else who chuckled at both your random hostility, and then the amazing backhand served to you. Welcome to the board though.

Damn... The lengths some people go to to earn crab legs... Honestly, I get adrenaline and getting hyped, but every time I watch this I wonder if he is legitimately mentally handicapped...

Is that a first time offense for him? Arizona shoulda moved him when they had the chance.