whatdrought

I think, if we do trade down, it’ll be with Washington so they can get their QB. Oakland is actually a dark horse for a big trade up, I think. I doubt they take a QB at 4, but if someone is sitting at the end of the 8 that they want and they’re afraid Denver will take, I could see Gruden going for it.

I would love to get Deboo Samuel in the second and Anthony Johnson in the 4th.

Way before my time, but I actually met him one time. My dad and I went to a draft tailgating party at the HOF and he and Jack Youngblood were there giving speeches. Youngblood talking his draft and seeing his name come over a fax machine, and then Saimes talking about his time as a scout. Seemed nice, but I only spoke to him for a minute and I was a dumb teenager who was too worried about whether or not Brian Orakpo would fall to us at 11.... oh the lesson I learned that day.

Where (short of a scotus decision) is abortion protected in the constitution?

Doesn't this thread just validate him? Sticks and stones. Call him out on stuff if you want, or ignore him like the others have suggested. If we start putting limitations on this board because of sensitivity, it's bout to get real lonely.

I see what you're saying about the two arguments not aligning. The problem with the viability argument is that it's not asking the overall viability of the life, but rather the viability within its current contexts. As in, in order for it to be viable it must be able to live outside the womb. I reject that idea. I say that viability is measured by the ability of a life to continue without being acted on by external forces (i.e. removal from the womb). To me this seems straight forward. My neighbor is a viable life as long as I leave him in his current contexts and don't go shoot him in the face cause he dicked with my lawn mower again. Is my direct action towards him, that changes his context of existence, a determination of the viability of his life? The reason that I even use the word viability is because of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. Both naturally (read: happen without external intervention) occurring disasters that make the life inviable.

But that's the problem with the "when life begins" argument. It's all renaming standards. There's always one more reason to say it isn't life yet, but if left alone it becomes life. At very least its potential life. We arrest people who destroy Eagles eggs because they're destroying potential life. (I'm not advocating the arrest of those who have abortions, rather point to the duplicity of the argument.)

You can see a heartbeat on the sonogram at 5 weeks gestational age.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm The creation of new genetic material and information. That, to me, is the beginning of life. If left to it's own devices, unless catastrophe happens (such as a miscarriage), this zygote becomes a human. Not to push my opinion, but for me it's pretty clear that that's the creation of life right there. Also, I have definitely struggled with my understanding of abortion and freedom/not dictating moral beliefs. For me (not that my opinion is worth much) the distinction is the effect on other peoples lives. Personal freedom, 100% of the way, until it negatively affects someone else. Who lives in a pineapple under the sea.... On the flip side of that, would we consider it an acceptable and responsible choice for a father to just abandon his child and completely reject responsibility. I'm not picking a fight here, it really just dawned on me that we judge men for abandoning their children, and then we force them to pay, but with abortion its different. It's an interesting thought.

What about cases where the doctors get diagnoses wrong? Don't say it can't happen cause I've seen it with my own eyes. People who were told to abort because the fetus wasn't "viable." only to have a strong and healthy baby born. I've also seen people that were met with that choice. I've seen their pain, and I've seen their tears. Having to bury their infant because she didn't survive. I know what they went through, and they chose life. The problem is that a life is a life. Outside of the emotion of this conversation comes the very real fact that we, whether aided by the medical industry or not, are not an all knowing deity that can control pain and suffering. We are not the holders of life and death. That much is clear from our very existence as mortal beings. I don't at all mean to belittle your friends pain because, as I said, I've been there. But pain is not a sufficient reason to dictate who lives and who dies. Saying that the taking of an innocent life is right and just because it spares anyone pain and suffering is the act of playing god, and it is wrong. We can disagree on that, but really, the truth matters more than the emotion.

Nailed it.

Technically you can avoid rounding up, but you have to put a line on top of whatever 6 you end on to indicate that it goes on infinitely.

I may have misunderstood- that sounds like the perfect way to find the balance.

Meh, we have money, that's our biggest need, and there aren't any offensive weapons that do it for me on the market. I wouldn't mind spending a lot to shore up the line. Also, Glowinski and Williams would be a huge upgrade, even if we keep Bodine at C. Then we can snag a C in the mid rounds. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind spending picks on linemen, but I see more value at OL in FA and more offensive weapon value in the draft.

This thread is stupid, the OP seems stupid for starting this thread, and the Patriots are stupid. These are all good things for me to say.

I wouldn't mind having him. He is definitely more than a Welker/ Edelman. He's got wheels and actually has range. I wouldn't mind a big bodied guy like Harmon or Arcega-Whiteside (or Johnson even) in the second, and the Isabella in the third.

I don't see Isabella being a second round pick. I think his stock will rise, but people will still shy away due to size.

The problem is that the legalization of abortion has been a march to this goal. The medical necessity, history shows, is an ever moving standard. Up to 12 weeks if medically necessary. Up to 24 if medically necessary. Up to 40 if medically necessary. It's all an escalation that is trying to get to the end goal of open abortions for any reason, at any time. Also, I echo what some of the above posters said- I have never seen a reason for a medically needed abortion in the third trimester. That's when the baby is fully formed and growing. If the baby has something life threatening, C-section is an option. Same if the mother does. The problem is that convenience and necessity is blurred, in my opinion.

I see the difference you're pointing to, but it seems mostly like a charade. The health parameters in the NY bill are up to interpretation, and the reality is that that one little string of restriction will be clipped soon enough.

I think the important thing is to see which outlets acknowledge their bias. Bias exists, one way or the other. Some acknowledge it, and then some say it doesn't exist and we're only suggesting it does because we support Trump, blah blah blah, etc. I think Fox News is biased to the right, and usually I like to get info from multiple sides. I typically will read three or four hard left takes, and the see how Fox spins it in order to try and find the middle. Even then, I am sure there is plenty missing. In my experience, Fox does a better job admitting bias than others, but a large part of that is that "their guy" is in office now. Some of their stuff on Obama was a bit over the top for my liking. CNN is just plain off the rails stupid these days. Also, for what it's worth- you seem to be a liberal who enjoys real conversation and dialogue- that's rare around here... Keep up the good work!

I wouldn't mind a combination of those two. I loved Johnson for a while, then cooled on him, but he measured in taller than I expected. I wouldn't hate to have him in the second or third.

This means a healthy, viable baby could be killed at 8 months, thirty days gestation. It means the abortion could be delayed or done in a manner to permit organ harvesting. It means that a fetus whose brain was sufficiently developed to experience pain could be torn slowly apart in the womb in the most agonizing manner. It would also allow sex-selection abortion and, if it were ever possible to determine, termination to prevent a gay baby from being born. And what are we to make of this provision? At the very least, it would fully authorize the horrible fetal-part selling practices in which Planned Parenthood was caught engaging (the videos about which have now been validated by a federal court). It could also permit odious practices beyond abortion, for example creating a free space for germ-line genetic engineering, as recently done in China. And what would prevent fetuses from being maintained in an artificial womb for purposes of experimentation — since they would have no rights, recognized human dignity, or legal status? Don’t scoff. Experimentation was conducted in the late 60s on living fetuses. One 1968 study — on a 26-week aborted fetus kept alive for five hours in an artificial environment — even received the Foundation Prize Award from the American Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Also note that there are no residency requirements. Since almost every jurisdiction in the world places restrictions on late terminations, Vermont could well become the viable-fetus abortion capital of the world. The 91 authors of this bill — think about that — want Vermont’s public policy to state explicitly that unborn human life has no value or moral worth that any born person is bound to respect. What are we becoming? https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/vermont-bill-pushes-abortion-without-limit/ I really do think it's the attempts at organizing the structure needed to eliminate races, traits, and people groups deemed undesirable.