cabiness42

I'm not really surprised by it. Here's the ERA+ from the pen last year: Albers 326 Jones 120 DUke 115 Robertson 115 Petricka 108 Jennings 98 Putnam 96 Now obviously Albers isn't going to repeat that number, but if your worst reliever has an ERA+ of 96, that's an awfully solid pen.

I've been to both cities, but only with my wife in both cases so I did not participate in the kind of fun I expect you are seeking in either city.

An 18-week old fetus squirms around to avoid the death needle. Doesn't impact whether or not you believe it's human?

They couldn't have picked a better day to air it

When do we get to see Bernie Sanders debate Sam Seaborn?

Today is the XXX anniversary of Super Bowl XX.

I think the difficulty is determining any specific developmental event between conception and birth that crosses a line from "pre-human" to human. I do admit it gets harder to make the "fully human" argument before the 14-18 week range, so while I personally wouldn't like that to be the law, I can at least see that as a reasonable argument from a scientific standpoint. With the exception that any time is OK when the mother's life is in danger. When you get to the point where a life is going to be lost either way, I think the family should be allowed to decide which one.

Sure it would be interesting, but how would any of that data change the reality that abortion is killing a human being?

I didn't say there is a universally accepted definition. Clearly there are plenty of people with their heads in the sand. Read the original link that started this conversation. You have to have some pretty strong blinders on to not see the 18-week fetus as human. I don't have data either, I just know plenty of couples who have either not been able to adopt at all or had to adopt internationally because there were no babies available.

My work has periodic print contracts with a commercial printer in Bedford Park. I have staff that travel there a few times a year.

If you play in the ACC, you beat Duke. It's what you do.

So are rape, murder, theft OK because the perpetrator should be given freedom of choice? Or does human life have value that outweighs the freedom of choice? Or do we arbitrarily decide when the value of human life matters more or the value of freedom of choice matter more based on what NOW says? I just see this as a complete hypocrisy by liberals. They stand up for the rights of minorities, women, gays, etc., but when it comes to the most vulnerable and defenseless class of human beings that exist, suddenly a woman's right to choose becomes more important because that's what gets them votes. It's equal to, if not worse than the conservative hypocrisy of being against abortion but refusing to support any sort of benefits or support for women in crisis pregnancies.

It is very unfortunate that the overwhelming majority of pro-life political candidates also hold those positions. I don't believe that the majority of people who are pro-life hold those positions. While the pro-life organizations don't generally take official stances on issues, the majority of people that I have come across in these organizations are also: - in favor of education on and access to contraception in general (though the "morning after" pill is a sticking point) - in favor of increased federal/state funding for women for medical care (other than abortion) during pregnancy - in favor of an improved adoption system - in favor of increased benefits for poor women who choose to keep their children People who support Ted Cruz aren't really pro-life. They're hypocritical moralistic assholes who think they're pro-life. True pro-life people are desperate for a moderate, possibly even liberal pro-life candidate to vote for instead of Ted Cruz.

The Chiefs are hoping Alex Smith never figures out that he is old and white.

Abortion is used to oppress women far more than women's advocacy groups realize. Getting rid of abortion would actually do a lot for women. Some, like the author of the article I posted, are starting to realize this after years of believing the opposite.

I think that says an awful lot about a group when all you want to do is save lives and they call you things like misogynist.

We all get a say in whether or not it's OK to kill a human being in every other circumstance. Somehow, a specific class of human beings is supposed to get their rights trumped by women? Killing a human being 22 weeks before birth is not significantly medically nor scientifically different than killing a human being 22 weeks after birth. Saying that this is about a woman's right to choose is just an attempt to diminish that reality. Plus, there are already plenty of things that governments tell women that they can't do with their bodies. They can't ingest/inject certain drugs, they can't drive drunk, they can't assault/kill other people. Somehow, because pregnancy is unique to women, this suddenly becomes about the rights of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body when clearly that is not the standard in any other circumstance.

I know the Broncos would never do this, but does anybody else think they actually have a better chance to win with Osweiler at QB?

Pretty much every person who is in favor of legalized abortion debates that. You are the first I've ever seen to actually admit that abortion is killing a human being and yet think it should be legal. Why should the legality stop at birth? The woman could still not want to go through the ordeal or pay hospital bills associated with caring for the child after birth. Why not let her kill the child up until the age of 3 months? 6 months? From a developmental standpoint, birth is really a fairly arbitrary point in the process.

The being inside a womb is an actual person, to the extent that at 18 weeks development, the person can (futilely) attempt to avoid being killed. To deny personhood based on internal attachment to the mother is not really that much different than denying personhood based on skin color.

That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard of. That's the kind of combination that an idiot would use on his luggage.

Tom Brady is now 2-7 career in Denver, reg season + playoffs combined. Wins were against Danny Kanell and Tim Tebow.

I don't think Denver will win, but I think their defense is good enough to keep the game within two scores.

It's being very ignorant of science when you call the human being growing inside of her a part of her body. It's a separate human body. Did you read the story? The part about the 18 week old fetus fighting to avoid death? It's pretty nice and neat to put that picture out of your mind and instead think of it as just a blob of tissue attached to a woman. The "telling a woman what to do with her body" is the most tired argument out there. It's trying to deflect the argument away from the humanity of the person inside and that person's rights. I'm telling a woman what she can or can't do to her child, the same way every government in the world tells women what they can or can't do to their children after they're born. Just state your true position: you're perfectly fine with the legality of killing a defenseless human being. That's what abortion is, regardless of the circumstances. Everybody who is on that side of the argument will do everything except say that, but in the end that's exactly what it is. Until 1863, lots of people thought there was another class of human beings that didn't deserve any rights either.

Two blatant holds on that 2 point play. If that had been successful that would have been ridiculous. Brady finally gets what's coming to him, and yeah, Denver probably loses but at least Manning gets to play in a Super Bowl for his final game.