PseudoSABR

I meant biologically independent (obviously, as per the discussion of living, and what not)--like can it exist as a living organism without being biologically connected to the mother. I could have used the word viability with more precision, but your point is a slippery slope that I think demonstrates that no person is ever independent from the circumstance from within they are born, and that to compel an unwanted children into existence puts us all on the hook for that human being's welfare it's whole damn life.

Look, I'm not trying to dismiss your point of view. I want to get at what the essential question is. You think it's murder. But that doesn't make it so. You, and pro-lifers, are not the authority on human-beignness, or what constitutes murder. (Law is well-settled on this point, by the way). If you can't budge on that point, and won't work to address the concerns of begetting unwanted life--well, we are at an impasse. But I will not cede the higher moral ground, because there is no higher moral ground to be had. That said, abortion is ugly, ugly. It is a moral crisis. No one wants to dismiss the moral crisis. Let's face it, and deal with it nobly. Calling it murder stops the analysis. What will we do as a society to ensure a decent life for the unwanted child we wish to compel into existence? What will we do to remedy the depravity from which too many are forced to face such a moral crisis? After all, the free market does not favor unwanted children. It is never us men that have to carry that happy burden to term.

No one is arguing that the fetus is not alive. We all agree it is alive. (For the record, sperm and ovum independently are arguably alive, just as any living cell is arguably "alive"). So let's move on from that question. ALIVE, however, does not equal PERSON. I don't believe a zygote or a fetus who cannot live independently of its mother is a person (i.e. not a human being). The "cold termination of a defenseless, living human being" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that derails thoughtful discussion. The issue isn't about "living" it's about "human being." I'm happy to talk about how to care for "living human beings", but I'm sure the buck stops at birth with most pro-lifers. The unwanted child has a host of problems after birth that too many conservatives like to simply skirt. Pro-lifers can't convince me abortion is wrong, but they might be able to convince me that they'd be part of a world that ensures some peaceable future for their fellow man, even at a cost to themselves, and then maybe I could be persuaded easy access to abortion isn't a modern day necessity of any decent society.

This isn't a helpful question (and creates a straw man, honestly). No argues that the fetus or zygote is alive. The essential question is that living organism a person with legal rights? And that question is far more complex.

I don't see how Rubio gets the woman vote in any capacity much less enough to beat Clinton. Though, I do think he'd be their best chance (or at least conservatives will see him as that--their own identity candidate vis a vis Hillary (and Obama)). And he looked fine last night, but he's looked really bad when given opportunities in the past (State of the Union response, the water moment). Although he might be lurching toward the center within his rhetoric, he was a tea-party cover boy early on. And I don't see much moderation in his stances on the issues. "You sir, are no Jack Kennedy."

I think the Atlanta trade inflated Olivera's value. I'm sure he'll hit at the big league's, but he could lose his 2b eligibility if he comes up and only plays third, which would be a big hit on his value. I don't know why he'd want Olivera over Travis, and I doubt Gallardo or the 2nd round pick really bridges that gap. I wonder if the fact that your team is more competitive than mine played a part.

Thanks. Gallardo is pitching over his head, and Olivera will be over thirty when he is relevant. Given that I probably won't make the playoffs thanks to the collapse of my pitching this trade made a lot of sense.

It'd be nice to have May back in the rotation, but I'm sure glad he's out there right now.

LaVelle E. Neal III ‏@LaVelleNeal 2m2 minutes ago Twins will send Rays Chin-Wei Hu and Alexis Tapia Hu is too much, damn. Jepson is arb eligible again this winter, but I feel we could have gotten a better RP for him. I think this is a seller's market for sure.

Right. There's also August, if the Twins remain competitive. Though we could use that bullpen arm, now.

He's better than anyone else in the bullpen beyond Perkins. The deal is contingent on what they gave up. Given the price of difference makers, I'm glad the Twins aren't overly eager to deal from their minor league depth. (And this is colored by my belief that the Twins are really only pseudo-competitive, and really wouldn't ahve much playoff longevity even if they make the wildcard.)

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 53s53 seconds ago Source: Kevin Jepsen to #Twins. Something

I wasn't even talking about this issue, necessarily. Maybe this conversation is just all too meta for me. But when we start criticizing the critics for being too critical, well that point of view is worthy of some criticism itself, and now we're down the rabbit hole of hey-there's-a-distinction-here. I think all issues like this tend to jump the shark when there's actual public outcry. Whether it's a professional punter sanctimoniously defending homosexual rights or literally people climbing flag poles to remove civil war decorum--in order to get to the majority of any people there probably already needs to be a band wagon. (Most the time, I think "about damn time" but really it's no fun to be mad at people for being late to the party.) Trophy hunting has always been ugly. But I don't feel bad for this guy. What he did was arrogant, unethical and likely illegal, and is not lessened by our tolerance of legal trophy hunting that as happenstance might serve an ecological purpose. Liberty in many ways is the capacity to be ugly, to do things that others might disapprove of--but our society is built upon the premise that there must be limits and their are only a few inalienable rights. Yes, go hunt even if for sport, so long as it serves an ecological purpose, and you get a license and you take this waste-your-time class and whatever. This guy though. And guys like him. They take the value of liberty--indeed, what few rights we have--and murder them with their bravado. I don't want the guy to be vilified (death threats, shaming etc.), but I think it's perfectly legitimate for his business to suffer for putting himself out there through such a brazen endeavor, and if prosecution is possible so much the better.

I think complaining about the hypocrisy of whatever subset of complainers is way down on the list of things worthy of complaining about.

As we've depleted natural predators, some hunting provides a needed ecological role. I can imagine a kind of sanctity if not carried out with gluttony. Lion hunting? It's bad enough that our presence contributes to their loss of habitat with something less than a shrug. But to revel in a orchestrated murder of a protected, majestic creature? It's the horrible end to that ole American canard--I get to do what the heck I want, and boo hoo you don't get to do it too.

I wonder if Reyes is available. Contract: 2016 22,000,000 2017 22,000,000 2018 22,000,000 Team option 4,000,000 buyout

Reyes to the Rockies? Position switch for one of them? Wonder what the price was...

Tulo's going to the Blue Jays Ken RosenthalVerified account ‏@Ken_Rosenthal BREAKING: Tulo traded to #BlueJays.

So dumb that he juiced; he didn't even need to.

I can't stand him. His personality is so grating; he's absolutely tactless on so many topics. He reminds me of less-articulate less-clever Jim Rome. When he comes across my radio dial, I always listen for a moment, mostly out of schadenfreude. About month ago he was ranting about how awful paid paternity leave was. Ugh. Good riddance.

Vaughn has been worse than I expected-I don't even register his dialogue anymore (but that's a gawdawful line). Colin Farrell has been surprisingly palatable, and the other two leads are strongly-casted as well (though John Carter's character arch is cringe worthy). Will there be a Season 3? I'll wait to decide if I'll watch by finishing this season up. And I'll probably give it a chance regardless as long as Nic Pizzolatto is writing---there is some hope that he'll learn from his mistakes. And I hope they find a new director/art-direction team.

True. One is the end, and one is the means.

Trump's not running for President; he's running for his own publicity.

I think losing Season 1's director hurts the most. There's no spookiness, and the attempts at setting the mood with bird-eye industrial shots seems hamfisted. The story is starting to accrue for me (with three episodes left) and some of the characters are worthy of seeing through, but the premise of the season was so sprawling that it would never make much sense. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Przf4_zZlXY/VaivgBxsSsI/AAAAAAAAYWQ/gVjO7SPSQw0/s640/True%2BDetective%2BLost%2BInterest.jpg

How exactly would you weigh the competing hate?