• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Sign in to follow this  
Larry

CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Parent(s) have to make a life or death decision regarding that too. 

 

Yup

 

which is different from making a “do I want a child” decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Parent(s) have to make a life or death decision regarding that too. 

 

What would be the general opinion of people that ended life support when the patient would 'recover' in a few months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

 I see it as a human life, so as such I cant be okay with a human being killed. 

 

I am not that far away from your view of what is/is not human life. I am personally not in favor of abortion.

 

2 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I personally couldnt ignore what I see and believe is going on and that is loss of life. And until I see, read, or find something that makes me think its not a life I dont see that changing for me.

 

Perfectly reasonable.

 

But why do you feel the need/right to attempt to impose your views/morality on this issue on women who are the ones carrying the fetus? Why should they be denied the choice of what they wish to do (within some set of limits) just because you believe its is wrong? How does this directly impact on you (beyond the moral outrage)?

 

Remember woman are not being forced to have abortions, they are being given a choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yup

 

which is different from making a “do I want a child” decision

I guess, but those kids may have to die too. It’s fine when they are a day from the womb, but not before?

 

If anything, infant mortality is pretty high in America for developed nations.

 

We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I guess, but those kids may have to die too. It’s fine when they are a day from the womb, but not before?

 

If anything, infant mortality is pretty high in America for developed nations.

 

Right but context is everything. 

 

Pulling life support from a newborn because they cannot sustain life in a reasonable fashion (ie: medical reason)

 

is a little different than

 

aborting at 7 months because you decided you don’t want a kid. 

 

But the real point was: drawing the line at “can sustain itself outside the womb” seems silly because full term healthy babies cannot sustain themselves outside the womb. 

 

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.

I way disagree with this but you and i are about as opposite as it gets about what is and isn’t worthwhile in this country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MartinC said:

But why do you feel the need/right to attempt to impose your views/morality on this issue on women who are the ones carrying the fetus? Why should they be denied the choice of what they wish to do (within some set of limits) just because you believe its is wrong? How does this directly impact on you (beyond the moral outrage)?

 

Remember woman are not being forced to have abortions, they are being given a choice.

Well that comes back to me seeing it as a human life for me. Its not about imposing morality/views, its about protecting a human life that trumps all. If you believe its not a life than that argument works fine.

 

In essence what you are saying to me, in how I view this, why should they be denied the choice of killing a person just because I believe its wrong. Because I see it as killing a person, thats kind of a big deal. Again, obviously others do not agree to this which is the disconnect here, but I cant just be okay with it.

 

To try to put it in perspective. The slave owners in the south saw slaves as less than human, they had no rights, they were nothing, just property. The people who wanted to abolish slavery saw it for what it was, an awful thing, a tragedy. Of course the slave owners thought that there wasnt anything wrong with what they were doing and didnt think those trying to abolish slavery had any right to tell them whats wrong or not. Those against slavery didnt have slaves, no direct impact for them, but they saw it was wrong and couldnt just ignore it.

 

I am not trying to equate the two, but trying' to give an example that I think we can all agree on that will give you a better perspective for why I couldn't just ignore it.

 

Im typing this fast so hopefully I was able to get that across clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Legally, a fetus isn't a person until a birth certificate is issued. Until then, scientifically it's a parasite existing off a legal female's body.

 

Emotionally, people can think what they want about what a collection of cells is. That doesn't give them the right to legislate female bodily autonomy.

FB_IMG_1558298278365.jpg

Edited by LadySkinsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

 

Well that and the laws forbidding it and enforcement.

 

Or are you saying thoughts and prayers are only what the pro-choice people offer?

Maybe you are on to something there with those that would not choose it yet support the right to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, tshile said:

aborting at 7 months because you decided you don’t want a kid. 

Is that why people are aborting at seven months? There isn't much research on it, but Ive seen stuff range from issues the baby was having during gestation, not being able to access abortions earlier in the pregnancy (cost, logistics, state laws, etc), or life-threatening situations for the women carrying the child.

 

And its a small number of cases. I am not sure how often it is "I have been pregnant for seven months, but I have finally decided I do not want this kid." And even on the chances that is the case, and?

 

43 minutes ago, tshile said:

But the real point was: drawing the line at “can sustain itself outside the womb” seems silly because full term healthy babies cannot sustain themselves outside the womb. 

right, and those babies who can't sustain themselves outside of the womb may have to be put to rest as well. Maybe the family cannot afford the healthcare costs that will nurse that child to good health. Maybe that family can't afford the lifetime of healthcare costs that child will have because of this period. Maybe, its whatever. IDK. My point is that they aren't dissimilar but many people are more concerned with the baby during gestation than after they are out the womb.

 

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

I way disagree with this but you and i are about as opposite as it gets about what is and isn’t worthwhile in this country. 

That's fine, but infant mortality in the US is about 6 deaths per 1,000 births. That puts us in the company with Poland, Serbia, and Gilbratar. That's a fact. 

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

In essence what you are saying to me, in how I view this, why should they be denied the choice of killing a person just because I believe its wrong. Because I see it as killing a person, thats kind of a big deal. Again, obviously others do not agree to this which is the disconnect here, but I cant just be okay with it.

 

I added bold to some key words above in your response. I get YOU are not OK with it. That is perfectly reasonable - I'm not OK with it either.

 

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality? (And it may well be you don't feel the need to impose them - but that's what is happening in these States where these new 8 week laws are being imposed as part of a wider attempt to strike down Roe v Wade).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Is that why people are aborting at seven months? 

 

I dont think so. 

 

But thats how he says he draws the line. So, hence my comment. 

 

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

right, and those babies who can't sustain themselves outside of the womb may have to be put to rest as well. Maybe the family cannot afford the healthcare costs that will nurse that child to good health. Maybe that family can't afford the lifetime of healthcare costs that child will have because of this period. Maybe, its whatever. IDK. My point is that they aren't dissimilar but many people are more concerned with the baby during gestation than after they are out the womb.

 

Ive never encountered a person that was very much against abortion (even if they had exceptions) that just up and quit caring once the child was born. 

 

I realize thats the rhetoric that you and pro-choice people run around with

 

but I’ve never actually worked with a person that felt that way. I’m sure they exist, just not on the level you and others purport. 

 

Not even close. 

 

Nifty talking point though. You guys definitely get your mileage out of it. 

 

9 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

That's fine, but infant mortality in the US is about 6 deaths per 1,000 births. That puts us in the company with Poland, Serbia, and Gilbratar. That's a fact. 

I’m not disputing that. 

I’m disputing (well, not really, cause we have different viewpoints) your quote

We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.”

i think that’s bull**** but we have very different views on what this country has to offer people so I guess it’s not a surprise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Your link literally say "Not Federally" and then cites one State which is (surprise surprise) Alabama.

 

It's a complex area though and its seems that it is not black and white and that some courts have taken the view that a fetus has some rights - but I would contend it is still true to say as a generalisation that a fetus is not legally regarded as a person until birth. Indeed one of the objectives of those seeking to overturn Roe v Wade is to have a change of law which would change this definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, MartinC said:

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality?

 

 

Yes he has. Clearly. You don’t gave to agree with it (I don’t) but he certainly has laid out why he feels that way 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

Your link literally say "Not Federally" and then cites one State which is (surprise surprise) Alabama.

 

It's a complex area though and its seems that it is not black and white and that some courts have taken the view that a fetus as some rights - but I would contend it is still true to say as a generalisation that a fetus is not legally regarded as a person until birth. Indeed one of the objectives of those seeking to overturn Roe v Wade is to have a change of law which would change this definition.

 

Personhood is recognized in many states(the majority), and many other countries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tshile said:

 

 

Yes he has. Clearly. You don’t gave to agree with it (I don’t) but he certainly has laid out why he feels that way 

 

He has laid why he feels that way - he has said nothing about why he feels he has the right to have that view imposed on others.

 

If I have missed that could you quote him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MartinC said:

 

He has laid why he feels that way - he has said nothing about why he feels he has the right to have that view imposed on others.

 

If I have missed that could you quote him?

 

He gave an analogy to slave owners vs abolishment people back when slavery was legal. An issue people felt strongly enough about to go to war over. 

 

I dont understand why it’s hard to see why if someone views abortion as a murder/killing of a person they would view it as their right/duty/need to stop it (through legal means of course)

 

Why do people fight to outlaw the death penalty? Because they view it as murdering of innocent people (or inhumane to the guilty, which could also apply to abortion)

 

what about carpet bombing? Or terrorist activity? 

 

Or any of the dozens upon upon dozens of issues people feel it is their duty/need/right to interject themselves into the situation because (from their standpoint) innocent people are being murdered?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I added bold to some key words above in your response. I get YOU are not OK with it. That is perfectly reasonable - I'm not OK with it either.

 

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality? (And it may well be you don't feel the need to impose them - but that's what is happening in these States where these new 8 week laws are being imposed as part of a wider attempt to strike down Roe v Wade).

I have been trying to put it into perspective, but I guess Im not getting it across.

 

Can you answer this question for me? It may make it clearer to you, but at least should make it clearer to me how to get why across:

 

Why did the people working to abolish slavery feel they had the right to impose their view that slavery was wrong on slave owners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twa said:

 

Personhood is recognized in many states(the majority), and many other countries

 

I just checked. Apparently there are 13 States 

 

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/only-these-states-say-babies-are-humans-heres-an-update-on-the-fierce-abortion-battles-across-the-us

 

"Thirteen states have laws on the books that state unborn babies are people. These personhood statements are often included under the criminal code to protect mothers and their unborn babies from violent attacks like domestic abuse"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Ive never encountered a person that was very much against abortion (even if they had exceptions) that just up and quit caring once the child was born. 

 

I realize thats the rhetoric that you and pro-choice people run around with

 

but I’ve never actually worked with a person that felt that way. I’m sure they exist, just not on the level you and others purport. 

 

Not even close. 

 

Nifty talking point though. You guys definitely get your mileage out of it. 

Of course not. They just vote for legislators cut school funding, welfare laws, make it harder to get food stamps and public housing and make healthcare difficult to receive and make life harder for that child. But I am sure if they saw the little child, they would pat them on their belly and give them a dollar.

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

We don’t do nearly enough to make having a child worthwhile to be focusing on the thing in a woman’s womb.”

i think that’s bull**** but we have very different views on what this country has to offer people so I guess it’s not a surprise. 

Well if we are the most powerful nation in the world yet cannot have the lowest infant mortality rate, then that says we aren't doing enough to make sure that child is successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Of course not. They just vote for legislators cut school funding, welfare laws, make it harder to get food stamps and public housing and make healthcare difficult to receive and make life harder for that child. But I am sure if they saw the little child, they would pat them on their belly and give them a dollar.

Well if we are the most powerful nation in the world yet cannot have the lowest infant mortality rate, then that says we aren't doing enough to make sure that child is successful. 

 

I think it’s disingenuous to wrap all that up in a little box as a presentation as to why people shouldn’t be against abortion. 

 

I agree with the general notion that we don’t do “enough”.  That’s probably where our agreement ends though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tshile said:

 

I have trouble wrapping my head around this standard because babies born at full term are not capable of sustaining themselves outside the womb. 

 

And plenty go to full term but still need machines to stay alive for a while. 

 

I just don’t understand where the line is drawn here. It feels like anyone could draw it anywhere with this standard. 

 

 

 

Well the same can be said about trying to judge life as a heartbeat, conception, etc.  Its all arbitrary.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

That's just disgusting and disturbing.  Not funny at all.

 

3 hours ago, ClaytoAli said:

Dude, you should just self ban!

 

It would appear that my faith that "this satire is so far over the top that I don't need to label it" is incorrect. At least on this subject. 

 

Which I guess I should understand. It is, after all, a subject which pushes a lot of very powerful buttons on a lot of people. (Including me. Which probably causes me to work harder to try to be ironic, or something.). 

 

No, this is not "not my fault y'all are too stupid to see what's obvious". This is "maybe if one person doesn't get it, then it's just him. But if multiple people don't, then maybe it's me."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.