PeterMP

Members
  • Content Count

    2,289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterMP

  • Rank
    The Dirtbags
  • Birthday 07/11/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Something catchy like headexplode or EA's

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. https://es.redskins.com/topic/354121-raw-story-gop-senate-nominee-women-don%E2%80%99t-get-pregnant-from-%E2%80%98legitimate%E2%80%99-rapes/?page=3 I didn't read the whole thread, but he doesn't seem to defend the guy or the comment. In that thread is he for rape victime having to bear the child.
  2. Realistically, today I suspect it is really probably possible with extremely low risks to the mother or fetus of getting the whole genome sequence for the fetus, and therefore identify whatever traits that there have known associated genes for. I don't know of any place that is actively advertising, but based on what I know, I strongly suspect you could get things like eye and hair color if you wanted and found somebody willing to do it for you, but also data related to things like the breast cancer gene. (At about the 10th week pregnancy.
  3. There's a difference between not wanting to have a baby, having sex, and the result being a baby and being told to have sex that you have to do X (wear a condom, pull out early (though if you pull out early is it really sex?), etc.) and failing to do it. In the later case, you end up doing something to somebody that they don't want done and you've been asked/told not to do.
  4. If you agree to have sex with some conditional requirements and you can't be sure that you can meet those conditions, then that's on you.
  5. I will point out that I'd be completely for leaving whether it is something that is prosecuted up to people's whose job it is to prosecute crimes. At least, it sounds like it should be sexual assault to me (and if we need to pass some new laws to make that at least the case, I'd be happy to vote for people that will), and I'd absolutely encourage people to report it to the police. From there, career prosecutors can make the decision as to whether there is enough evidence to prosecute.
  6. @tshile said their actions lead them to that point. He didn't say it was intentional or wanted. There is a difference. Just because the consequences are unintended or unwanted doesn't mean they had no cause. (Now, I'll point out that in the case of rape, I'd reject that argument. But in most cases, I think it is true. You don't get pregnant because you were doing nothing.) You've done a good job attacking her argument, but somebody else making bad/illogical arguments doesn't really excuse a joke centered around raping women being fun.
  7. PeterMP

    Presidential Election 2020 - ManChild vs Adult

    It is a good response. I probably would have gone further and said he supports policies that appeal to people that are homophobic.
  8. To add on, if I injure you to the point that it negatively affects you, even if I'm not found guilty of a crime, I can be held responsible (financially). I'm not sure if there has ever been a case where person A has injured person B and then person B needs a blood transfusion and person A has been forced to give it. But even in the context of the injury happening person A did not commit a crime, they are likely going to bear some responsibility (e.g. paying for medical bills and lost wages). That might not be as extreme as forcing somebody to carry a baby, but in general society does recognize if you have created a situation where somebody is not (no longer) self-sufficient, you have a responsibility.
  9. Larry, it certainly seems like you equated raping women with fun as long as rape isn't a crime. Now, I took it as a bad joke, but rather than get defensive, it might be useful to either clarify yourself or apologize.
  10. Depends on the state and the situation, but many states have explicit fetal homicide laws on the books. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
  11. @nonniey says he supports abortion until the fetus reaches the age of record viability outside of the womb. He put an exact week on it that I don't remember. That's supporting abortion with some restrictions. @Larry has said that he supports unlimited abortions in the first 30 days. That's supporting abortion with some restrictions. I'm not sure how either one would describe themselves in a poll in terms of pro-life vs. pro-choice, but I know a lot of people on the left that would scream if they publicly claimed they were pro-choice. Lots of people support abortion with some restrictions. The problem becomes when you start talking about what those restrictions are and in lots of cases, those restrictions are not things that people on the far left agree with. I support abortion with some restriction, but I would not call myself pro-choice. I'm pro-life, but I also know that making abortions illegal won't end them and that by making the illegal you are putting mother's lives at risk. I'm also not for fully overturning Roe v. Wade, but also am not a fan of it completely.
  12. Realistically, @nonniey wants abortion with some restrictions. If that it is your level of description, you and him actually agree (and then your comment about him being an extremist makes no sense). The question in the polls or your post wast not anti-abortion, and I don't honestly know how Joe Biden would describe himself, but the idea of pro-life Democrats is not new or novel. Tim Kaine certainly doesn't describe himself as pro-choice, and I doubt Biden does either (he certainly didn't when running as a Senator in DE). And yes, there are people that are pro-life in that they want all abortions to be illegal. But there are also people that are pro-choice that want any and all abortions to be legal (and you can and there are people that want any abortion to be legal, but not support infanticide). But at the level described and based on polls don't support your initial statement.
  13. I think for the Supreme Court, the simple explanation would be it isn't an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. (That's essentially Rehnquist and Scalia's argument in Casey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#The_undue_burden_standard The conclusion then is it is a state's rights issue. They aren't asserting that the fetus has rights, but that the federal government doesn't have the power to restrict the states from passing anti-abortion laws. (Though, as already pointed out this is going to be a case where the situation is going to escalate for the right. If Roe v. Wade comes down, states will be able to restrict abortion, but the next case for the right will be to have federal restrictions against abortion and to see Constitutional rights granted to the fetus and move to make abortion illegal on the federal level. This is a/the supreme moral issue for many on the right. While legally, they may make academic arguments about the limits on federal power and state's rights, they don't actually care about state's rights (and will gladly oppose them on a whole host of other issues). They aren't going to be happy just with abortions being illegal in AL or whatever other state. They will want them to be illegal everywhere in the country, and the only way you get to that is if the fetus has legal protections under the Constitution. They will go very quickly from arguing that since the Constitution doesn't mention abortion and fetus so that it should be a state's right to that the Constitutional protections should extend to a fetus. Even in the recent past, the right has cried state's rights in courts, while trying to pass federal anti-late term abortion laws.)
  14. We legislate many things that then don't affect other people in the population. In the context of this conversation, the obvious analogy is if somebody decides to kill their 2 day old infant, how does it affect me? Why should it be illegal?
  15. I wouldn't call 55-60% a vast majority, and there are plenty of people that support Roe v. Wade, think there should be restrictions and identify as pro-life. Your link also never puts the numbers out there of 55-60% as identifying as pro-life. Your link doesn't support what you've said, and even from your story, it is support not COMPLETELY overturning Roe v. Wade. "A December 2016 Pew poll found 69 percent of Americans saying they did not want to see Roe v. Wade completely overturned." There is a difference.