A Bill To Ban Abortion. (1 Viewer)

[Squawker]

There is a theory that homosexuality is genetic, and it may be possible to pre-determine the sexual orientation of the fetus. A Maine Republican legislator took a random sample of women. He asked them if they knew their baby would be gay, would they have an abortion. A large majority said they would. This legislator introduced a bill that would ban women from aborting a fetus for the reason of sexual orientation. This poses an interesting
dilemma for Pro Life and Pro Choice proponents.
Let The Debate Begin !
1. Would you or would you not support this bill?
2. What would be the reason for or against it?
3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?

 

[Batman]

1. Would you or would you not support this bill?
I would support the bill.

2. What would be the reason for or against it?
I support it because I support defending unborn infants regardless of sexual orientation. Although I do not subscribe to the theory that it is genetic.

3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?
Genetic predetermined make up of babies. Have you seen the movie Gattica?

 

[Squawker]

Genetic predetermined make up of babies. Have you seen the movie Gattica?

No, I haven't.

1. Would you or would you not support this bill?
Not in this case, I wouldn't.
2. What would be the reason for or against it?
If it was proven that a gene caused homosexuality, it would be considered a defect in the fetus. I think the mother has the right to terminate a defective product if it is within the first couple of months.
3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?
I expect this happens all the time anyway.

 

[Schweddy]

Guess I will wiegh in...

1. Would you or would you not support this bill?
I would support it entirely. Absolutely. Wholeheartedly.

2. What would be the reason for or against it?
Anything that would detour killing an innocent child - I am all for. As Batman, I am not convinced it is genetic either.

3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?
It would be nice if it were. Then they could come up with all kinds of excuses to keep from killing unborn children.
Sorry, can't kill this one - he has a Leno chin.
Not this one either - Got the obesity gene.
Noppers - looks like she might have high cholestoral in 30 years...

This one might be a smoker - chop its freakin head off! Hurry, before we get cancer!

 

[shuamort]

1. Would you or would you not support this bill?
Against the bill.

2. What would be the reason for or against it?
Because the premise is retarded for many reasons.
A)Sexuality is NOT binary. What about bisexuals? What about people who are even slightly curious.
B)Sexual preference is genetic but it also takes societal factors into consideration per the majority of research. It's not nature vs. nurture, it's both.
C)Genetics is still a very young science, the human genome project just finished mapping after 10 years of study in 2000. (Working detailed drafts were actually released in 2001). As such, it would make sense to wait for the technology to prevail to legislate against it. It'd be like making a law about flying hover cars over other people's lawns before they're really around.

3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?
I disagree with the premise of a slippery slope, so no.

 

[Thor]

Guess I will wiegh in...

1. Would you or would you not support this bill?
I would support it entirely. Absolutely. Wholeheartedly.

2. What would be the reason for or against it?
Anything that would detour killing an innocent child - I am all for. As Batman, I am not convinced it is genetic either.

3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?
It would be nice if it were. Then they could come up with all kinds of excuses to keep from killing unborn children.
Sorry, can't kill this one - he has a Leno chin.
Not this one either - Got the obesity gene.
Noppers - looks like she might have high cholestoral in 30 years...

This one might be a smoker - chop its freakin head off! Hurry, before we get cancer!

Most excellent! Dittos with you and Batman.

Bottomline, ADOPTION INSTEAD OF ABORTION! To many people wanting to give love to these babies.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

You are falling into the trap of pigeonholing people. As shuamort points out, sexuality is not so clear cut. The reality is that most of us are very probably "bisexual" to some degree: most of us have the capacity for attraction to both sexes but many of us choose to never explore the "other". Or it's easier to simply say "I'm straight" or "I'm gay"
I don't believe sexuality is genetically determined, hence I don't believe it will ever be possible to give women the option of terminating a "gay" foetus.

I would be curious to know where this poll took place? In the US?
One would imagine a woman saying I want a baby, and I want that child to be happy, hence I'll give my love and support regardless of who they end up going to bed with. Otherwise, one really questions the woman's motives in the first place.

I would prefer the questioner asked about abortion because of gender, as is common, though officially not permitted, in India, where the abortion of unwanted female foetuses (and murder of unwanted girl children, and yes I do make the distinction between those born and unborn) has led to a surplus of men (get me on the next plane girlfriend). If a woman doesn't want a baby, period, she should have the option of a legal abortion. If she wants a baby, but it must be male, heterosexual, have blonde hair and blue eyes etc. then we're getting into designer baby syndrome, and that's another ballgame. Just how you can legislate against that is difficult, and I'm not sure I'd want to, though I do personally find it in bad taste.

And like shuamort, I don't believe in slippery slopes. We're agreeing more these days baby. You're wising up

 

[Squawker]

I would be curious to know where this poll took place? In the US?
One would imagine a woman saying I want a baby, and I want that child to be happy, hence give my love and support regardless of who they end up going to bed with. Otherwise, one really questions the woman's motives in the first place.

The poll was an independent poll in Maine. To my knowledge the results were not published or whether the women polled were more Republican or Democrat.

 

[shuamort]

Sorry Squawker for the hijack of this poll, but I've found a couple news clippings about this Maine State (not US) Legislator.

From Free Republic:

"I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong," said Duprey, who got the idea while listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show.

It doesn't sound like a poll was done at all, he just talked to some people. Moreover, his motives on other items have been less than admirable:

But some lawmakers say Duprey is neither interested in creating new policy to protect gays and lesbians nor seriously discussing the issue of abortion. The bill, they say, is a way of forcing some lawmakers to choose between abortion rights and gay rights.

"It will be seen as some kind of political gamesmanship," said House Majority Leader Glenn Cummings, D-Portland.

Last month, Duprey drew attention to the issue of gay rights when he proposed a bill to legalize same-sex marriages even though opposing it himself.

 

[Squawker]

It doesn't sound like a poll was done at all, he just talked to some people. Moreover, his motives on other items have been less than admirable:

If you only ask ten people it is still a poll. The Maine liberals don't want to take a stand and vote on this bill, so of course they are trying to discredit Duprey. Can you imagine the result? "The woman has the right to abort gays"? The pro choice groups are avoiding this like the plague. I find it quite interesting that the pro choice people are not standing up and supporting this bill.

 

[shuamort]

If you only ask ten people it is still a poll. The Maine liberals don't want to take a stand and vote on this bill, so of course they are trying to discredit Duprey. Can you imagine the result? "The woman has the right to abort gays"? The pro choice groups are avoiding this like the plague. I find it quite interesting that the pro choice people are not standing up and supporting this bill.

OK, then I asked a couple people and asked if we should have you removed from this messageboard because of another one of your threads. They all agreed so let's make that legislation.
Nevermind I didn't really ask a cross-section of people and just asked the people with ideological difference than you.
Nevermind that those people were in the minority.
Nevermind that the poll was self-serving and far from scientific.
Nevermind that the position wasn't a clearcut one and not based on the issue at hand.
Nevermind that I never called it a poll.

 

[Squawker]

My original post for reference was:

There is a theory that homosexuality is genetic, and it may be possible to pre-determine the sexual orientation of the fetus. A Maine Republican legislator took a random sample of women. He asked them if they knew their baby would be gay, would they have an abortion. A large majority said they would. This legislator introduced a bill that would ban women from aborting a fetus for the reason of sexual orientation. This poses an interesting
dilemma for Pro Life and Pro Choice proponents.
Let The Debate Begin !
1. Would you or would you not support this bill?
2. What would be the reason for or against it?
3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?

As you see the wording was "random sample", not poll. The liberals are the ones saying his motives are not pure. WVOM of Maine interviewed him and he sounded genuine to me. He said he was shocked at the answers he got and Maine in a very liberal state.

 

[shuamort]

My original post for reference was:

As you see the wording was "random sample", not poll. The liberals are the ones saying his motives are not pure. WVOM of Maine interviewed him and he sounded genuine to me. He said he was shocked at the answers he got and Maine in a very liberal state.

I'm not a liberal and I definitely find his motives not pure. He's produced bills he'd obviously vote against. It's quite disingenuous and definitely unstatesman like.

 

[Squawker]

He's produced bills he'd obviously vote against. It's quite disingenuous and definitely unstatesman like.

How do you know that?

 

[Contrarian]

Then they could come up with all kinds of excuses to keep from killing unborn children.
Sorry, can't kill this one - he has a Leno chin.
Not this one either - Got the obesity gene.
Noppers - looks like she might have high cholestoral in 30 years...

This one might be a smoker - chop its freakin head off! Hurry, before we get cancer!

Vauge, you are correct. Maybe the next class of abortus would be Republicans or Democrats? But then again, if we aborted those who were found to carry criminal genes we could avoid the retro-active abortions (capital punishment) in Texas... save all those costly legal bills!

 

[Schweddy]

Vauge, you are correct. Maybe the next class of abortus would be Republicans or Democrats? But then again, if we aborted those who were found to carry criminal genes we could avoid the retro-active abortions (capital punishment) in Texas... save all those costly legal bills!

Absolutely. :rofl (not!)

Back on subject - lets say that this a completely hypothetical bill.

Would you support it?

Libs, please don't discount it now that the question is hypothetical. I am truly interested.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Absolutely. :rofl (not!)

Back on subject - lets say that this a completely hypothetical bill.

Would you support it?

Libs, please don't discount it now that the question is hypothetical. I am truly interested.

As a gay man I'm obviously not keen on the idea of aborting a foetus because it would turn out to be gay (although I don't think it will ever be possible to know this). However, I would not support this bill because I absolutley support the women's right to choose.

Sometimes we all have to make difficult choices when the things we believe in conflict.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Why have posts disappeared from this thread? Are we being censored?

 

[shuamort]

How do you know that?

Read the link about this from WorldNetDaily.

 

[Schweddy]

Nothing in the logs indicate removed posts, moved posts, or otherwise in this thread.

Could you be more specific?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Nothing in the logs indicate removed posts, moved posts, or otherwise in this thread.

Could you be more specific?

Sorry, I was confused. Drunk again.

 

[Squawker]

I'm not a liberal and I definitely find his motives not pure. He's produced bills he'd obviously vote against. It's quite disingenuous and definitely unstatesman like.

This is what that reference is about.
For Immediate Release
January 3, 2005
Rep. Brian Duprey 561-4888 (w)
AUGUSTA, MAINE -- Rep. Brian Duprey, R-Hampden, has introduced a bill in the 122nd Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine.
A constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous, contacted Duprey a month ago and asked him to sponsor a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. Rep. Duprey submitted the bill “by request” which means that a constituent has asked to put the bill in which the legislator does not support.
Source

 

[shuamort]

:thinking "A constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous" That doesn't send up a big red flag for you? Moreover and to my point "which the legislator does not support." So why introduce a bill that you're against for an anonymous constituent? And why is this constituent choosing anonymity? Something smells rotten in Denmark... er, Maine.

 

[Squawker]

"A constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous" That doesn't send up a big red flag for you? Moreover and to my point "which the legislator does not support." So why introduce a bill that you're against for an anonymous constituent? And why is this constituent choosing anonymity? Something smells rotten in Denmark... er, Maine.

Perhaps Duprey is gay himself and wishes to keep it private.

 

[26 X World Champs]

1. Would you or would you not support this bill?

I would NOT. Abortion is great the way it is now. No change is necessary. The VAST majority of Americans are PRO-CHOICE. Abortion will forever be legal here. I respect the right to fight to have it changed, but the reality is that Abortion is popular in the USA, meaning that Americans believe the right to choose ie the woman's choice, period.

2. What would be the reason for or against it?

There's no way to know if someone is Gay or not. I do believe that you are born Gay, but I do not believe you can identify a "Gay" gene.

3. Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?

Not at all, as it will never be a law. Sometime it seems to me that people read something and take it as fact, when in reality it's never happened. Bush & Republicans are especially good at repeating untruths so many times that people start to believe it.