earthworm
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,728
- Reaction score
- 904
- Location
- Goldsboro,PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Why?This is sick, truely sick!
On one hand you write that abortion is murder and a sin, and now you speculate on aborting Gay babies. How can you tell a gay baby while it is still in the womb. I know, I know. they have green spots on their left nipple.
I don't care if people want to be Gay, just as long as they don't try to convert me.
I have read that the same gene that causes people to be gay is the same gene found in people who voted for Bush in the last election.
I believe that some people may be Gay by genetics, and some are gay by learning. I believe that Some folks are so poor at relationships, so lost in seeking a mate, and so dam lonely,, that they take the first available offer and this is reinforced by use and practice. Maybe lonely people and people without confidence are vulnerable and can go either way. :comp:
:boom
Of course it's okay.
Until a child has been born, named, and adopted into a family, it has no rights and exists solely at the mercy of the woman whose physiology is supporting it. If I can morally accept abortion to preserve her youthful figure, or abortion to select the sex of her child... how can I condemn her for aborting on the basis of future sexual preference?
I'll note that plenty of people who are morally aghast at the notion of aborting a fetus biologically predisposed to homosexuality would happily support the notion of disowning and condemning a grown child for following that disposition.
How is that moral?
Just because some of us have a different opinion on gay marriage or gays in the military does not mean we wish them any physical harm or that we hate them............
That's not true. A born baby left unnamed and abandoned by it's mother in a trash can is still considered a person by today's law.Of course it's okay.
Until a child has been born, named, and adopted into a family, it has no rights and exists solely at the mercy of the woman whose physiology is supporting it.
Just because some of you don't, doesn't mean that all of you don't. There's plenty of violent rhetoric directed against homosexuals, and not all of it from disreputable fringe groups.
I'll also note that cutting your son or daughter out of your family is a far cry from wishing physical harm upon him or her... but I have seen it happen more than once.
I think those examples are the exception and not the rule........The problem is if you have a difference of opinion radical gays and feel good liberals automatically brand you a homophobe or a bigot...........
I have had gay co workers and am presently on a golf team where our best golfer ( a 2 handicap) is gay and when I told him about this forum he and his partner got a huge kick put of it........Its funny they just want to live their lives in peace without a lot of notoriety..........I have been called a bigot and a homophobe many times in this forum and my gay friend tells me that the people that call those names would not know a bigot from a hole in the wall......
It's just name calling to try and belittle the poster and his/her comments. Same as you branding everyone that disagrees with you as "liberal" and "radical left".
That's not true. A born baby left unnamed and abandoned by it's mother in a trash can is still considered a person by today's law.
I am only concerned with today's law when it might get in my way... and I live my life very carefully in order to avoid situations in which it might. I have already noted that I consider our law's handling of personhood and citizenship to be severely misguided.[/QUOTE]
Well at least we can agree on that point.........Hopefully a Conservative SCOTUS will rectify some of those problems......
... I consider our law's handling of personhood and citizenship to be severely misguided.
Well at least we can agree on that point... Hopefully a Conservative SCOTUS will rectify some of those problems...
Goobieman said:But you jsut said that "...it is not my place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives..."
A mother aborting a potuntially gay baby is doing just that. How can you argue that she shouldnt have to defend her decision when that decision is based on how someone lives their life, and dictates that they cannot live their life in a certain way?
Upon rereading this thead, I have found a fatal flaw that perhaps no one else has noticed. The OP has created (as I said earlier) quite an ingenious question, one that tests the consistency of one's values. However, it is in the following post that the flaw is committed:
It is here that the yet to be born is considered a life or a person. This is a position that pro-choicers do not adhere to. Therefore chosing how this, yet to be born, is to live it's life is fallacious to the pro-choice position, and, therefore, is irrelevant. It is, therefore, completely consistent for one on the pro-choice side to state that it is OK to abort for the reason stated in the OP, as there is no lifestyle to live.
Upon rereading this thead, I have found a fatal flaw that perhaps no one else has noticed. The OP has created (as I said earlier) quite an ingenious question, one that tests the consistency of one's values. However, it is in the following post that the flaw is committed:
It is here that the yet to be born is considered a life or a person. This is a position that pro-choicers do not adhere to. Therefore chosing how this, yet to be born, is to live it's life is fallacious to the pro-choice position, and, therefore, is irrelevant. It is, therefore, completely consistent for one on the pro-choice side to state that it is OK to abort for the reason stated in the OP, as there is no lifestyle to live.
In the unlikely event that my wife becomes pregnant by me again, and she chooses to abort it against my will, she will have forced that life, the life without raising a 3rd child, upon me.
It would be my will to force her to bring that child to term. Pro-Choice would bar me from doing so.
To bar me from forcing my beliefs on another is to force that belief of yours onto me, which by your own logic you have no right to do.
PC actively enables mothers to dictate to others how they will live, which PC says no person has a right to do.
Abortion is allowed at any point in pregnancy. Some on this thread are making a distinction at the age of the fetus. That isn't the question--the question is: is it is a "good enough" reason to abort a baby simply because she has hypothetical "gay gene".
Your "yet to be born" WILL live if not aborted. As jallman stated, the intention of the mother is the determiner of the personhood at the pre-viable stage. If a woman chooses to base her decision to abort on the "lifestyle" (I personally hate that term) the child will live--has she not already decided the personhood of her "yet to be born?" And then--isn't she dictating to another how he/she should live? Yes--she chooses he/she should NOT live due to the "person" he or she is.
Assume for a moment that homosexuality is indeed genetic.
Assume for a moment that an unborn child is known to have that gene
Assume for a moment that the parents do not want to take the chance that their child will be a homosexual
It that sufficient reason to abort the unborn baby?
Someone please add a Yes/No poll
In order to fathom that this thing in her womb is able to be "gay"--it is a foregone conclusion it is a person. If you're a male monkey that has sex with other male monkeys--you're not a "gay" monkey--animals do not have the ability to choose their behaviors dispite any sort of "orientation." PEOPLE do..and so, if she kills her "not yet born" because it will choose to possibly act on some predisposition, she chooses to kill a PERSON. Her thinking makes it so.She isn't doing so if she doesn't see the fetus as a child/person; I would think that if she did see the fetus as a child/person then she would not have the abortion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?