Question for liberals...

[Grugore]

Suppose there was a way to tell if a baby would be born gay. Not that any sane person believes it's genetic, but assuming it's was true, would you be OK with someone aborting it because it was gay? If you answer no, then you're being dishonest. You're the ones who want a woman to be allowed to abort their child for any reason, up to and even after birth. So if you say you have a problem with aborting gay babies, then you are a hypocrite. After all, it's HER BODY. Are you going to tell her she can't do it?

[jimmymccready]

Most sane people of course believe homosexuality is in great part genetic.

[CFM]

Suppose there was a way to tell if a baby would be born gay. Not that any sane person believes it's genetic, but assuming it's was true, would you be OK with someone aborting it because it was gay? If you answer no, then you're being dishonest. You're the ones who want a woman to be allowed to abort their child for any reason, up to and even after birth. So if you say you have a problem with aborting gay babies, then you are a hypocrite. After all, it's HER BODY. Are you going to tell her she can't do it?

Wouldn't that make them bigoted and homophobic, too?

It's the same type hypocrisy many of them have when it comes to same sex marriage. They claim to support that two people who love each other should be able to get married yet oppose certain types of marriages because they think they're wrong even when the reason is the two people love each others. Wonder how they'd choose if the two homosexuals that wanted to get married were brothers?

As a disclaimer, I don't support incestuous marriages. Using the example to show their hypocrisy.

[Truth Detector]

Most sane people of course believe homosexuality is in great part genetic.

Any scientific proof for that snowflake?

[ThatOwlWoman]

Suppose there was a way to tell if a baby would be born gay. Not that any sane person believes it's genetic, but assuming it's was true, would you be OK with someone aborting it because it was gay? If you answer no, then you're being dishonest. You're the ones who want a woman to be allowed to abort their child for any reason, up to and even after birth. So if you say you have a problem with aborting gay babies, then you are a hypocrite. After all, it's HER BODY. Are you going to tell her she can't do it?

Excuse me, sir. Did you notice that your straw man is on fire? I thought you'd want to know.

[CFM]

Most sane people of course believe homosexuality is in great part genetic.

As you know, you statement isn't true. To claim what you claim, you'd have to believe that everything in life is open to choice except sexual orientation. Only an idiot would believe that. But whatever makes you feel better for choosing to be a fag.

[Grugore]

Any scientific proof for that snowflake?

If being queer was genetic, there wouldn't be any queers left. It's an evolutionary dead end.

[domer76]

Suppose there was a way to tell if a baby would be born gay. Not that any sane person believes it's genetic, but assuming it's was true, would you be OK with someone aborting it because it was gay? If you answer no, then you're being dishonest. You're the ones who want a woman to be allowed to abort their child for any reason, up to and even after birth. So if you say you have a problem with aborting gay babies, then you are a hypocrite. After all, it's HER BODY. Are you going to tell her she can't do it?

I’m one “who want a woman to be allowed to abort her child for any reason, up to and even after birth”?

Go ahead and prove your claim, lying bitch.

The forum will wait for another lie from you.

[domer76]

If being queer was genetic, there wouldn't be any queers left. It's an evolutionary dead end.

:Lolup:

Another “if/would” fairytale?

Your stupidity is unmatched.

[StoneByStone]

Suppose there was a way to tell if a baby would be born gay. Not that any sane person believes it's genetic,

Holy shit, really? Are you trolling?

but assuming it's was true, would you be OK with someone aborting it because it was gay? If you answer no, then you're being dishonest. You're the ones who want a woman to be allowed to abort their child for any reason, up to and even after birth.

Very very few Liberals think that's ok.

So if you say you have a problem with aborting gay babies, then you are a hypocrite. After all, it's HER BODY. Are you going to tell her she can't do it?

She can abort her gay baby solely for being gay if it's done early. I don't think late term abortions should be legal except in extreme cases.

[StoneByStone]

Wouldn't that make them bigoted and homophobic, too?

It's the same type hypocrisy many of them have when it comes to same sex marriage. They claim to support that two people who love each other should be able to get married yet oppose certain types of marriages because they think they're wrong even when the reason is the two people love each others. Wonder how they'd choose if the two homosexuals that wanted to get married were brothers?

As a disclaimer, I don't support incestuous marriages. Using the example to show their hypocrisy.

I say as long as it's two consenting adults, the marriage should be recognized. However, I get why people would support same-sex marriage, but not incestuous marriage. Incest babies have a higher chance of being born with disabilities.

[Grugore]

I say as long as it's two consenting adults, the marriage should be recognized. However, I get why people would support same-sex marriage, but not incestuous marriage. Incest babies have a higher chance of being born with disabilities.

If two queers want to hook up, I have problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that not only would forbid me to disagree with it, but to actually make such disagreement a criminal offense. Not only do they wish to prevent any and all discent, they insist that we condone and even endorse it.

[Jade Dragon]

Excuse me, sir. Did you notice that your straw man is on fire? I thought you'd want to know.

You beat me to it. As a person of faith, and someone with bad OCD; I can say, living by what if, is a path with endless pitfalls, that gets you no where. It's a path that can lead to madness.

[StoneByStone]

If two queers want to hook up, I have problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that not only would forbid me to disagree with it, but to actually make such disagreement a criminal offense. Not only do they wish to prevent any and all discent, they insist that we condone and even endorse it.

I don't agree with hate speech laws either, but that's not really an issue in America. As far as I know, nobody is calling to ban homophobia.

[ThatOwlWoman]

If being queer was genetic, there wouldn't be any queers left. It's an evolutionary dead end.

Gay men still have active sperm and are able to impregnate women. Ask the children whose dads later came out of the closet, after marrying their moms because society looks down so hard on them.

As for the rest of your nonsense question, I don't see that ever being an issue. "Why's that?" you didn't ask. Because the only women who would even consider aborting a child simply because a non-existent test showed that the fetus might be gay are the very same women who are virulently anti-abortion religious fundie forced-birthers.

PS -- There is no such thing as post-birth "abortion." That's called "murder" and is illegal.