Question for Pro-choicers

Brent

Brent

Ahorrado por Gracia
Let is imagine the scenario that there is indeed a "gay gene," and that this gene is discovered sometime in the future. Let's also imagine this gene is detectable during pregnancy. Should a woman have the right to abort her baby because the baby, when he/she grows up, will turn out to be homosexual? Wouldn't that be discrimination which should be prohibited?

I, for one, would condemn such an abortion, as I condemn any abortion.

Every human being deserves a chance at life, and nobody should be judged before they're even born according to how we "think" they will turn out. Any baby, regardless of disability, is a gift from God. Destroying these infants is an INSULT TO THE LORD and people who commit such a terrible act should, in my opinion, be destroyed.

The only people who have forfeited their right to live are violent criminals, i.e. rapists, child molesters, and murderers; and anyone who has committed high treason. The unborn, by stark contrast, have done nothing to deserve being aborted. Abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.

No dodging the question, please.
 
Last edited:
That's Eugenics.

Although I do believe in some negative Euginics in some extreme cases, I could never embrace such frivolous abortions or positive eugenics at all.
 
Watermark said:
That's Eugenics.

Although I do believe in some negative Euginics in some extreme cases, I could never embrace such frivolous abortions or positive eugenics at all.
Click to expand...

So it's OK for a woman to abort her baby for no reason at all, but if she tries to abort it because he/she will turn out gay, you would stop her?
 
Last edited:
giving women the right to abort pregnancies in the early stages brings with it a plethora of nasty consequences.

I abhor the idea of women aborting pregancies....

I just abhor the idea of government telling a women what to do or not to do with her reproductive organs even more.
 
Brent would you allow for the abortion if there was a proven criminal gene? a pedophile gene?
 
Here is another question for Brent, although, I assume he is still ignoring me, so maybe someone who wants to know the answer will pass it on?

Dear Brent,

Are you claiming that homosexuality is a disability?

I quote your words here: "Any baby, regardless of disability, is a gift from God."

Immie
 
I wouldn't speak for Brent, but abnormal would seem to be a better word for it other than disability.
 
I think it would completely immoral and reprehensible however I find the gov't forcing its will on your body to be even more reprehensible and even more immoral.

I thought we'd all settled the abortion debate anyway: if we could some how not terminate the fetus and let it gestate (for lack of a better word) until maturity all parties would be happy: those of us who want to maintain ownership of their bodies and the anti-choisers.
 
Immanuel,

No, I am not saying homosexuality is a disability. When I wrote that sentence I had other conditions on my mind, such as Down's Syndrome. I knew a woman who, when she became pregnant, swore she would abort her baby if he/she had Down's. I for one think that is awfully sad. ALL babies are a gift from God; to abort them is an insult to His creation.

Edit: come to think of it, perhaps homosexuality is a sort of disability. All human beings are spirituall disabled by the sinful nature; everyone has their own faults. One of such faults is homosexuality. That is to say, some people are inclined towards sexual sins, whereas others might be inclined towards lying, or arrogance, or selfishness. Get what I'm saying?
 
Last edited:
tianabautre said:
I think it would completely immoral and reprehensible however I find the gov't forcing its will on your body to be even more reprehensible and even more immoral.

I thought we'd all settled the abortion debate anyway: if we could some how not terminate the fetus and let it gestate (for lack of a better word) until maturity all parties would be happy: those of us who want to maintain ownership of their bodies and the anti-choisers.
Click to expand...
Not really. Who's going to pay for such Herculean life support measures? My guess is that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to gestate a fetus in any sort of artificial womb. Perhaps millions at first. Who has to shell out for it?
 
Brent said:
Immanuel,

No, I am not saying homosexuality is a disability. When I wrote that sentence I had other conditions on my mind, such as Down's Syndrome. I knew a woman who, when she became pregnant, swore she would abort her baby if he/she had Down's. I for one think that is awfully sad. ALL babies are a gift from God; to abort them is an insult to His creation.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, your God deserves to be insulted. In fact, your God deserves to be relegated to the trash heap of history. Your God is hateful and unworthy of love.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Not really. Who's going to pay for such Herculean life support measures?
Click to expand...

Well, tax-payers of course. You expect tax-payers to fund everything else -- why not this as well? Your motives here are suspicious to say the least.

My guess is that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to gestate a fetus in any sort of artificial womb. Perhaps millions at first. Who has to shell out for it?
Click to expand...

I'd pay more taxes to support it. However, I do not support this program to begin with. Once a woman becomes pregnant, I believe she has entered an agreement to carry her baby to term. The only case where this program could be justified, in my opinion, is pregnancy resulting from rape.
 
toby said:
I wouldn't speak for Brent, but abnormal would seem to be a better word for it other than disability.
Click to expand...

I believe homosexualy (to act on those desires) is a choice. Of course, everyone has faults which incline them towards a particular sort of sinful behavior. My fault is dishonesty. For another person, it might be homosexuality. But just because we have the fault does not justify acting out on it. I will be held accountable for lying just as someone inclined towards homosexuality will be held accountable for unlawful (sinful) sexual relations.

So, in a sense, I do believe people can be born inclined towards homosexuality. But I still believe it's a choice to act out on those feelings, and by the Grace of God, those desires CAN be overcome. The only way to overcome our faults is by the empowering Grace of God.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Not really. Who's going to pay for such Herculean life support measures? My guess is that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to gestate a fetus in any sort of artificial womb. Perhaps millions at first. Who has to shell out for it?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure all those anti-choicers will step up to the plate and willingly shell out the money to bring the fetuses to term and subsequently take care of the kids. Or are you insinuating that they are disingenuous in their outrage?
 
Grind said:
you honestly think all the outrage is a scam tiana?
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly - yes. They have the convenience of not having to pony up any money or time to the problem now: its a 100% lipservice and judgemental BS. I'm pretty sure when the cons would be faced with the prospect of paying an additional $20-$30B (assuming high estimates of 1.3M abortions @ a conservative 20-30K per gestatinal period) in taxes just to gestate the fetus - not to mention the child rearing, they'd turn the measure down flat. Yes, I think most of the anti-choisers are disingenuous and only make noise because they have no consequences in the end result.

-having said that, I wouldn't be against such a measure, if they were to start cutting out military fat.
 
Watermark said:
An embryo isn't a being. There's very little to say that it is.
Click to expand...

a Human Embryo is most certainly an Embryo containing a Human Being.

A Canine's Embryo is most certainly an Embryo containing a form of a Dog.

;)


Try again!


Is this Human Embryo of a Human being a "person" yet(?) would be the better question.... When do they receive all of the rights of a person, do you disregard personhood until they take their first breath? Has personhood of a fetus been considered by our ancestors of long ago in any society or in any religion? What have they writen about it over the years....? What are the differences among the various religious thoughts on this...?

Water, when the Bald Eagle was on the Endangered Species List, it was against the Law to harm or kill one, AND it was ALSO ILLEGAL to break one of their EGGS.....the same penalty as killing one of them.....

WHY do you think that is...?

care
 
Last edited:
Is this Human Embryo of a Human being a "person" yet(?) would be the better question.... When do they receive all of the rights of a person, do you disregard personhood until they take their first breath? Has personhood of a fetus been considered by our ancestors of long ago in any society or in any religion? What have they writen about it over the years....? What are the differences among the various religious thoughts on this...
Click to expand...

A "person" doesn't have the right to host on your body if you don't approve. To say that a fetus is a person is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top