View Poll Results: Gay baby

Voters
111. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    51 45.95%
  • No

    60 54.05%
Page 19 of 65 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 647

Thread: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    she has the freedom to be stupid.
    I just don't get where in the constitution it says that freedom allows stupidity at the cost of the life of another PERSON that has been determined to be a person by the intention of the stupid woman. It's twisted circular reasoning you are offering here.

    She thinks it's a person who is gay, so she wants to kill it, so she denies it's a person so she can kill it even though her own reason to kill it is that it's a gay person...HUH????

    Round and round we gooo....

  2. #182
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    It does. And then, when this homophobe discovers that her child is to be gay, her thinking makes it NOT a person -- which is, I assume, why she aborts it. If she still thought of the fetus as a person, I presume she would not kill it.

    I do not believe that people who would choose abortions for eugenic reasons, as this poll describes, are those who see the person with "bad" qualities as fully human. Hence the abortion.

    If thinking makes it so, then thinking it is not so makes it not so. No contradiction there. It is only you absolute types who hold that an action once taken cannot be undone.
    So much for not-alienable rights......hay, if my not thinking that my wife has a right to choose, then by your logic she has no right to choose. I can remove her "bodily sovereignty" with but a thought.

    Fold arms, wiggle nose, blink and *poof* no more 14th. amendment.

  3. #183
    Educator
    CoffeeSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
    Last Seen
    07-01-07 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,088

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    I just don't get where in the constitution it says that freedom allows stupidity at the cost of the life of another PERSON that has been determined to be a person by the intention of the stupid woman. It's twisted circular reasoning you are offering here.

    She thinks it's a person who is gay, so she wants to kill it, so she denies it's a person so she can kill it even though her own reason to kill it is that it's a gay person...HUH????

    Round and round we gooo....
    Only when it is a person. It isn't. The fetus is a potential person in her eyes; surely potentials can be changed. Her view of it as a potential gay person does not make it irrevocably a person; when she sees it as an abomination and chooses to abort it, its potential changes. And if that change makes her original reason for wanting to abort it unsound, well, it doesn't actually need to be sound; it is her choice.

    But again, this all rests on the idea that the fetus is objectively a person. And there we just disagree.

  4. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Only when it is a person. It isn't. The fetus is a potential person in her eyes; surely potentials can be changed. Her view of it as a potential gay person does not make it irrevocably a person; when she sees it as an abomination and chooses to abort it, its potential changes. And if that change makes her original reason for wanting to abort it unsound, well, it doesn't actually need to be sound; it is her choice.

    But again, this all rests on the idea that the fetus is objectively a person. And there we just disagree.
    Then what are those inalienable rights that the DofI was talking about?If they can be recinded...see Jerry's post above. *wiggle*...*blink...*poof*

  5. #185
    Educator
    CoffeeSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
    Last Seen
    07-01-07 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,088

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    So much for not-alienable rights......hay, if my not thinking that my wife has a right to choose, then by your logic she has no right to choose. I can remove her "bodily sovereignty" with but a thought.

    Fold arms, wiggle nose, blink and *poof* no more 14th. amendment.
    No, because you are trying to remove the inalienable rights from a person. A fetus isn't a person. When we are talking about a mother granting status to her fetus, I don't think those "rights" are inalienable; if I did, I would have said she did not have the right to abort a gay baby. But she does.

    The inalienable rights are granted when the status of the fetus changes to what is accepted under our laws as the requisite condition for personhood: birth. Before that, it is only the mother's will that gives it rights, not the law, and so those rights are not inalienable; after birth, the law is what grants it rights, and so those rights are inalienable.

  6. #186
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-06-09 @ 03:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    11,946

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Sorry Coffee....you're between a rock and a hard place on this one...

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Not at all. Your will does not give you the authority to override her will, and that's where your rights break down. Same as in every situation. Your rights end where hers begin. That life, because it involves the free will of another person, is not one you have a right to. And there are your choices: live with her and your two children, keeping your word of honor, or break your word of honor and seek out another mother for your third child. But your word of honor, and your life choices, do not get to limit hers, and so you do not have a right you are losing if she chooses not to share in your vision of the future of your family.

    Yes, a situation you have no right to demand.

    Nonsense. My logic states that you have no right to enforce your will on her, and so if she does not allow you to enforce your will on her, she is protecting her own rights. She is not infringing on yours, as you do not have the right you are presuming to have.
    "Personhood" be damned, I sure do have such a right.:
    TROXEL v. GRANVILLE discuses and reinforces my fundamental liberty interest, as a parent, in the care, custody, and management of my *children (note the case does not say "person") and as we all know "Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
    A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
    Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
    So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
    This makes her a "parent", spicificly, a mother.

    So, I have a "fundamental Liberty interest" in the care, control and management of my "Children", which logically includes those children of mine which are not yet born.

    Forget the "personhood" debate, if my wife aborts my child against my will she is thus violating MY rights as a father.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    I would not have anything to do with this. She has the right not to allow your choices to affect hers.
    She gave up that right when she said her vow and signed the marriage licince. And I it up also.

    If she wants that right back, well, there's paperwork for that too.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Her life choices could not be allowed to affect your life choices when those life choices do not infringe on the rights of another.
    You mean infringe on the rights of *me.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    That's the distinction here. She could not, for instance, force you to give up your job, or end all contact with your parents just because she wants you to. Those are your choices that do not infringe on her rights, and you have the right to protect yourself from another's attempts to control you.
    If you can source some case law establishing her right to the "care, control and management" of my job or extended family, then we'll talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    If she does not see it as a negative impact, who am I to tell her she is wrong?
    A voter.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Who are you?
    Her husband and father of the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    You can tell her it is negative in your view, but you cannot force her to accept your view if hers is different.
    Accept my view?
    She wouldn't need to accept my view, just exicute my will.


    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Really, guys, this isn't contradictory. I'm sorry if it seems that way, but it is not. The only situation that would make this contradictory is if the fetus is a person -- and I know you both see it that way, but that doesn't make it so. We can keep going round and round about fetal personhood, but we don't have any better chance to solve it here than in any of our other attempts, and without fetal personhood -- as Captain Courtesy pointed out -- there is no contradiction in the pro-choice stance.
    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.

    However, you only legally exorcize a measure of force on this issue when you vote, so any Pro-Choicer who doesn't vote is not a practicing hypocrite.

    To bar me from exorcizing my rights as a father is to violate those rights, which by your own logic you have no right to do.

    (I'll entertain a debate on father's right to his child -v- mother's right to an on a whim choice)

    All Pro-Choicers who subscribe to...
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    If she sneezes and thinks that means the baby is bad luck, she should have the right to abort it.
    ....and vote, are, categorically, practicing hypocrites, as they are "forcing" their will on others who do not directly affect them.

  8. #188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    No, because you are trying to remove the inalienable rights from a person. A fetus isn't a person. When we are talking about a mother granting status to her fetus, I don't think those "rights" are inalienable; if I did, I would have said she did not have the right to abort a gay baby. But she does.

    The inalienable rights are granted when the status of the fetus changes to what is accepted under our laws as the requisite condition for personhood: birth. Before that, it is only the mother's will that gives it rights, not the law, and so those rights are not inalienable; after birth, the law is what grants it rights, and so those rights are inalienable.
    I'll give you time to read my post and see that I am keeping the issue of "rights" between 2 curent full legal "persons".

  9. #189
    Educator
    CoffeeSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
    Last Seen
    07-01-07 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,088

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    "Personhood" be damned, I sure do have such a right.:
    TROXEL v. GRANVILLE discuses and reinforces my fundamental liberty interest, as a parent, in the care, custody, and management of my *children (note the case does not say "person") and as we all know "Child" 1 and "baby" 1 have pre-birth uses.
    A fetus is a "child" 2 and a "baby" 2 is a "child", thus we can call a fetus a "baby" 3.
    Legally a "child" 4 is one's natural offspring, which is what a pregnant woman carries.
    So, a pregnant woman carries her "child", her "unborn child", her "unborn baby".
    This makes her a "parent", spicificly, a “mother”.

    So, I have a "fundamental Liberty interest" in the care, control and management of my "Children", which logically includes those children of mine which are not yet born.

    Forget the "personhood" debate, if my wife aborts my child against my will she is thus violating MY rights as a father.
    Okay, we'll try this again.
    You do not have the right to force your wife to bear a child. The child is not a person before it is born, it is legally an appendage of her body, and you do not have the right to force her to sacrifice her body for your child.
    You can force her to behave in certain ways as long as it has an impact on your children, BUT she has an out: she can relinquish custody of those children to you. That choice allows her freedom, and if she chooses not to take that path, then she has given up her rights in regards to your interest in those children.

    Similarly, when she is pregnant with your child, she has the right to relinquish custody of that child, and have it removed from her body. If you could then take custody of your child, all well and good, but if you can't, you are simply out of luck.

    It is not her fault that removing the child from her body kills it. She always has the right to give up her interest in your children, and if she chooses not to do that, then you have rights concerning them. But you cannot force her to keep custody of those children -- which means you cannot force her to bear a pregnancy to term.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    She gave up that right when she said her vow and signed the marriage licince. And I it up also.

    If she wants that right back, well, there's paperwork for that too.
    And that's the point: she can have control of her own life back by sacrificing control of her children, which means if she keeps control of her children (and thus accepts your partial control over her life as it concerns them) it is her free choice, and not you enforcing your will on her without her consent. If she was forced to carry the child to term, it would be you enforcing your will on her without her consent, and that is illegal and immoral.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You mean infringe on the rights of *me.
    See above.
    No, I mean keep you from infringing on her rights. We already went over this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    If you can source some case law establishing her right to the "care, control and management" of my job or extended family, then we'll talk.
    Of course I can't, because she can't do it. That was the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    A voter.
    And if it comes to a vote, I'll cast mine for her right to abort your child.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Her husband and father of the child.
    But not the controller of her body.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Accept my view?
    She wouldn't need to accept my view, just exicute my will.
    But she doesn't have to do that if she doesn't want to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    No! You do NOT have the right to force another to dio what you want them to do; that is not a right you have, and so it is not something you can claim was taken away from you illegally. Get it straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    However, you only legally exorcize a measure of force on this issue when you vote, so any Pro-Choicer who doesn't vote is not a practicing hypocrite.
    Thanks for the insight. I vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    To bar me from exorcizing my rights as a father is to violate those rights, which by your own logic you have no right to do.
    Let me know when you understand that you don't have the right to force another to act against his or her will. You only have that privilege if the other person allows it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    (I'll entertain a debate on father's right to his child -v- mother's right to an on a whim choice)
    When you can bear the child to term, you'll have a leg to stand on in such a debate. After the child is born, of course you have the right to control it; did I ever say you didn't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    All Pro-Choicers who subscribe to...

    ....and vote, are, categorically, practicing hypocrites, as they are "forcing" their will on others who do not directly affect them.
    Of course we're not. They have the power to vote against us. If they lose the vote, they have the ability to change the laws. Or they can leave the country. By staying here, they are allowing themselves to be controlled -- which means they are not being controlled against their will.

    Let's make sure we're still talking about abortion here, please. If you want to move on to society's ability and/or right to compel obedience, that would be a different argument.

  10. #190
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Felicity View Post
    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.
    Felicity, seems like your position is that if one chooses to abort because of the 'gay gene' situation, that doing so for this reason, denotes personhood and is inconsistent with the pro-choice position. Am I understanding you correctly?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 19 of 65 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •