View Poll Results: Gay baby

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

    51 45.95%
  • No

    60 54.05%
Page 26 of 65 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 647

Thread: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

  1. #251
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    if I want to remove a vital organ such as my heart, it should be legal because its MY BODY and MY CHOICE. I don't want an organ such as my heart extracting resources, therefore that justifies it being removed by a doctor.
    Wouldnt removing your heart willingly be suicide in the scenario you put? If it's physician assisted isn't it called euthanasia? Isn't that illegal in every state except Oregon?

    My possition on that is the same as in abortion : "Hey if you wanna do it go for it, you just gotta live with the consequences after."
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #252
    Counselor

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-07-09 @ 05:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,856

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I label people in this forum liberals or from the left....I label people in the news radical.........I don't mean it as and insult when I call you a liberal......That is what you are...You should be proud of it........I am a very conservative person and proud of it..........Why are you so ashamed of your liberalism?
    I am certainly not am not ashamed to be called Liberal. I consider it the same as being called, an American, Creative, productive, open to new ideas and thought.

    Now the way I see it if one says it is ok to abort a gay baby, one is really saying that abortion is OK. How one can look at baby and tell if it gonna be gay or hetero, left of right, up or down, President of the United States or Just a candidate, Catholic or Mormon, a Criminal or hero?

  3. #253
    Advisor nes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Seen
    10-05-07 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    382

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Below is what I think your reply resembles.

    Nobody cares about your anecotal so-called evidence;
    Saying that nobody cares about my anecotal so-called evidence is a statement based off an assumption which I think is most likely untrue and isn't related in the debate.

    it's meaningless in the context of this debate.
    Another assumption that my so-called evidence is meaningless in the context of the debate. The fact that you are arguing and debating over my evidence is odd since you believed based off this statement that it is meaningless.

    I won't bother to respond with stories about women who have been raped
    So? That statement has nothing to do with abortion. For the statement to be proven true, time would have to pass until one of the triggers or conditions of the statement can't happen to cause an action.

    Still don't understand?

    The word "won't" is the same as the word "will not"

    For example, saying "This machine will always operate." Is an unproven statement since you can't accurately predict the future to determine that the machine will not operate at a certain time.


    which would be equally meaningless to you.
    Your again making another statement based off a false assumption since it isn't meaningless to me.

    I won't even bother to respond with a story about a 21-year-old woman who had two kids already and got pregnant as a result of birth control failure
    Another unproven statement that has yet to be proven wrong in the future.

    (she was married at the time, although her marriage was on the rocks and would end shortly)
    So what?

    and didn't want any more kids so she had an abortion, and never regretted it for a second.
    So what? Some murders don't regret murdering, I'm clueless on what point the statement was supposed to give me.

    All of these anecdotes, if they prove anything, only prove that every situation is different, and nobody has the right to judge others, because nobody really knows what's best in any given situation except the people involved in it.
    Saying that all of these (that you referred to) anecdotes only prove that every situation is different is yet another statement based on assumption. Saying that nobody has the right to judge others is simply another opinion or unproven statement. Saying that the reason why nobody has the right to judge others is because that nobody really knows what's best in any given situation except the people involved in it is an unproven or your own explanation.

    What do you mean by nobody really knows what's best in any given situation except the people involved in it? The statement doesn't make logical sense to me.

    You can think whatever you want about the moral correctness of abortion, and nobody will ever force you to have one if you don't want to. That's the beauty of "choice".
    Saying that I can think whatever I want about the moral correctness of abortion is another unproven statement since I might be unable to think what I want to think. Saying that nobody will ever force me to have one (abortion) is an unproven statement because the conditions of the statement are still possible and should be possible until one of the conditions can't happen.

    In fact, sometimes we "bang" people so hard they die,but we don't care;
    So what?
    I don't understand what group of people "we" selects.

    we just shove their corpses out of the bed, grab somebody else, and carry on with business.
    So what?
    Again, I don't understand what group of people "we" selects.

    We couldn't care less.
    Case less about what?
    I don't understand what group of people "we" selects.

    In fact, I don't know of any self-respecting prochoicer who doesn't have a whole pile of corpses next to his or her bed, or under it...
    So what? I don't believe what you do or do not know should make the justification of an abortion.

    well, except maybe the Cap'n, but he's sort of a half-arsed prochoicer, by his own admission.
    Who is "Cap'n" and so what?

    Yippee-skippy for you. I could say the same; I never had sex either until I met someone I wanted to have a child with.
    So what?

    In fact, I wanted to have two children with him.
    So what?

    But neither of us wanted to have three.
    So what? Your point?

    MY life, MY body, MY CHOICE.
    I didn't derive a justification that abortion is morally acceptable from your statements.

    Your callous dismissal of rape victims leads me to the conclusion that you're probably not going to have anything very worthwhile to contribute here
    How do you know that I am probably not going to have anything worthwhile to contribute here presently and in the future? Can you predict the future?

    so perhaps we should simply let the grown-ups get back to the discussion at hand
    What group of people including you are you referring to?
    Remember that the word "we" is the nominative plural of I, so you said that perhaps yourself and others should simply let the grown-ups get back to the discussion at hand.

    which is not simply "Abortion: yea or nay" (we have an entire section of the forum for that), but "Aborting fetuses who carry a gay gene: yea or nay?"
    Your point being?

    Your replies haven't even come close to dent my belief that abortion is murder.

    Perhaps you should refrain from making false statements, assumptions, broken analogies, or a set of conditions to justify abortion to try to convert people to believe abortion is morally correct. People can believe different things, just analyze the Muslim group of people.
    Last edited by nes; 12-26-06 at 04:56 AM.

  4. #254
    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
    CoffieSaint,
    You confuse the argument of current legality with what is logically consistent, you admitted that you would do to me what you say no one has a right to do to anyone, you admitted and accepted the label of "hypocrite", you have straw manned my argument of a right over my child by counter arguing her bodily sovereignty (something which does not exist).

    You have proven my claim:

    ...which was the point you contested.

    Hold your views as they are, that's fine, but you have failed to defend PC as being a logical outlook on abortion.

    On this thread at least, PC stands in ruin.
    I'd like to make a counter-claim, if I may.

    Society exists in order to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its members, and to give those members the best possible chance at a fruitful and productive life. In order to do this, society must protect some of its individual members from other individual members, who seek to limit the rights and freedoms of individuals for purposes of selfish gain. As those selfish members are seeking to reduce the chances of members of society to live fruitful and productive lives, society has the right to censure them so that their actions may not begin a chain of people imposing their will upon others, thus reducing the individuals rights and freedoms of society to nothing.

    If the manner by which society attempts to stop selfish people from removing the rights of others is through law and punishment, then society has the right to do so.

    If the manner by which society enacts those laws and punishments is democracy, then individual members of society, acting in their role as watchdogs over the individual freedoms of society's members, have the right to vote to obstruct the desires of those who would reduce the freedoms of other individuals.

    In other words, you are trying to reduce the freedom of an individual member of society, and I, as another member of society, have the right to vote for laws that would obstruct your desires, so long as my aim is to protect the rights of other members of society.

    You do not have the right to impose your individual will upon another member of society for selfish gain (selfish as in the desires that would be satisfied are only yours), but I have the right to impose my will, as part of society's collective will, upon you to stop you doing so. If your will were involved in protecting your individual rights, rather than infringing on the rights of another, then I would not have the right to impose my will upon you, nor would society.

    A woman does have the right to abort a fetus that is within her, as she is seeking to protect her individual rights and freedoms, and is not reducing the rights and freedoms of another member of society.

    Unfortunately, this does take us back to fetal personhood. But at least it shows that I am not a hypocrite.

  5. #255
    Advisor nes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Seen
    10-05-07 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    382

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Society exists in order to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its members, and to give those members the best possible chance at a fruitful and productive life.
    Society does not exist in order to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its members. Society did not come about to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its members.
    Government takes away rights.


    Without government, nothing would be illegal. Saying that government gives you rights is incorrect since I would have those same rights if the government did not exist.


    A woman does have the right to abort a fetus that is within her, as she is seeking to protect her individual rights and freedoms, and is not reducing the rights and freedoms of another member of society.
    If that were true, then why is it illegal to have an abortion after a certian period of time after conception? Biologically the difference between a Fetus changing into a Morula for after one day is somewhat equally the same.

    Do you believe its morally correct to kill the baby (by stabbing it) a few hours before it might get born, a few minutes before it might get born? When do you believe it gains life status?
    Last edited by nes; 12-26-06 at 12:59 PM.

  6. #256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 06:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by nes View Post
    If that were true, then why is it illegal to have an abortion after a certian period of time after conception?
    Because previously, advocates of reproductive choice have compromised with prolifers and conceded too much in an effort at appeasement (same reason there's "Laci's Law" and similar fetal homicide laws in other states).
    Since it is now clear that Prolifers are not interested in compromise and are in fact interested in nothing less than outright illegalization of all abortion in all cases, including rape and health, with an eye to ultimately banning all contraception as well... we now deal with them accordingly.
    The time for compromise has passed; in fact, it was a mistake to ever exercise diplomacy in this situation at all. Prolifers merely took it as weakness and now use it to beat us over the head with ("If women have the right to bodily sovereignty, then why are third trimester abortions restricted?", "If abortion isn't child-murder, then why is there Laci's Law?"", etc, ad nauseum).
    These things are the way they are because we permitted them to be that way, because prolifers claimed that's all they wanted, and that if we agreed then they'd start acting reasonable.
    But they lied; they took it as license to attempt ever more radical tactics.
    So now, there won't be any more compromises of that sort.
    In fact, things we might have compromised on in the past (such as parental notification laws), we are now no longer willing to compromise on.
    People like you have pushed us to this extreme position.
    You see, what you want is to relegate females to non-human status, to abrogate the civil and human rights of more than half of the population of the United States. There can no longer be any mistake about the prolife agenda- they've tipped their hand stupidly during the years of the bush administration; now we all know what they're after, and we realize how detrimental compromise was, and how costly and dangerous any future compromise will be.
    So don't look for the mainstream American public (which is pro-choice!) to be supporting any future "Laci's laws" or parental notifications, regardless of what sort of pretty packaging you wrap them in.
    We basically don't give a crap anymore. Not even as a feel-good measure to help assuage the sorrow of the relatives of murdered pregnant women will we budge one more inch on women's reproductive rights.
    We know what you're really after. And there is not a chance in hell you will ever accomplish it.

  7. #257
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Because previously, advocates of reproductive choice have compromised with prolifers and conceded too much in an effort at appeasement (same reason there's "Laci's Law" and similar fetal homicide laws in other states).
    Since it is now clear that Prolifers are not interested in compromise and are in fact interested in nothing less than outright illegalization of all abortion in all cases, including rape and health, with an eye to ultimately banning all contraception as well... we now deal with them accordingly.
    The time for compromise has passed; in fact, it was a mistake to ever exercise diplomacy in this situation at all. Prolifers merely took it as weakness and now use it to beat us over the head with ("If women have the right to bodily sovereignty, then why are third trimester abortions restricted?", "If abortion isn't child-murder, then why is there Laci's Law?"", etc, ad nauseum).
    These things are the way they are because we permitted them to be that way, because prolifers claimed that's all they wanted, and that if we agreed then they'd start acting reasonable.
    But they lied; they took it as license to attempt ever more radical tactics.
    So now, there won't be any more compromises of that sort.
    In fact, things we might have compromised on in the past (such as parental notification laws), we are now no longer willing to compromise on.
    People like you have pushed us to this extreme position.
    You see, what you want is to relegate females to non-human status, to abrogate the civil and human rights of more than half of the population of the United States. There can no longer be any mistake about the prolife agenda- they've tipped their hand stupidly during the years of the bush administration; now we all know what they're after, and we realize how detrimental compromise was, and how costly and dangerous any future compromise will be.
    So don't look for the mainstream American public (which is pro-choice!) to be supporting any future "Laci's laws" or parental notifications, regardless of what sort of pretty packaging you wrap them in.
    We basically don't give a crap anymore. Not even as a feel-good measure to help assuage the sorrow of the relatives of murdered pregnant women will we budge one more inch on women's reproductive rights.
    We know what you're really after. And there is not a chance in hell you will ever accomplish it.
    That's all a very blatant lie in response to the question posed. Roe vs. Wade decided states could intervene in the third trimester. It's not as if prochoicers gave in and eventually compromised. What a bunch of horsehite. And then to have the audacity to say prolifers took advantage of the prochoice compromise.

    No it is the other side that took advantage. It is the other side that pleaded for the sake of raped women, medical problems, and extreme hardship to get abortion legal. And now the procedure has become common place.

    I don't like frigging liars. To suggest that third trimester abortion is illegal in some states because of some ridiculous suggestion of a compromise on your camp's part is just evidence of the type of drivel and lies your side resorts to.

  8. #258
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonslayer View Post
    I am certainly not am not ashamed to be called Liberal. I consider it the same as being called, an American, Creative, productive, open to new ideas and thought.

    Now the way I see it if one says it is ok to abort a gay baby, one is really saying that abortion is OK. How one can look at baby and tell if it gonna be gay or hetero, left of right, up or down, President of the United States or Just a candidate, Catholic or Mormon, a Criminal or hero?
    What part of the word hypothetical do you not understand?
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  9. #259
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    I have said this before but it is worth repeating........I think unnecessary abortions (abortions where the mothers life is not endangered) are the most barbaric act one human being can perform on another and the people that have these abortions and the butcher abortion doctors that perform them will someday have to answer to their maker for those barbaric acts.....

    May God bless the innocent unborn in the womb...........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  10. #260
    Advisor nes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Seen
    10-05-07 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    382

    Re: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    Because previously, advocates of reproductive choice have compromised with prolifers and conceded too much in an effort at appeasement
    Statement based off an unproven assumption.

    (same reason there's "Laci's Law" and similar fetal homicide laws in other states).
    In your own opinion a law made to cater to appeasement?

    Since it is now clear that Prolifers are not interested in compromise and are in fact interested in nothing less than outright illegalization of all abortion in all cases,
    How do you know prolifers are not interested in compromise. How do I know your not interested in compromise? Your statement is also opinion and assumption.

    including rape and health, with an eye to ultimately banning all contraception as well... we now deal with them accordingly.
    What group of people does "we" refer to? Communicating that all of a group of people do something without evidence is yet another unproven assumption.

    The time for compromise has passed;
    How do you know it has passed? Can you predict the future?

    in fact, it was a mistake to ever exercise diplomacy in this situation at all.
    This unproven statement implies that diplomacy was exercised and a mistake was made in the past to exercise diplomacy.

    Prolifers merely took it as weakness and now use it to beat us over the head with ("If women have the right to bodily sovereignty, then why are third trimester abortions restricted?", "If abortion isn't child-murder, then why is there Laci's Law?"", etc, ad nauseum).
    Are you saying all prolifers merely took it as a weakness and now use it to beat you and a group of people over the head with?

    Your statement generalizes about a group of people, Hitler made generalizing statements about Jewish people.

    These things are the way they are because we permitted them to be that way,
    What group of people does we select? How do you know that all of the people in that group permitted them to be that way?

    because prolifers claimed that's all they wanted, and that if we agreed then they'd start acting reasonable.
    A lot of your statements generalize about what a group of people want or take action. Saying that all Jews have brown eyes is generalizing about a group of people.

    But they lied; they took it as license to attempt ever more radical tactics.
    What group of people is "they" referring to? How do you know they took it as a license to attempt ever more radical tactics. Again the statement you posted is generalizing about a group of people.

    So now, there won't be any more compromises of that sort.
    How do you know there will not be any more compromises of that sort?
    This statement is unproven since nobody yet knows if there will be compromises in the future.

    In fact, things we might have compromised on in the past (such as parental notification laws),
    Another statement generalizing about a group of people. How do you know that everyone that supports abortion also is or is not against parental notification laws?

    we are now no longer willing to compromise on.
    Another statement that generalizes about a group of people. What group of people does we refer to? The statement implies that a group of people including you were willing to compromise.

    People like you have pushed us to this extreme position.
    The statement generalizes about a group of people. Who does us refer to? What extreme position?

    You see, what you want is to relegate females to non-human status,
    You are assuming that the person you are communicating to wants to relegate females to non-human status. Another statement based on an assumption.

    to abrogate the civil and human rights of more than half of the population of the United States.
    The statement is an unproven statement assuming that civil and human rights of more than half of the population of the United States will be abolished.

    There can no longer be any mistake about the prolife agenda- they've tipped their hand stupidly during the years of the bush administration;
    How do you know there can no longer be any mistake about the prolife agenda? The statement implies that it can not no longer be any mistake about the prolife agenda.

    What group of people are you referring to? The statement generalizes about a group of people.

    now we all know what they're after, and we realize how detrimental compromise was, and how costly and dangerous any future compromise will be.
    What two groups of people are you referring to? How do you know future compromise will be costly and dangerous? Can you predict the future? The statement generalizes about a group of people. The statement is based off unproven assumptions.

    So don't look for the mainstream American public (which is pro-choice!) to be supporting any future "Laci's laws" or parental notifications, regardless of what sort of pretty packaging you wrap them in.
    Why are you trying to command me to not look for the mainsteam American public to be supporting any future "Laci's laws" or parental notifications? I think it has nothing to do with the debate and the statement generalizes about a group of people.

    We basically don't give a crap anymore.
    What group of people are you referring to? This statement generalizes about a group of people.

    Not even as a feel-good measure to help assuage the sorrow of the relatives of murdered pregnant women will we budge one more inch on women's reproductive rights.
    This statement assumes that all of the relatives of murdered pregnant woman have sorrow. Another statement that generalizes about a group of people. For example how do you know that one of the relatives is mentally unable to have sorrow or is in a vegetative state?

    We know what you're really after. And there is not a chance in hell you will ever accomplish it.
    This statement generalizes about a group of people. How do you know that a group of people know what the person you are communicating to know what he or she is really after? How do you know that the person you are communicating to will never in the future accomplish the subject you are referring to?

    I take it you make statements that generalize about a group of people to try and trick people to believe in a certain idea from a perspective you want people to see.

    Why don't you try comparing your statements that generalize about a group of people with these,"All young drivers cause accidents", "They all don't like woman and want them to be slaves.", "The reason why they want abortion outlawed is because they don't want woman to have rights."

Page 26 of 65 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •