View Poll Results: Gay baby

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

    51 45.95%
  • No

    60 54.05%
Page 27 of 65 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 647

Thread: Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

  1. #261
    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?

    What two groups of people are you referring to?
    Antichoice extremists, and sane people.

    How do you know future compromise will be costly and dangerous?
    From hard-earned experience.

    Can you predict the future?
    We all can.
    That's why, last month, we routed antichoice republicans out of Congress en masse, replaced them with prochoice Democrats, and voted down every piece of antichoice legislation proposed, including an abortion ban in South Dakota and parental notification laws in California and Oregon that we might've considered just a few years ago (well, then again.. maybe not; this was the second time California voters had rejected the proposal).

    The statement generalizes about a group of people.
    Yes, it does. And with good reason. The group of people in question are misogynists, who want to harm me and all women, and whose agenda includes plans to destroy the country I love.

    The statement is based off unproven assumptions.
    No; it is made from hard-earned experience, and from lessons we didn't learn until it was almost too late.

  2. #262
    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 nes View Post
    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.
    No, government exists to protect rights; people take rights away from each other. If we did not have government and laws, then we would be living in an anarchy, in which might would make right, and anyone could take away anyone else's rights for selfish purposes as long as the selfish one was physically stronger.
    Society exists to give us a better life. If we didn't need society, we wouldn't have one.

    Quote Originally Posted by nes View Post
    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.
    No, you would have no rights except those you kept through violence, and anyone who could do more damage to you than you could do to them would take those rights away from you, leaving you a slave. That's what happens when nothing is illegal: everybody does whatever they want, to whoever they want. It isn't a happy thing.


    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? 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?
    First, it isn't universally illegal to have an abortion after a certain length of gestation; the mother can always have an abortion if her life is in danger, as far as I know. Second, it becomes less clear-cut when you reach the stage of arguable viability, because the fetus starts to take on enough characteristics of a born person to (possibly) qualify for personhood -- which means the mother's option to abort it may become a case of her taking rights away from another person, rather than a non-person.

    Do I believe it is morally correct to kill a fetus moments before it is born? I'll need to know your particular level of fanaticism before I answer that. Are you willing to concede that there is gray area in the issue, or do you believe that the fetus's life is always of utmost importance, and any concession I make toward your position makes me a wishy-washy hypocrite, and/or proves that you are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong?

  3. #263
    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
    I'd like to make a counter-claim, if I may.
    You can try, but I have an "easy" button on you, so you had better have a logical point.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    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.
    False premise #1:
    That would be why the U.S. Constitution exists, as surly "society" has not held the interests of individual freedom for the individual....take radical Islam, for example. That "society" does not exist for the purpose you claim, so your claim is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    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.
    False premise #2:
    Even if "society" existed for the purpose you assume: eliminating late term abortion, affording men a legal tool in protecting their children from their mother's violence, affording parents a legal tool in protecting their grandchildren from their minor-child's violence, providing a legal compulsion against the violation of what is arguably "a compelling state interest" in the protection of late-term unborn can not be accurately cast in the negative light of "for purposes of selfish gain".

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    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.
    Word for word that is the Pro-Life argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    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.
    All mainstream PL does is the exact same methodology as mainstream PC: each vote, write Representatives, hold rallies, pass petitions, etc. In the end PL is casting votes and speaking out, no different than PC, yet it is PC who claims that PL is somehow a villain for exorcizing their perfectly legal constitutional right to vote in the manner they please.

    You are just like PL in this way, so if they have no legitimate ground to attempt to have their will in the law, neither do you.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    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.
    False premise #3:
    Abortion is not a right.

    This very easily leads into an involved conversation on Roe and what laws have come into being since 1973 which logically change the outcome of Roe based on the reasoning in Roe, however I will not divert to that here.

    Abortion is not a "right" specifically granted nor denied by the Constitution, there for abortion is a state issue, and if a given state establishes abortion as a right, then we will have to pick this up when we have actual legislation before us and can see the terms of it.

    Also, remember, rights have rank.

    My right to the "care, control and custody" of my child -vs- her legal ability (not right) to violate my said right is a vicious fight on both fronts.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    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.
    My argument supported by Troxel is an argument seeking to protect my individual rights from being violated. By arguing against it in the manner that you have, saying that a woman should have the right to abort my child simply if she decides that it's bad luck because she sneezed, you argue against my individual right, and those are guilty of what you say no one should do to another.

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Unfortunately, this does take us back to fetal personhood. But at least it shows that I am not a hypocrite.
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeSaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You just labled yourself a hypocrite, then.
    So be it.
    You double speak.

    Also, please keep in mind that if SCOTUS were to establish "personhood" prenataly, they need not do it at conception. "Personhood" could be established prenataly at such a time where the ZEF has a formed and functional neural cortex, and I doubt that PC nor PL would have much, if any, solid legal ground to argue if that happened.

  4. #264
    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 nes View Post
    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.
    Quite right.

    Rights are issued by God's law (the "Laws of Nature") and it is government (the laws of Man) which seeks to take them away.

    You may also note that the structure of the Constitution is such that, rather than establish various rights, it assumes that such rights already exist and seeks to restrain government.

    There is not one right that we enjoy today which is established in the Constitution. Protected and illuminated , yes, but not established.

  5. #265
    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?

    Antichoice extremists, and sane people.
    This reply implies that antichoice extremists are not sane people. I find that hard to believe without statistical evidence to back that claim.


    My question was--
    How do you know future compromise will be costly and dangerous?
    your reply was--
    From hard-earned experience.
    Your reply makes no logical sense since you do not yet know compromise that will be costly and dangerous, assuming it will happen in the future.

    We all can.
    That's why, last month, we routed antichoice republicans out of Congress en masse, replaced them with prochoice Democrats, and voted down every piece of antichoice legislation proposed, including an abortion ban in South Dakota and parental notification laws in California and Oregon that we might've considered just a few years ago (well, then again.. maybe not; this was the second time California voters had rejected the proposal).
    If you can predict the future, then predict the next california super lotto numbers. Who is "we" referring to again?

    Yes, it does. And with good reason. The group of people in question are misogynists, who want to harm me and all women, and whose agenda includes plans to destroy the country I love.
    Just because you assume there are misogynists out there who want to harm you and all woman does not mean abortion should be legal. Do you think woman in the 19th century rights were violated when abortion proceedures weren't done partially due to lack of technology?

    Infact are you a feminist sexist?



    I said--
    The statement is based off unproven assumptions.
    You replied--
    No; it is made from hard-earned experience, and from lessons we didn't learn until it was almost too late.
    Your statement makes no logical since. Hard-earned experience does not contribute to the validity to the statements you make.

  6. #266
    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?

    Infact are you a feminist sexist?
    The fact that you believe advocating for women to retain the right to bodily sovereignty is "sexist" shows that you yourself are sexist; as if that weren't already obvious from your previous callous dismissal of the plight of rape victims.

  7. #267
    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 Nes
    Infact are you a feminist sexist?
    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    The fact that you believe advocating for women to retain the right to bodily sovereignty is "sexist" shows that you yourself are sexist; as if that weren't already obvious from your previous callous dismissal of the plight of rape victims.
    I simply asked a question, not a statement. I didn't say that advocating for women to retain the right to bodily sovereignty is "sexist". I sugguest you also stop assuming what I believe.
    Did you know that a woman can rape a man? Stastically it is rare, but it does infact happen. Are you declaring woman the "victims"?

    I believe that according to you, woman could not retain the right to bodily sovereignty during a certian period of time when the abortion proceedure was not yet established (pre 1900s). Was it big issue for woman wanting to have abortions? Some woman used to have lots of kids and actually risk dying (from disease) to give birth. Not the ignorant feminist mentially I that I observed recently.

  8. #268
    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
    I simply asked a question, not a statement. I didn't say that advocating for women to retain the right to bodily sovereignty is "sexist". I sugguest you also stop assuming what I believe.
    Did you know that a woman can rape a man? Stastically it is rare, but it does infact happen. Are you declaring woman the "victims"?

    I believe that according to you, woman could not retain the right to bodily sovereignty during a certian period of time when the abortion proceedure was not yet established (pre 1900s). Was it big issue for woman wanting to have abortions? Some woman used to have lots of kids and actually risk dying (from disease) to give birth. Not the ignorant feminist mentially I that I observed recently.
    Abortion has been in existence since ancient times; it has been practiced in every culture and civilization ever studied.
    In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions.
    This remained the official position of the Church until 1869, when Pope Pius IX again declared all abortion murder.
    Only then did Europe, the UK, and the United States begin to pass laws against abortion.
    Previous to that, abortion was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed. Up until the late 1800s, abortifacient "patent medicines" were openly sold in drug and department stores, and even out of the Sears Roebuck catalogue.
    After Pius IX's edict, states one by one passed legislation against abortion; it was not banned in all states until 1889.
    Since it was legalized again in 1973, abortion was banned for a grand total of less than 100 years, in the entire history of human civilization (and that's counting the three years it was banned in the sixteenth century: 1588 to 1591).
    It is highly unlikely this failed social experiment will ever be repeated.
    At this point, I'd say it's more likely the government would reinstate Prohibition of alcohol than ban abortion again. Which is to say, it's not very likely at all.

  9. #269
    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
    Abortion has been in existence since ancient times; it has been practiced in every culture and civilization ever studied.
    Can't stop lying? Saying that abortion has been in existence since ancient times I believe is complete bs. Nearly everybody did not know about cells or the development stages of a baby. Making the statement that it has been practiced in every culture and civilization ever studied without any evidence for such a claim sounds like a lie to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days.
    Are you retarded? How would they determine if the baby would turn out to be a boy or girl after 40 days of conception before America was discovered by Europeans? So, what technology was used to determine if the baby would turn up as a boy or girl without pulling the baby out of the womb?

    I currently plan to not respond to the rest of your post since I believe it contains more lies. I believe that you just lie to try and convert the gullible to believe your feminist biasness.

  10. #270
    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
    Can't stop lying? Saying that abortion has been in existence since ancient times I believe is complete bs. Nearly everybody did not know about cells or the development stages of a baby. Making the statement that it has been practiced in every culture and civilization ever studied without any evidence for such a claim sounds like a lie to me.



    Are you retarded? How would they determine if the baby would turn out to be a boy or girl after 40 days of conception before America was discovered by Europeans? So, what technology was used to determine if the baby would turn up as a boy or girl without pulling the baby out of the womb?

    I currently plan to not respond to the rest of your post since I believe it contains more lies. I believe that you just lie to try and convert the gullible to believe your feminist biasness.


    The most influential scholar of ancient times, Aristotle (ca. 350 BC) developed a gestational time line that proved remarkably durable. Aristotle believed embryos pass through three distinct stages: 1) the nutritive/vegetative stage, characteristic of plants; 2) the sensitive stage, characteristic of animals, and, finally; 3) the intellectual/rational stage, where it becomes fully human. He maintained that the male fetus reached the recognizably human stage at about 40 days while the female arrived at that stage in 80-90 days.

    The early Christians adopted Aristotle's typology. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (ca. 415 AD), one of the most influential Catholic theologians, proposed that abortion should not be regarded "as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being formed."
    For Augustine, an abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin. Echoing Aristotle, Augustine believed that "hominization" took place at 40 days after conception for males and 80 days for females. Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1250) also embraced Aristotle's view that a fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then - when its body is fully developed - a rational, human soul.
    At the beginning of the 13th century Pope Innocent II proposed that "quickening"(the time when the woman first feels the fetus move within her) was the moment at which abortion became homicide.
    In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV proclaimed that quickening occurred after 116 days. His declaration that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication guided Church policy until 1869.


    This is all well documented Canon law.
    I've given you names and dates.
    It's time to do your own research now, if you wish to refute these claims (hint: you can't; they are irrefutable... but don't let that stop you from trying).
    Throwing a tantrum and calling me "retarded" and "a liar" is not convincing anyone, nor adding an iota of credibility to your case.

Page 27 of 65 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •