Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

jallman said:

The very idea that a person would choose such a method to achieve a more "acceptable" child could only come from a very dark or very ignorant mind.

Click to expand...

Somehow I missed this. Its a gem.

How is that mind any darker or more ignorant than one that would terminate a pregnancy out of mere convenience?

tecoyah said:

Seriously Jerry....do I need to place a sarcasm banner around my posts before you read them? The poll is rather silly,as was my reply....ON PURPOSE. You really need to go get laid ,dude.

Click to expand...

Heh, as it happens I finally got laid twice this week....maybe I need to become a celibate monk again? :lol:

..but yeah, a smiley would help....

tecoyah said:

It is none of my business why a woman decides to abort a pregnancy. And unless it is Illegal, and you are assigned to enforce the laws....it is none of yours either.

Click to expand...

Now there's some class-A Humanist/Atheist Moral relativism.
Quite consistent, you view is, even as I disagree I will give you credit there.

Felicity said:

I'm pro-birth of gay babies!:2wave:

Click to expand...

Is that a new abortion outlook?

We have "Choice": Pro.-Con.
We have "Life": Pro.-Con.
We have "Abortion": Pro.-Con.
And now we have "Birth": Pro.-Con.

Jerry said:

Is that a new abortion outlook?

We have "Choice": Pro.-Con.
We have "Life": Pro.-Con.
We have "Abortion": Pro.-Con.
And now we have "Birth": Pro.-Con.

Click to expand...

I thought that was the most appropriate way since the question was whether the pregnancy should/could/ought/might...blah,blah...continue. "Birth" seemed to cover it. I don't suggest we "label" any more than already is--that's why I don't argue the nomenclature pro-"choice" even though I believe most women who abort feel they have no other "choice." It's just a name and the bite of the original intent doesn't hold the same weight as I think it originally did. Others probably disagree, but I think there are more important fronts than the "label."

Probably not what you were asking...but...eh?

talloulou said:

This is happening all over the world today! There are countries where the populace has thrown off the balance of men and women by aborting or killing so many female babies. I agree that it is very ignorant, sick, and dark. However I find it interesting that it's okay for a woman to choose death for her child for no damn good reason at all and yet it's somehow more offensive apparently to you if she has a lame reason.

Click to expand...

While I appreciate your passion for the issue, it must be noted that the real issue with abortion in the context of last resort birth control is the timing and the developmental stage of the fetus and it's nervous system. We have already been through this repeatedly, so I will not weigh down the discussion with technical details and it has already been proven that scientific data means nothing to a pro-lifer. However, one has to assume, under the givens and the outcome provided by the OP, that the fetus has already in some way moved beyond the realm of biological tissue to the mother and has been granted personhood by her intention of having a child. In this example, one can only assume that the issue here is not a matter of convenience, but one of prejudicial examination of what is an acceptable child and what is not.

The originator of this poll is not determining anything about abortion rights or restrictions, but rather is subtly forcing a question regarding what is valuable human life and what is not. He/she is taking two very gray areas of ethics, morality, tolerance, and basic human rights and he/she is creating a false juxtaposition of the two issues in an effort to force his/her preferred answer on one issue or the other. To say yes, undeniably, that it is okay to abort a gay baby is to achieve his/her goal of devaluing homosexuals as citizens. To say that it is not okay is to offer him/her some false justification for eliminating reproductive rights for women. Either way, the poll is meant to be both homophobic and misogynist and all it bears is the mark of corrupt transparency and an excuse to declare his/her ignorance as being correct and justifiable.

Skip said:

If it were possible to determine a fetus' political beliefs, and you supported abortions (hey, I can created false premises as well as you can), would you allow a woman to abort a conservative fetus?

Click to expand...

If it is acceptable to abort a child because it is unwanted, then exactly why it is unwanted becomes irrelevant and it is thus okay to abort a baby because it is __________.

Don't want an Atheist?
Don't want a Liberal?
Don't want a law-abider?
Don't want a state-rights supporter?
Don't want a globalist?
Don't want a Pro-Choicer?
Don't want a Muslim?

....gattaca....

SpooK said:

Does it make a difference in this topic?

To recap: You said that "...it is not my place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives..."

However, you also said that you would support a mother's decision to abort a fetus so that it isn't born and live a gay lifestyle.

They contradict each other.

Click to expand...

Yes it does because if someone doesn't consider the fetus at a certain stage to be human then your statements are pointless, as the mother would be dictating towards nothing.

jallman said:

The originator of this poll is not determining anything about abortion rights or restrictions, but rather is subtly forcing a question regarding what is valuable human life and what is not.

Click to expand...

Nope. Good try, tho.

He/she is taking two very gray areas of ethics, morality, tolerance, and basic human rights and he/she is creating a false juxtaposition of the two issues in an effort to force his/her preferred answer on one issue or the other.

Click to expand...

Nope. Again, good try tho.

To say yes, undeniably, that it is okay to abort a gay baby is to achieve his/her goal of devaluing homosexuals as citizens.

Click to expand...

Yet another good try. Keep it up!

To say that it is not okay is to offer him/her some false justification for eliminating reproductive rights for women.

Click to expand...

Wow! So may fine attempts at figuring out my intenentions.

All wrong - but thats OK. At least you're trying.
Maybe if your mind wasnt in such a dark and ignorant place, you'd do just a little better...

Either way, the poll is meant to be both homophobic and misogynist but really all it bears is the mark of corrupt transparency and an excuse to declare his/her ignorance as being correct and justifiable.

Click to expand...

Hey! Leave the soft talk for the bedroom!!

If you'll closely examine my conversation with Gibberish, you'll figure out the purpose of this poll. Why don't you do that, and then try again. :2wave:

jallman said:

under the givens and the outcome provided by the OP, that the fetus has already in some way moved beyond the realm of biological tissue to the mother and has been granted personhood by her intention of having a child.

Click to expand...

Just to understand, are you saying here that the biological criteria you put forth as the personhood criteria is superceded by a mother's intent to carry a child and thus the intent is what grants personhood to the child in-utero?

The originator of this poll is not determining anything about abortion rights or restrictions, but rather is subtly forcing a question regarding what is valuable human life and what is not.

Click to expand...

I got that he was pointing out the inherent contradiction in the pro-choice position that one has no right to judge the choices of others.

He/she is taking two very gray areas of ethics, morality, tolerance, and basic human rights and he/she is creating a false juxtaposition of the two issues in an effort to force his/her preferred answer on one issue or the other. To say yes, undeniably, that it is okay to abort a gay baby is to achieve his/her goal of devaluing homosexuals as citizens. To say that it is not okay is to offer him/her some false justification for eliminating reproductive rights for women.

Click to expand...

That's not fair to state someone elses intent or preference in regard to their thinking. How do you know what he's thinking?

Either way, the poll is meant to be both homophobic and misogynist .

Click to expand...

I disagree because I see it as a way to reveal an inconsistancy in the pro-choice position--not to malign anyone in particular.

Goobieman said:

No it doesn't.

It comes down to, as you put it, that no one can dictate how someone else lives their life.

In this case, the mother is dictating that the baby cannot be gay.

YOU say that the mother cannot dictate this to the baby.

Given that, how can she NOT have to defend her decision?

Click to expand...

I am pro-choice, the choice is to either have a baby or not have a baby. Nothing about the baby but it's future existence should be a factor.

I don't agree with aborting a child because the child might not agree with the parents morals.

I do not agree with abortion as a frequent use as that can harm the mother both physically and emotionally and is taking advantage of procedure that is meant as a last resort.

Felicity said:

Just to understand, are you saying here that the biological criteria you put forth as the personhood criteria is superceded by a mother's intent to carry a child and thus the intent is what grants personhood to the child in-utero?
I got that he was pointing out the inherent contradiction in the pro-choice position that one has no right to judge the choices of others.

That's not fair to state someone elses intent or preference in regard to their thinking. How do you know what he's thinking?

I disagree because I see it as a way to reveal an inconsistancy in the pro-choice position--not to malign anyone in particular.

Click to expand...

Actually, now that I have seen who the OP was (he is on my ignore list for making very hateful and homophobic and bigoted remarks), I am more inclined to believe that there is nothing more here than a feeble and transparent attempt to force agreement with one of his "positions".

And yes, one only has to look at the law to see that the mother's intention alone can grant personhood to the fetus. Otherwise, there would be no provision to charge an assailant with murder for a fetus being murdered along with the mother as in the Peterson case. The intent can grant personhood to the fetus but it is not necessary for that personhood if the fetus is carried to a stage of development that warrants personhood to be granted. Further, once granted, personhood can never be stripped of a person, so any egregious argument that one such as Schaivo wasn't a person is just ignorant and a pathetic grasp at straws.

And I still hold, now from past experience and not just reading the tone and direction the thread took from the onset, that the intention is not to have a frank discussion about a disparity in a belief, but a very ugly attempt at both maligning a position/group AND a transparent grasp at forcing others to agree with him. There is a reason this person is the ONLY person on my ignore list.

jallman said:

Actually, now that I have seen who the OP was (he is on my ignore list for making very hateful and homophobic and bigoted remarks), I am more inclined to believe that there is nothing more here than a feeble and transparent attempt to force agreement with one of his "positions".

And yes, one only has to look at the law to see that the mother's intention alone can grant personhood to the fetus. Otherwise, there would be no provision to charge an assailant with murder for a fetus being murdered along with the mother as in the Peterson case. The intent can grant personhood to the fetus but it is not necessary for that personhood if the fetus is carried to a stage of development that warrants personhood to be granted. Further, once granted, personhood can never be stripped of a person, so any egregious argument that one such as Schaivo wasn't a person is just ignorant and a pathetic grasp at straws.

And I still hold, now from past experience and not just reading the tone and direction the thread took from the onset, that the intention is not to have a frank discussion about a disparity in a belief, but a very ugly attempt at both maligning a position/group AND a transparent grasp at forcing others to agree with him.

Click to expand...

Well...as one who has been accused falsely of specific negative intention, I refuse to do it to others. If there was evidence within the thread itself...that would be different IMO....if someone is that "raging" their true personality would out eventually.

Felicity said:

Well...as one who has been accused falsely of specific negative intention, I refuse to do it to others. If there was evidence within the thread itself...that would be different IMO.

Click to expand...

I am not asking you to agree with me or see it. Besides, why would you bother to look for anything inconvenient to your position. I would expect you to admit seeing the Virgin Mary in a bowl of spaghettio's before admitting fault with someone's pro liar position. :roll:

Now, would you like to respond to my answer to your question about intent and personhood?

jallman said:

And yes, one only has to look at the law to see that the mother's intention alone can grant personhood to the fetus.

Click to expand...

I am curious as to what case law you take that from, though I am even more curious as to this: If the mothers intent can endow the right to life upon her unborn, wouldn't it logically follow that she could not then revoke it?

Unalienable, the right to life is. Once endowed by it's creator (its mother, by Humanist/Atheist reasoning), by definition she can not change her mind and act accordingly without violating the unalienable right she gave.

jallman said:

I would expect you to admit seeing the Virgin Mary in a bowl of spaghettio's before admitting fault with someone's pro liar position.

Click to expand...

I thought I saw the Virgin Marry in a taco once....so I bit off hr head

Turns out it actually was a “holy” taco, too, ‘cuz it dripped sauce all over my lap!

We now have 4 outlooks on abortion: Life, Choice, Abortion, Birth and Liar.

jallman said:

I am not asking you to agree with me or see it. Besides, why would you bother to look for anything inconvenient to your position. I would expect you to admit seeing the Virgin Mary in a bowl of spaghettio's before admitting fault with someone's pro liar position. :roll:

Click to expand...

See now...there's the jallman we all know and love!:2wave:

Now, would you like to respond to my answer to your question about intent and personhood?

Click to expand...

Sure.

The intent can grant personhood to the fetus but it is not necessary for that personhood if the fetus is carried to a stage of development that warrants personhood to be granted.

Click to expand...

Who grants this "personhood" at that biological stage? What body of law or medical definition? As I see it the law allows this distinction of mother's intent through the whole pregnancy.

Further, once granted, personhood can never be stripped of a person, so any egregious argument that one such as Schaivo wasn't a person is just ignorant and a pathetic grasp at straws.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on the Schiavo comment.

Jerry said:

I am curious as to what case law you take that from, though I am even more curious as to this: If the mothers intent can endow the right to life upon her unborn, wouldn't it logically follow that she could not then revoke it?

Unalienable, the right to life is. Once endowed by it's creator (its mother, by Humanist/Atheist reasoning), by definition she can not change her mind and act accordingly without violating the unalienable right she gave.

Click to expand...

Actually, I took that reasoning from several cases...the fact that a person can be charged with murder if a fetus is aborted through an action not of the mother's (as in the Lacey and Scott Peterson case).

Here is the quandary that I am posed with: if the mother can grant personhood at one point, can she revoke it at another? I believe that once the fetus achieves biological requirements for personhood, the choice is out of the mother's hands and personhood can never be revoked by law or circumstance. However, I suppose until that point, it is the mother's discretion and her prerogative to change her mind as often as she likes.

Felicity said:

See now...there's the jallman we all know and love!:2wave:

Click to expand...

I aim to please, milady.

Who grants this "personhood" at that biological stage? What body of law or medical definition? As I see it the law allows this distinction of mother's intent through the whole pregnancy.

Click to expand...

The law technically does give her discretion through the whole pregnancy and that, I cannot agree with. I have posted many times the scientific evidence indicating that the fetus has no awareness, cognition, salience, nor sentience before the 21st week of pregnancy. We can reference those other threads if you like, but I am sure you remember them.

At such a time as the fetus can show the mental capabilities of a human being (baby), then it is has a definitive right to life like any other human. The mother's wishes are no longer all important because her rights end where the new life's begins. Position internal or external of the womb has NEVER been a consideration of mine on this issue.

jallman said:

Actually, I took that reasoning from several cases...the fact that a person can be charged with murder if a fetus is aborted through an action not of the mother's (as in the Lacey and Scott Peterson case).

Here is the quandary that I am posed with: if the mother can grant personhood at one point, can she revoke it at another? I believe that once the fetus achieves biological requirements for personhood, the choice is out of the mother's hands and personhood can never be revoked by law or circumstance. However, I suppose until that point, it is the mother's discretion and her prerogative to change her mind as often as she likes.

Click to expand...

It seems that we are both asking the same question.

If she can revoke that right, then is it really unalienable?
If she can revoke that right, what precedent does this establish for her rights to then be revoked by another in turn?

jallman said:

I aim to please, milady.



The law technically does give her discretion through the whole pregnancy and that, I cannot agree with. I have posted many times the scientific evidence indicating that the fetus has no awareness, cognition, salience, nor sentience before the 21st week of pregnancy. We can reference those other threads if you like, but I am sure you remember them.

At such a time as the fetus can show the mental capabilities of a human being (baby), then it is has a definitive right to life like any other human. The mother's wishes are no longer all important because her rights end where the new life's begins. Position internal or external of the womb has NEVER been a consideration of mine on this issue.

Click to expand...

So basically you are in the same boat as pro-lifers in that the laws governing abortion are too broad. The difference is that you have a different line that you draw for the when the "right" of life begins.

Felicity said:

So basically you are in the same boat as pro-lifers in that the view is too broad. The difference is that you have a different line that you draw for the when the "right" of life begins.

Click to expand...

Are we actually understanding each other...finally? Ain't the Christmas spirit grand!!!! :2wave:

jallman said:

Are we actually understanding each other...finally? Ain't the Christmas spirit grand!!!! :2wave:

Click to expand...

I'm sorry--I edited after you commented...do you think the laws are too broad?

Felicity said:

I'm sorry--I edited after you commented...do you think the laws are too broad?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. There is no reason not to treat the interaction between a mother and a fetus the same as any other (in that her rights end where her baby's begin) once that threshold of development has been crossed. In fact, I see late term abortions as being just as heinous as infanticide or child murder.

jallman said:

Absolutely. There is no reason not to treat the interaction between a mother and a fetus the same as any other (in that her rights end where her baby's begin) once that threshold of development has been crossed. In fact, I see late term abortions as being just as heinous as infanticide or child murder.

Click to expand...

That's wonderful! Yes, Christmas is grand!

Now what about Jerry's point that if the right to life can be granted by Mom--it's not really an inalienable thing is it. What about the rammifications of that?

Also--what is the definative point, in your opinion, that can be measured accurately so as not to accidentally usurp any person's rights?

Lastly--would you vote according to that perception? Making abortion past that point illegal and doctors performing them criminals?

I think abortion should be rare.

I remembered watching a segment on Fox a while back that lends to the debate so I thought I'd share it... I used to use an argument on abortion debates that if a gay baby would set off a purple light like a mom is notified of a Downs Syndrome baby gays wouldn't support a woman's right to choose.

Here's the bit:

Personal Story Segment
Pro-life & gay rights alliance?
Guest: Maine State Representative Brian Duprey

In Maine some gay rights advocates have joined forces with anti-abortion activists. What brought them together is a bill that would prevent women from terminating a pregnancy based on the predicted sexual orientation of the fetus. The bill's sponsor, Brian Duprey, told The Factor, "If they ever do find a gay gene I feel abortions will massively increase because women will not want to give birth to a gay baby. A gay group decided to join forces with me, and I'm happy to have them aboard." The Factor suggested that Duprey's bill is actually an anti-abortion measure disguised as a gay rights initiative. "What you've done is clever. To try to limit abortions in the state of Maine, you've enlisted gay rights groups. You're using them as interference to deflect criticism about abortion."

Click to expand...

BillOReilly.com: The O'Reilly Factor Flash