Assume for a moment that the parents do not want to take the chance that their child will be a homosexual
This is a post-birth, future behavior issue.
Tsk tsk tsk. Assuming that those who do not approve of homosexuals are afraid of them...I am not defending the mother's motives, I am defending her right to act on whatever her motives may be, and that right does not change however ridiculously homophobic the mother is.
Want to go back to the Hoplophobia argument?
I'm good like that.I have to say, though, this topic has led to some useful pondering on my part, so for that, I thank you.
A human life. Right. That was my point.It isn't a person. It is human...
"Personhood" is, as I mentioned, is a subjective and inconsisteint state of being contrived to allow for the idea that it is somehow OK to take an innocent human life because that human life isn't actually a 'person' and therefore doesnt matter.
Hardly. "Innocent" has many meanings, and not all of them have to do with religion.but "innocent" is a pointless descriptor unless one is religious
An unborn baby has done nothing wrong by ANY standard -- that is, he is innocent -- and because he has done nothing wrong, he, in no way shape of form, deserves to die. This seperates him him, say, murderers, rapists, etc, that -have- done something wrong and therefore -may- deserve to die.
You unashamedly and unequivocably support those that are and those that do, and you argue that they absolutely have a right to do so. You might not actually hold the vacuum wand, but you're just as much a killer as those that do.I am not a killer.
I think I said thatActually, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant...
Oh come now - the government allows people to do this all the time. No one has a right to fruits of my labor - a fruit produced by my body -- but I am forced to share that fruit so that others might benefit -- and I must share that fruit whether I like it of not....because, as 1069 has pointed out many times, no person has the right to take over another person's body for his or her own benefit.
Is that an acceptable answer?
I am personally responsible for the decisions I make in my life. I am not responsible for those whose decisions I refuse to limit. I do not promote or encourage abortion, I simply state that women have the right to choose it if they wish; that is reality, as I see it. I make no moral judgements of those who avail themselves of abortion, nor of those who do not. It is not up to me, and thus it is not my responsibility.
[Surely if aborting your offspring on the grounds that your offspring may be gay is stupid than aborting for other equally stupid reasons is well stupid.
Or convenience or worse as a means of birth control.........
Last edited by Navy Pride; 12-27-06 at 03:57 PM.
"God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."
I voted yes. Although, I think it's OK to abort a gay FETUS.
/If parents are that bigoted that they would aborted their fetus simply because it's gay, it's a good thing that they're not reproducing.
Why?My personal judgement would be that no, she does not have sufficient reason to abort her fetus
How about "those that disapprove of homosexuals"?Is there a different word you would prefer I use for disapproval of homosexuality?
Yes, but since the mother is also innocent by ANY standard, the innocence of the child is not relevant
So, in determining if its Ok to take a human life, in determning iof you have a RIGHT to take a human life, the innocence of that human life is irrelevant.
Tell me you didnt just say that.
We are also conparing death to, in some cases, simple inconvenience.we are comparing the rights of these two innocent people, not the child and a murderer or rapist
You;re arguing that someone's right to avoid inconvenience trumps someone's right to avoid death.
As noted, it was to indicate that the unborn baby had done nothing wrong. You dont have t like it, but it is absolutely true.As such, the term "innocent" is only an attempt to appeal to emotion.
ooh- nice try.Does that mean you are responsible for every killing committed with a gun?
But, see, I dont argue that criminals have a right to kill people, so you fall a little short.
Nice backpedal.Hardly the same thing. Money is not equivalent to your body. You can change jobs, but you cannot change bodies. You can stop working and thus stop paying taxes from the fruit of your labor, but if you cannot abort a fetus, you cannot get away from its infringement of your freedom.
Slavery ois slavery no matter how you want to term it -- a slave to the poor, a slave to the unborn. Your argument applies to them all.
It is extracting the bodily resources of another person, to the detriment of her health.As noted, it was to indicate that the unborn baby had done nothing wrong.
It will continue to do so, with or without her consent, even if it causes her to die.
If the person whose body the fetus is occupying does not want it to continue extracting her bodily resources, she has the right to disconnect it from her body and leave the vicinity.
It's not about whether the fetus has done anything "wrong"; although it ought to be noted that it hasn't particularly done anything "right", either... certainly nothing that would convince me it deserves the right to occupy another person's body against their will.