• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it OK to abort a gay baby?

Gay baby

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 45.5%

  • No

    Votes: 42 54.5%
  • Total voters
    77
Roberdorus said:
That's good. And if you see a father beating his kid, please don't force your opinions and beliefs onto him. He probably doesn't share them, and you don't want to be intrusive.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Don't make leaps in scenarios to try help your stance.
 
I'm assuming all your Pro-life individuals are also going to push for third-degree murder charges for all women who experience a miscarriage. Since in some cases the death of the child is the result of the woman's body herself failing to care for the child in life sustaining fashion.
 
Gibberish said:
Apples and oranges. Don't make leaps in scenarios to try help your stance.
Click to expand...

It's not a leap at all, if you think about it. My analogy included a father beating his child. The issue of abortion concerns a mother killing her child. If anything, my analogy is the milder of the two. Now, why don't you address it?
If you saw a father beating his child, would you think it your business to stop him? Or would you just call it a man's "right to choose", and go on your merry way?
 
Roberdorus said:
It's not a leap at all, if you think about it. My analogy included a father beating his child. The issue of abortion concerns a mother killing her child. If anything, my analogy is the milder of the two. Now, why don't you address it?
If you saw a father beating his child, would you think it your business to stop him? Or would you just call it a man's "right to choose", and go on your merry way?
Click to expand...

Two ways to answer this:

First, since child abuse is illegal and abortion is legal, of course I feel it is my business to report a crime. I don't feel it is my business to involve myself when the action in question (an abortion) is not a crime.

Second, of course I would let the father beat his kid. I don't even like kids. What difference does it make to me?

Ask a stupid question . . .
 
Roberdorus said:
It's not a leap at all, if you think about it. My analogy included a father beating his child. The issue of abortion concerns a mother killing her child. If anything, my analogy is the milder of the two. Now, why don't you address it?
If you saw a father beating his child, would you think it your business to stop him? Or would you just call it a man's "right to choose", and go on your merry way?
Click to expand...

I would of course stop it as I hope anyone would since a crime is being committed.

The reason it is a leap is the fetus in the woman's womb is not the same as the child being hypothetically beaten by it's father. One is a living breathing human being and one is not. One has cognitive thought and one does not.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
Two ways to answer this:

First, since child abuse is illegal and abortion is legal, of course I feel it is my business to report a crime. I don't feel it is my business to involve myself when the action in question (an abortion) is not a crime.
Click to expand...

I don't think legality makes something right, although there are many wrong (and legal) things that aren't my business. When a person's actions harm another human being, it's not just my business to intervene (if I can); it's my duty. As Jacob Marley would say... "Mankind was my business!"

CoffeeSaint said:
Second, of course I would let the father beat his kid. I don't even like kids. What difference does it make to me?

Ask a stupid question . . .
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, but I'm confused. I see two stupid answers.
 
Gibberish said:
I would of course stop it as I hope anyone would since a crime is being committed.
Click to expand...

Glad to see the less inhumane side of you, Gib. If only you could apply these compassionate sentiments to the unborn.

Gibberish said:
The reason it is a leap is the fetus in the woman's womb is not the same as the child being hypothetically beaten by it's father. One is a living breathing human being and one is not. One has cognitive thought and one does not.
Click to expand...

For the last time: the scientific community is in complete agreement that at the moment of conception, a distinct and unique human being is created.

But let's define "cognitive", shall we?

Of, characterized by, involving, or relating to cognition: "Thinking in terms of dualisms is common in our cognitive culture" (Key Reporter). 2. Having a basis in or reducible to empirical factual knowledge.

Are you sure a small child has this faculty?
 
Goobieman said:
Assume for a moment that homosexuality is indeed genetic.
Assume for a moment that an unborn child is known to have that gene
Assume for a moment that the parents do not want to take the chance that their child will be a homosexual

It that sufficient reason to abort the unborn baby?



Someone please add a Yes/No poll
Click to expand...

Very impressive, Goobieman. What you have created here is a rather ingenious minefield debate. Not only is there no right or wrong answer, but any answer lands you in the middle of a minefield. The poll is not directed at morality, values, or position. At it's core, it questions the consistency and lack of hypocracy in one's value/moral system. Since there are correlations between the pro-life/anti-gay positions and the pro-choice/pro-gay positions, this poll questions one's convictions and ability to defend one's stance when an opposing 'curve ball' is presented. Very sharp.
 
Goobieman said:
Should it be illegal to abort a potentially gay baby because the parents dont want to take the chance of having a gay child?
Click to expand...
No it should not. I must say this is one stupid question and to me it's promoting bigotry right here in DP.

It's none of my or anyone else's business why they decide to have an abortion and asinine polls like this serve no purpose as is proven by more than 100 posts and two votes in the poll.

The abortion argument is simple for me....you don't want to have one then do not have one but you damn well better not tell anyone else what they can do...

The entire premise of this thread is pathetic....
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Very impressive, Goobieman. What you have created here is a rather ingenious minefield debate. Not only is there no right or wrong answer, but any answer lands you in the middle of a minefield. The poll is not directed at morality, values, or position. At it's core, it questions the consistency and lack of hypocracy in one's value/moral system. Since there are correlations between the pro-life/anti-gay positions and the pro-choice/pro-gay positions, this poll questions one's convictions and ability to defend one's stance when an opposing 'curve ball' is presented. Very sharp.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. :mrgreen:
 
Gibberish said:
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.
Click to expand...
So -- you can't abort a baby for whatever reason you want?
Doesnt this conflict with your position that it is not your place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives?

I don't agree with aborting a child because the child might not agree with the parents morals.
Click to expand...
So -- you can't abort a baby for whatever reason you want?
Doesnt this conflict with your position that it is not your place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives?
 
Hatuey said:
Is it ok to abort a gay baby?
Have we found a way to a determine a baby's sexual orientation while still inside the womb? :|
Thats like asking
"Is it ok to abort fetuses with the possibility of becoming serial killers?"
It's a question bordering on ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Don't argue the given in an attempt to avoid the issue. People argue all the time that there is a genetic component to homozesuality - given that, the question is completely legitimate.
 
FreeThinker said:
you are either a liberal using comedy to attack conservatives (colbert), or a redneck making other conservatives look bad.
either way: shut up.
Click to expand...
Thats a very interesting command, given your ID.
:rofl

Abortion before the 2nd trimester should be legal (but only as a last resort) and there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Click to expand...
This doesnt answer the question.
 
Gibberish said:
I'm assuming all your Pro-life individuals are also going to push for third-degree murder charges for all women who experience a miscarriage. Since in some cases the death of the child is the result of the woman's body herself failing to care for the child in life sustaining fashion.
Click to expand...
Talk about leaps in scenarios.

Fisrt, you demand that "all women" be held liable, and then you note that the woman is nominally at fault only "in some cases"

If its only in "some cases", then why the requirement that "all women" be held liable?
 
Goobieman said:
This doesnt answer the question.
Click to expand...

Your question stereotypes people into two groups:

1. yes: People that are pro choice are made to look anti-homosexual by saying it is ok to abort a gay baby when they mean abortion in general is ok.

2. no: Pro-homosexual pro-choice people are made to say that abortion is not ok when they mean that abortion due to the future sexual preference of the baby is wrong.

I'm pro choice and have no problem with homosexuality, so I'm not going to answer your loaded question.
 
Roberdorus said:
I don't think legality makes something right, although there are many wrong (and legal) things that aren't my business. When a person's actions harm another human being, it's not just my business to intervene (if I can); it's my duty. As Jacob Marley would say... "Mankind was my business!"

Yeah, yeah, but I'm confused. I see two stupid answers.
Click to expand...

All right, fair enough. Legality does not make something right, but it certainly has something to do with how much I'm willing to intervene. I do not believe humanity is my business, because I don't hold myself to be good enough, wise enough, and just enough to always choose the right side when I see a conflict. I would try to stop one person from harming another, whatever the situation.

Abortion, of course, is not harming a person. It is freeing one, and that is the problem with this analogy: the father does not have any need to beat his child, and the child is a person harmed by the beating, and so it should stop. The fetus is not a person, if the abortion happens before the 20th week or so it does not have nerves and so is not "harmed" by the procedure, and most importantly, the mother has a need to harm the fetus as it is the only way to preserve her bodily sovereignty. That is the key difference: the son is not inside the father's body, taking of his bodily resources, and so the father has no right to defend himself against the son.

There are your smart answers.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Assume for a moment that homosexuality is indeed genetic.
Assume for a moment that an unborn child is known to have that gene
Assume for a moment that the parents do not want to take the chance that their child will be a homosexual

It that sufficient reason to abort the unborn baby?
Click to expand...

Yes. There is no question of "sufficiency of reason." The mother has the right to control her body, and that includes removing the fetus from it. If she sneezes and thinks that means the baby is bad luck, she should have the right to abort it. All freedoms include the freedom to be stupid, and to do things that other people would not agree with -- this right is no different.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
All freedoms include the freedom to be stupid, and to do things that other people would not agree with -- this right is no different.
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Goobieman said:
So -- you can't abort a baby for whatever reason you want?
Doesnt this conflict with your position that it is not your place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives?
Click to expand...

No because it is my opinion and my opinion only. I am not looking to force my opinion on those that do not share it. I'm not looking to dictate anything and the woman aborting the child is dictacting to a bunch of cells, not a human being. She is stopping cells from forming what could possible create a living human being in the future.
 
Goobieman said:
Talk about leaps in scenarios.

Firt, you demand that "all women" be held liable, and then you note that the woman is nominally at fault only "in some cases"

If its only in "some cases", then why the requirement that "all women" be held liable?
Click to expand...

How is this a leap? You are declaring abortion is murder, well this is a form of abortion.

Obviously that would be concluded in the trial. All women would be tried for third-degree murder to see if it was indeed their own bodies that killed the child, hence themselves unintentionally murdering a human being by your stance.

I used the word "some" because I would think there are instances where it was not the mother's body that denied the child, so she would be seen not guilty. I could be wrong though.

It would be hypocritical for Pro-life individuals to call "murder" under the specific situation of first degree but not under second and third degree. You don't get to pick and choose murder just to meet your political position.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
How is this a leap? You are declaring abortion is murder, well this is a form of abortion.
Click to expand...
I've said no such thing.

The leap in yur argument is obvious -- that because some women might cause a miscarrige though neglect, all women that have a miscarriage should be charged with manslaughter.
How does that make any sense?

Obviously that would be concluded in the trial. All women would be tried for third-degree murder to see if it was indeed their own bodies that killed the child, hence themselves unintentionally murdering a human being by your stance.
Click to expand...
Ah. A chance to prove themselves innocent. Excellent idea.
 
Goobieman said:
I've said no such thing.
Click to expand...

Oh so you do not think abortion is murder? My mistake. I would say most other Pro-life individuals disagree with you.

Goobieman said:
The leap in yur argument is obvious -- that because some women might cause a miscarrige though neglect, all women that have a miscarriage should be charged with manslaughter.
How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

I said they should be charged, not convicted.
Goobieman said:
Ah. A chance to prove themselves innocent. Excellent idea.
Click to expand...

That is why we have a court system.
 
Gibberish said:
I said they should be charged, not convicted.
That is why we have a court system.
Click to expand...
We have a court system so people can proive their innocence?

Dont you think, under your scenario, that the situation would be investigated -before- charges were filed, rather than taking someone to court first and determining the facts second?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom