• 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
What an outrageous cop out that is. Whose freaking fault is it?

If it's her god damn choice than it's her god damn fault.

Removing the fetus from her body is her choice. Its death is her fault. The fact that it has to die to be removed from her body is not her fault. Stop screaming at me.
 
C'mon Ya'll Give it up.... you've been going in circles for the last 100 posts!

Relax, Caine. We're just having little mental mastabatory fun. And no one's getting hurt, either. :mrgreen:
 
I purposefully did NOT read any posts other than the first...

It is NOT OK to abort any baby regardless of anything past the Embryo Stage of Development.

Any person that would Abort due to the projected Sexual Preference of the child should not be a parent in the first place...
 
Although acting on a homosexual orientation is something that is a behavior choice and thus a woman aborting for "gayness" is dictating whether or not a person should live based on a potential behavior, Tay-Sachs is a disease that one cannot help but manifest and therefore the same logic can't be applied.

Even so, I still believe that a ZEF with Tay-Sachs is a person--perhaps his mother may not, and merely considers it diseased tissue. I believe she is wrong, but working with the pro-choice logic offered here (if the pro-choice side would admit to it and accept they cannot justify killing fetus' for gayness by their own reasoning), identifying a disease is not the same as identifying a "preference."

Excellent post, showing how my potential 'red herring' was easily refutable. I agree there is a difference because, even if there is a gay gene, gayness is not a disease. It is a behavioral response to sexual orientation, same as heterosexuality.
 
Try this Jerry. :2wave:

In the unlikely event that my wife becomes pregnant by me again, and she chooses to keep it against my will, she will have forced that life, the life of raising a 3rd child, upon me.

It would be my will to force her to abort that child. Pro-Life would bar me from doing so.

To bar me from forcing my beliefs on another is to force that belief of yours onto me, which by your own logic you have no right to do.

PL actively enables mothers to dictate to others how they will live, which PL says no person has a right to do.

Makes sense. This is the problem with most abortion debates and why my own position on it fluctuates.

Decided to put my analogy up there as a refernce point.

Unlike CoffieSaint style Pro-Choice, Pro-Life accepts the notion that it is acceptable to force one's will upon another in qualified circumstances, so there is no hypocrisy in your analogy on PL's part.

So in other words, you are saying that my analogy is perfectly acceptable to the pro-life position? A pro-lifer would not be allowed to force their will on one to prevent an abortion? Doesn't sound like the pro-life position to me.

In PL’s eyes, if the mother wishes to force the father to have a child against his will, she is just in doing so.

Is the essence of pro-life, anti-choice?

Also, PL Christians would argue that you, in that situation, are obligated to set aside your own wishes to abort, and take care this new child; to act and to treat it as though you deeply love and care for it, even if you really don't, because you are in the wrong for not wanting it.

I totally do not adhere to this viewpoint, but I understand the consistency of the PL Christian view, here.

The equivalent to that from PC would be PC Atheists/Humanists arguing that you, in that situation, are obligated to embrace your own wishes and abort this new child; to act and to treat it as though you despise its existence, even if you really didn't, because you are in the right for not wanting it.

Not exactly. A PC Athiest view would be that you, in that sitaution are obligated to make a choice and either choice is an acceptable one.

But of coarse that is not a PC view, and so this stands as an illustration of the difference, which is not simply an opposite, in the premises and logical paths between PL and PC.

I think if I get you, correctly, you are saying what I always say about the abortion issue and why it is so difficult for me to consider myself on either side. There are too many issues and shades of gray when dealing with the pro-life/pro-choice argument.
 
I have already cast the "personhood" issue aside, so this is irrelivent.

If you eliminate this issue, the whole abortion issue becomes irrelevant. IF it, universally, is a person, then abortion should be stopped under all circumstances. If it, universally, is not a person, then abortion can be allowed for any reason.

You mean "She always has the right to give up her interest in {her} children....".

We call that "abandonment", which is a form of abuse.

Not necessarily. Adoption is not a form abuse.

Of coase we're still talking about abortion...I'm just doing my damndist to avoide the "personhood" issue....it's proving to be almost as dificult as finding unbiased reserch on homeschooling.

Intersting similarity, Jerry. Unfortunately, I don't see way to avoid the 'personhood' issue.
 
I'll have you know that I'm going in a octagon, Caption: a brake-line, Felicity in a hyper-cube, and Coffee in a downward spiral.

I'm a little slow, tonight...please explain. :2wave::confused:
 
If you eliminate this issue, the whole abortion issue becomes irrelevant. IF it, universally, is a person, then abortion should be stopped under all circumstances.

That's not the case.
You and I are people, yet we don't have the right to inhabit (or even touch) the bodies of other people against their will, nor to extract their bodily resources without their consent, even if we need them to live.
People, even female ones, have the right to bodily sovereignty.
It is a fundamental human right, and women do not relinquish their human rights when they consent to sex.
 
Just curious...is it too late to abort Goobieman for posing this question?

Tried hard not to laugh, but I failed, miserably.
 
That's not the case.
You and I are people, yet we don't have the right to inhabit (or even touch) the bodies of other people against their will, nor to extract their bodily resources without their consent, even if we need them to live.
People, even female ones, have the right to bodily sovereignty.
It is a fundamental human right, and women do not relinquish their human rights when they consent to sex.

This is why, just as the pro-choice position does, the pro-life position brings us to a sticky quagmire. From a pro-life position, which is what my quote you responded to was aimed at, if what you say is accurate, is it allowable to murder, when the murdered has no choice to utilize the mother's resources by the very nature of pregnancy? A pro-lifer would say no, murder is murder and the unborn has no choice, by the very nature of pregnancy, to utilize the mother's body.

Again, deciding personhood is the key component to any debate on abortion.

My brain is starting to hurt, as I notice I am, at times posting information on either side. Shows how confusing this issue is to me. I'm going to stand down for a while, until some of the electrical impulses in my cerebal cortex get jumpstarted. :doh:2razz: Happy holidays to all. :smile:
 
From a pro-life position, which is what my quote you responded to was aimed at, if what you say is accurate, is it allowable to murder,

Removing a person from your body or declining to allow a person to extract your bodily resources is not "murder". You have done them no injury; merely removed yourself from their vicinity. Surely that is permissable regardless of what ethical code one subscribes to.
If in fact a fetus is "a person", there is no valid reason on earth why declining to allow it to inhabit and utilize another person's body should be considered "murder".
People don't have the right to inhabit the bodies of other people who don't want them there, the end.
If in fact a fetus is not a person, on the other hand, then yes, perhaps disconnecting it from your body is the equivalent of "murdering" it... but in that case a fetus isn't a person but some sort of weird parasite, so who cares?
 
Removing a person from your body or declining to allow a person to extract your bodily resources is not "murder".

What a nice analogy, lets assume you are the legal guardian of a kid. Now removing that kid from your home (without the proper paperwork) or declining to allow the kid to extract resources (from your home) could land you in jail. When you are the guardian of a minor, you give up the rights not to give shelter / food to that person if receiving from nobody else.

You have done them no injury; merely removed yourself from their vicinity. Surely that is permissable regardless of what ethical code one subscribes to.

Then why is it a crime to "kill" this person when not performing an abortion? It doesn't matter if the condition is that the person is extracting your bodily resources. Pushing someone off a cliff is indirectly causing and is considered murder. Gravity (not extracting resources) is what kills.


If in fact a fetus is "a person", there is no valid reason on earth why declining to allow it to inhabit and utilize another person's body should be considered "murder".

Do you believe that aborting a baby a few days before its born and dies isn't considered murder?

People don't have the right to inhabit the bodies of other people who don't want them there, the end.

People also don't have the right to abandon or refuse to feed a child who is their legal guardian.

If in fact a fetus is not a person, on the other hand, then yes, perhaps disconnecting it from your body is the equivalent of "murdering" it... but in that case a fetus isn't a person but some sort of weird parasite, so who cares?

It has different human DNA and parasites are single celled organisms, not multi celled organisms. Few doctors would have it removed because it has parasitic properties.

in ending, you should have been aborted so I wouldn't have to reply. :smile:
 
What a nice analogy, lets assume you are the legal guardian of a kid. Now removing that kid from your home (without the proper paperwork) or declining to allow the kid to extract resources (from your home) could land you in jail. When you are the guardian of a minor, you give up the rights not to give shelter / food to that person if receiving from nobody else.



Then why is it a crime to "kill" this person when not performing an abortion? It doesn't matter if the condition is that the person is extracting your bodily resources. Pushing someone off a cliff is indirectly causing and is considered murder. Gravity (not extracting resources) is what kills.




Do you believe that aborting a baby a few days before its born and dies isn't considered murder?



People also don't have the right to abandon or refuse to feed a child who is their legal guardian.



It has different human DNA and parasites are single celled organisms, not multi celled organisms. Few doctors would have it removed because it has parasitic properties.

Yes, it's all laughably simple when you take a moronically simpleminded view, isn't it?
Except, Einstein, that there's no law saying that a "guardian" has to cram a "child" up her vagina, and then leave it there for months, now is there?
In fact, i'm pretty sure that would be against the law.
And there's no law saying a guardian has to "feed" a child the protein from her muscles, the iron from her blood, and the calcium from her bones and teeth.
And there's no law saying a parent can't relinquish guardianship of a child.
And as the biological relationship between a fetus and its host is in no way symbiotic, it is therefore a biologically parasitic relationship.
The host derives no benefit from the relationship; all benefit is to the fetus, at the detriment of the host.
The fetus sustains itself by extracting her bodily resources, and will continue to do so- with or without her consent- even to the detriment of her health and even, in rare cases, to her death.
See, there's the little fact that a woman's body is not an ambulatory incubator or a "fetus-house", but a possession belonging to her, which she can choose to share or not.
And her bodily resources are not government property, not "fetus-food", but her own bodily resources, her own personal property, which she can choose to share or not, just like a man.
That's why even semi-intelligent prolifers like the Cap'n admit there's more to the issue than just "Abortion is Child-Murder. If you has sex (or got raped) then you deserve to lose all your human rights. The end."

:roll:

in ending, you should have been aborted so I wouldn't have to reply. :smile:

I was born post-Roe.
If I "should" have been aborted, then I would've been.
Besides, if I'd been aborted, then my kids wouldn't be here now, and that's all we women are good for, isn't it? Squirting out fvck-trophies for men?

:roll:
 
Last edited:
1069, just so you know, I am not a pro-lifer. The abortion issue has always been difficult for me because of the conflict between the sanctity of life and the importance of self determination. This is why, whenever I participate in an abortion thread, I always find myself arguing both sides, and end up giving myself a brain cramp. When it comes right down to it, I am probably pro-choice, mostly for the reasons that you stated around the ability to self-sustain. Still, a very difficult issue.
 
So in other words, you are saying that my analogy is perfectly acceptable to the pro-life position?

PL is not the only abortion position which sees the forcing of one's will on another acceptable. To force a woman to abort her child is an Pro-Abortion position, not a Pro-Life position.

A pro-lifer would not be allowed to force their will on one to prevent an abortion?

The opposite is true.

Is the essence of pro-life, anti-choice?

If we are speaking of a choice and not abortion per-se nor a ZEF's life, than PL is against that choice with exception to qualified circumstances; ie, Anti-Choice, as PL seeks stricter regulation on that choice.

If we are speaking of abortion per-se its self, and not a woman's choice nor the ZEF's life, then PL is Anti-Abortion.

Not exactly. A PC Athiest view would be that you, in that sitaution are obligated to make a choice and either choice is an acceptable one.

I meant to show that the difference between PL and PC is more than an opposite viewpoint, but that the 2 think differently as well.
 
I don't know anyone who values the sanctity of innocent human life could be pro abortion/choice........
 
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:
To bar me from forcing my beliefs on another is to force that belief of yours onto me, which by your own logic you have no right to do.
...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.
 
If you eliminate this issue, the whole abortion issue becomes irrelevant. IF it, universally, is a person, then abortion should be stopped under all circumstances. If it, universally, is not a person, then abortion can be allowed for any reason.

Well, SCOTUS doesn't have to establish prenatal "personhood" at conception.
It could establish it at 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or simply differ the whole thing to each individual state.

Not necessarily. Adoption is not a form abuse.

Not adoption but the at-whim relinquishing of one's children. The PC argument that a great number of foster children do not get adopted supports my point here.

Intersting similarity, Jerry. Unfortunately, I don't see way to avoid the 'personhood' issue.

Perhaps I'm only delaying the inevitable, but it sure is an exorcize.
 
I'm a little slow, tonight...please explain. :2wave::confused:

Well, I would be moving in a circle if not for the fact that I have a number of points, so I'm moving in an octagon.

You are not directly in the melee, but stop people here and there. So you are moving in a "brake line", which is a graphic on a blueprint which shows the edge of a plan without stopping the actual structure.

Felicity’s argument can only be observed as it moves through a given thread, just as a Hyper cube can only be observed as it moves through a given dimension. As with a hypercube, one must have a greater view of the bigger picture in order to fully observe and appreciate the shape and nature of Felicity’s argument.

And CoffieSaint?
A downward spiral, like an aircraft shot out of the sky, just like his argument.

Badoom psh!
I made a funny!
 
Well, SCOTUS doesn't have to establish prenatal "personhood" at conception.
It could establish it at 12 weeks, 24 weeks, or simply differ the whole thing to each individual state.

The supreme court is a body of people, given the task of deciding direction for the society we live in, they are not given a mandate from your god. Yet, you seem to base your stance on this issue within the perameteres of Biblical reference.....I suggest you make up your mind less God abandon you to He!!.



Not adoption but the at-whim relinquishing of one's children. The PC argument that a great number of foster children do not get adopted supports my point here.

OK...so you do not accept abortion, and frown upon adoption.....yet any fuctional human understands abstinence cannot work. What exactly....shall we do with the 40,000,000 number the Pro-Life side so adamently thows out there?



Perhaps I'm only delaying the inevitable, but it sure is an exorcize.


Is it now.....or is it merely a way to place an agenda before us, that lacks any feasible chance in the realtiy of this world?
 
I mean how bad is this POLL? No child deserves to be dismembered alive, gay or straight.

Ridiculous...........
 
I guess most people are either pro-life or pro-choice based on morals and feelings about the issue. I think that abortion is morally wrong and I plan to never change my view on the issue as I do now. I guess it all comes down to people and what happened personally to them to make a choice on this.

Heres a true story, I know this woman that is 19 years old. She would have sex here (with a few partners)... Then one day she traveled to Europe, she went to parties, got drunk, and have more sex. She then married a guy in (forgot the name of the country, provides free national health care), and came back here to the U.S. Later she finds out she's pregnant and pretty sure it happened when she got to the parties. So of course she got an abortion and didn't care at all. Meanwhile she doesn't meet her new husband for months, and is here having sex with people she had sex with before in the U.S.. Overall she is an immature loser and people like her are likely causing divorce rates to be so high. I think she should have been denied the abortion so she would stop having sex her for a few months cheating on her husband.

Now I'm going to get replies about woman who got raped etc, my response to that is the condition still shouldn't allow you to get an abortion. If woman only had sex with a guy they would have a child with, which most only do for pleasure, then this wouldn't be such a big issue.

They put pleasure in front of people lives and try to morally debate its correctness, they don't care if someone dies, they care if they get banged hard enough.

I haven't had any sex with anybody yet and won't until I get someone who I would have a child with.
 
I guess most people are either pro-life or pro-choice based on morals and feelings about the issue. I think that abortion is morally wrong and I plan to never change my view on the issue as I do now. I guess it all comes down to people and what happened personally to them to make a choice on this.

Heres a true story, I know this woman that is 19 years old. She would have sex here (with a few partners)... Then one day she traveled to Europe, she went to parties, got drunk, and have more sex. She then married a guy in (forgot the name of the country, provides free national health care), and came back here to the U.S. Later she finds out she's pregnant and pretty sure it happened when she got to the parties. So of course she got an abortion and didn't care at all. Meanwhile she doesn't meet her new husband for months, and is here having sex with people she had sex with before in the U.S.. Overall she is an immature loser and people like her are likely causing divorce rates to be so high. I think she should have been denied the abortion so she would stop having sex her for a few months cheating on her husband.

Now I'm going to get replies about woman who got raped etc, my response to that is the condition still shouldn't allow you to get an abortion. If woman only had sex with a guy they would have a child with, which most only do for pleasure, then this wouldn't be such a big issue.



Nobody cares about your anecotal so-called evidence; it's meaningless in the context of this debate.
I won't bother to respond with stories about women who have been raped, which would be equally meaningless to you.
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 (she was married at the time, although her marriage was on the rocks and would end shortly) and didn't want any more kids so she had an abortion, and never regretted it for a second.
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.
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".


They put pleasure in front of people lives and try to morally debate its correctness, they don't care if someone dies, they care if they get banged hard enough.

Oh yeah, and you got us prochoicers pegged, too.
We "don't care if somebody dies, as long as we get banged hard enough".
In fact, sometimes we "bang" people so hard they die, but we don't care; we just shove their corpses out of the bed, grab somebody else, and carry on with business. We couldn't care less.
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... well, except maybe the Cap'n, but he's sort of a half-arsed prochoicer, by his own admission. ;)

I haven't had any sex with anybody yet and won't until I get someone who I would have a child with.

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.
In fact, I wanted to have two children with him.
But neither of us wanted to have three.
MY life, MY body, MY CHOICE.

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, so perhaps we 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?"
 
I mean how bad is this POLL? No child deserves to be dismembered alive, gay or straight.

Ridiculous...........

I agree but there is a lesson here for our pro abortion/choice friends......
 
Nobody cares about your anecotal so-called evidence
MY life, MY body, MY CHOICE.

Saying that nobody cares about my anecotal so-called evidence is a statement based on an assumption not proven to be true. Your replies haven't even come close to dent my belief that abortion is murder.

MY BODY, MY CHOICE

Lets see how pro-abortionist think...

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.

Perhaps you should refrain from making false statements, assumptions, broken analogies, or a set of conditions to justify it to try to convert people to believe abortion is ok. People can believe different things, just look at the Muslim world. I can see how people have such different moral beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom