• 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
Nearly all your statements you have made in the post appear to be blatant lies.

You said that and I quote!



The burden of proof is on you to prove that the above statement is true.

Keep on lying you very liberal feminist. Do you lie because you can't use truths to debate with? You have replied with statements that are false, untrue, and unproven. You remind me when some people though the world was flat and refused to provide proof to back their claim.

Please reply with more of your lies.



You do lie. Far left liberal feminist shouldn't be trusted.

Your making the assumption that it is not adding credibility to my case. Who else here believes 1069 lies purposely?

Having done some research, 1069's information seems to be valid and documented, both about Aristotle and the early Catholic Church. As of now, however, I have a migrane, and cannot look at the monitor any longer. I'll post it, tomorrow.
 
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.
My first question is--have you converted? Is that why you care what the Church has said concerning abortion? Welcome home! In case that is not the case....here's some facts concerning Church Doctrine.

Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment.
Have you read anything concerning this particular pope OTHER than his pronouncement on abortion?

Sixtus V was a major "reformer" type. He did much good in his short papacy (5 years), but he was quite the mercurial personality. He is also the pope who attempted to issue a translation of the Vulgate that was riddled with errors. He was a vain and impatient man. He dropped dead before the error filled Bible could be officially promulgated. I personally view that as God protecting his Church, but others may see it as a coincidence that his death was what stopped him from contradicting Jesus' promise to keep the Church free from error.


Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions.
Not exactly--It was the bureaucratic mess of having the Vatican deal with every suspicion of attempted abortion. Furthermore--the Church, in Sixtus' bull (I think it was a papal bull, but I may be mistaken)--was dabbling too liberally in the rule of sovereign states. The bull was rescinded as a result of the bureaucratic mess--not the error in viewing abortion at every stage as killing and a grave evil.

This remained the official position of the Church until 1869, when Pope Pius IX again declared all abortion murder.
Pius merely asserted what the earliest Catholic tradition concerning abortions had been. Look to the Church Fathers to determine the Catholic stance:

The early Church Fathers agreed. Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.


The Didache
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).


The Letter of Barnabas
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).


The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).


Athenagoras
"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).


Tertullian
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).


Minucius Felix
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).


Hippolytus
"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).


Council of Ancyra
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great
"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).


John Chrysostom
"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).


Jerome
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).


The Apostolic Constitutions
"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).


Abortion

...and another interesting article...

The Human Embryo in Christian Tradition - Historical Note
 
Last edited:
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.
No laws against is not the same as "legal right." You apply a lack of scientific knowledge and philosophical debate as a purposeful consent to killing in the womb. That is dishonest concerning the level of medical knowledge/philisophical discussion of the time.


After Pius IX's edict, states one by one passed legislation against abortion; it was not banned in all states until 1889.
Exactly how does the Catholic Church influence the laws of the United States? Not sure how you are connecting these two things.

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).
Simply false--It was NEVER
legalized, it was simply not legislated. Look at the Hypocratic Oath which has been CHANGED to reflect modern notions concerning abortion. FROM THE 4TH CENTURY BC:
....will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.



Quit the PATHETIC attempts to re-write history to suit your heathen agenda.
 
Last edited:
Having done some research, 1069's information seems to be valid and documented, both about Aristotle and the early Catholic Church. As of now, however, I have a migrane, and cannot look at the monitor any longer. I'll post it, tomorrow.
Hope you're feeling better soon...and before you post, check over the agenda laced slant of the information so you do not appear as biased and misinformed as the misguded revisionist 1069.
 
<Comintery>
*No, society has most definitely held the individual interests of its members at heart.

*It is for selfish gain.

*We are not speaking of the right of pro-life people to vote their conscience and try to eliminate abortion. They have that right, provided their goal is to serve the best interests of society -- which is to protect the individual's freedoms. If their goal is selfish.

*It is her body, it is her freedom; all the rest of you are infringing on it, and society has the right to stop you.

*Then you agree with me?
<I agree with the logic, though since I hold a different premise I do not agree with your conclusion>

*Pro-life has the right to try to eliminate abortion as long as they are not doing it for selfish reasons, and as long as their efforts are intended to protect the freedoms of individual members of society.
<That's exactly what they are doing>

*There is a difference: which side is attempting to live up to the purpose of society, which is to enact laws to protect the freedoms and rights of its individual members?

*The right to force a woman to bear a child to term because you happened to impregnate her is not spelled out in the Constitution, either. So if I am arguing for a non-existent right, then so are you.
<...Troxil...>

*But bodily sovereignty will carry the day. It is far more basic and fundamental than is the right to protect a parent's interests in his child. Your body, your self, must always come first.
<"bodily sovereignty" does not exist--your body is under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and thus is not sovereign>

*The individual right you are arguing for does not exist....
<...Troxil...>

*I change my argument.
<then you strawman--your argument has been defeated, let it lay.>

*It comes back to who has first claim to the body in question, and who thus has the individual freedom that is being infringed by other interested parties: it is the woman, not the fetus, and so it matters not at all if the fetus is in fact a person. The woman's body, the woman's choice.
<This is why I often quote Roe Sect. 9a, because rights have rank and priority, so if a ZEF is given "personhood" it has priority claim over it's mothers body, again, per Roe Sect. 9a.>
Much of what you say here is a repeat of what I have already contested, and I will not repeat my arguments here..

All roads lead to "personhood".

I have avoided it for as long as I could, but it seems that the inevitable has finally caught up with me.

Almost all abortion threads are Complex Questions, which is why so little actual communication occurs in them. They are inherently illogical from the OP on.

Whatever Complex Question is posed, the conversation always comes back to Roe and "personhood".

Someone quotes the legal definition of "Person": "A human being", at which point the conversation leaves the realm of law and into philosophy, as "being" is not legally defined.

In the end it always comes down to Atheism/Humanism -v- Theism/Deism; that is, it always comes down to whether one accepts the premise that reality travel from the consciousness down to the flesh, or from the flesh up to consciousness.

It is the struggle of Flesh -v- Spirit.

If we do not first agree on the Natural Law premise, we will not agree on any conclusions.

***
Pursuant to:
Men are irrelevant to the question of a pregnant woman, and should remain so.
Your entire argument is irrelevant.
 
Rights are imagined by people and agreed upon by societies.....

Like I said, Atheism/Humanism -v- Theism/Deism....it comes down to that every time....though you have already rendered your argument irrelevant, so there is nothing here I need to contest.
 
Like I said, Atheism/Humanism -v- Theism/Deism....it comes down to that every time....though you have already rendered your argument irrelevant, so there is nothing here I need to contest.

Even in seeking a peaceful end to a debate, you can't be gracious, can you?

By the way, Troxel v. Granville did not establish that right you claim. It simply upheld the striking of a statute that allowed too much of an infringement on parental rights.

Because the instant decision rests on §26.10.160(3)’s sweeping breadth and its application here, there is no need to consider the question whether the Due Process Clause requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition precedent to granting visitation or to decide the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context. There is also no reason to remand this case for further proceedings. The visitation order clearly violated the Constitution, and the parties should not be forced into additional litigation that would further burden Granville’s parental right. Pp. 14—17.

Justice Souter concluded that the Washington Supreme Court’s second reason for invalidating its own state statute–that it sweeps too broadly in authorizing any person at any time to request (and a judge to award) visitation rights, subject only to the State’s particular best-interests standard–is consistent with this Court’s prior cases. This ends the case, and there is no need to decide whether harm is required or to consider the precise scope of a parent’s right or its necessary protections. Pp. 1—5.
(emphasis added)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html

It established no rights, whatsoever; it simply upheld a lower court decision on a truly ridiculous case that tried to limit a parent's visitation rights for no reason whatsoever. It does not state that you have the right to do whatever you dam' well please as long as you happen to be the father.

But the fact is, I'm tired of arguing with you. You are a very tiring opponent. You want to call my argument irrelevant and a straw man, that's fine. You want to believe that you have the right to enslave people, go ahead. You want to think you won and I went in a downward spiral, feel free. Have a happy New Year.
 
Even in seeking a peaceful end to a debate, you can't be gracious, can you?

Appeals to a victim mentality do not reach my ear. You have rendered the argument of every PC man irrelevant yourself.

Have a nice day.
 
Really, guys, this isn't contradictory. I'm sorry if it seems that way, but it is not. The only situation that would make this contradictory is if the fetus is a person -- and I know you both see it that way, but that doesn't make it so. We can keep going round and round about fetal personhood, but we don't have any better chance to solve it here than in any of our other attempts, and without fetal personhood -- as Captain Courtesy pointed out -- there is no contradiction in the pro-choice stance.

But the question doesnt revolve around the unborn baby, the question revolves around the person the unborn baby might become.

And in that, should she choose to abort the baby, the mother is indeed dictating how someone can/cannot live, creating a contradiction in the pro-choice position.

And you people thought this was a terrible topic. :mrgreen:
 
Having done some research, 1069's information seems to be valid and documented, both about Aristotle and the early Catholic Church. As of now, however, I have a migrane, and cannot look at the monitor any longer. I'll post it, tomorrow.

"Quit lying, quit lying, you very liberal feminist!!" ~ nes


:joke:
 
1069 said, “Cupcake, I've watched the real thing.
And so have you.
And we both know the videos are bullsh!t... even if only one of us will admit it.
I don't mind watching videos of deformed full-term stillbirths and dismembered latex baby-dolls smeared with ketchup.
I watched "Saw II" with my son awhile back; trust me, if I can sit through that, there's nothing in your pitiful little antichoice propaganda flicks that's going to faze me.”


Hey lamb chops……..I felt the real thing BUT I DID NOT WATCH IT. I have never ever in all the woman that I talk to on a daily basis about this heard of a woman who watched her own abortion. What did you ask them to do, put a mirror down there so you could enjoy the procedure? Man oh man......


Most videos that show abortion are very realistic. Of course your side doesn't want to admit that fact and you won't. You dont want woman to see the pictures....because if they did they would know it was murder.

Honey nothing would faze you anyway. If you condone the dismemberment of any baby in the womb at any time…….you will CONDONE JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. I can only imagine the things you condone.


Nes said, “ Keep on lying you very liberal feminist. Do you lie because you can't use truths to debate with? You have replied with statements that are false, untrue, and unproven. You remind me when some people though the world was flat and refused to provide proof to back their claim”

Oh Nes...your hilarious. She loves the line about the world is flat. She uses it a lot.




I don’t know why 1069 keeps bringing up the church…….this topic can be debated on what medical science alone says. Who cares what the church said or says……..what do the experts say today?


Felicity said, “Quit the PATHETIC attempts to re-write history to suit your heathen agenda.”


Oh honey you made my day. You go girl !!!!!!


Hope your feeling better CaptainCourtesy, head aches can be brutal.


“You want to believe that you have the right to enslave people, go ahead. You want to think you won and I went in a downward spiral, feel free”

Enslave or kill innocent unborn babies? I'd rather enslave a woman for 9 short months then dismember a living human person alive. THAT IS KILLING AND YOU KNOW IT. Your position is the one that is barbaric.
The sad thing is that you think this whole thing is about winning, thats what makes your position so pathetic. You think killing the unborn is winning.


You are the one who puts an X a bullseye on the babies forehead………if thats a win in your column then God help us all.
 
I'd rather enslave a woman for 9 short months then dismember a living human person alive. THAT IS KILLING AND YOU KNOW IT.
They get around this by arguing that it isn't a person.
Unquestionably, it kills an innocent human life - the subjective and inconsistient "personhood" argument is their way to get past that.

Must be nice for the killers to be to able decide who can and can't be killed. :roll:

In any case, the "personhood" of the unborn baby is irrelevant as the issue revolves around what might happen after the baby is born.
 
Last edited:
Hey lamb chops……..I felt the real thing BUT I DID NOT WATCH IT.

Well then, I guess you're the "chicken" you accuse me of being.
Perhaps Jesus will give you extra credit for averting your eyes.

I'd rather enslave a woman for 9 short months then dismember a living human person alive.

That's why you're not in a policy-making position.
America has refused to elect those who would "rather enslave women" for any amount of time. America has rejected both the idea that slavery is okay, and the proponents of that idea.

Your position is the one that is barbaric.

Forced gestation and childbirth is barbaric.
 
But the question doesnt revolve around the unborn baby, the question revolves around the person the unborn baby might become.

And in that, should she choose to abort the baby, the mother is indeed dictating how someone can/cannot live, creating a contradiction in the pro-choice position.

And you people thought this was a terrible topic. :mrgreen:

No, the question has nothing to do with what the unborn baby may become. The question is, does the presence of a gay gene merit abortion, and so what matters is the genetic information that is present before the baby is born, not the future behavior of that baby. She aborts it in the hypothetical because of the gene, not because of its adult behavior, real or imagined.


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. As I said, she has the right to be stupid, as long as she is being stupid with her own body. The basis of her right to abort is the fact that the unborn child has no right to take over her body; the reasons why she refuses to sacrifice herself for the child are irrelevant.

I have to say, though, this topic has led to some useful pondering on my part, so for that, I thank you.


Goobieman said:
They get around this by arguing that it isn't a person.
Unquestionably, it kills an innocent human life - the subjective and inconsistient "personhood" argument is their way to get past that.

Must be nice for the killers to be to able decide who can and can't be killed.

In any case, the "personhood" of the unborn baby is irrelevant as the issue revolves around what might happen after the baby is born.

It isn't a person. It is human, but "innocent" is a pointless descriptor unless one is religious -- and I'm not, but more importantly, our government is not and our rights are not.

I am not a killer. I do not decide who lives or dies, because I do not dictate to a woman whether she should abort her fetus or not; the decision isn't up to me. I've never killed anything bigger than a mouse.

Actually, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant 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.
 
It isn't a person. It is human, but "innocent" is a pointless descriptor unless one is religious -- and I'm not, but more importantly, our government is not and our rights are not.
That's an odd sentiment. Religion is not a prerequisite for right/wrong or good/evil. Certainly a lack of religion does not render one blind to guilt and innocence.

I am not a killer. I do not decide who lives or dies, because I do not dictate to a woman whether she should abort her fetus or not; the decision isn't up to me. I've never killed anything bigger than a mouse.

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

Actually, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant 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.

Personhood is irrelevant because it's subjective and the government dictates who is and who isn't a person. No one takes over a pregnant woman's body. If a woman is healthy nothing is sacrificed in pregnancy and in fact bearing children has been medically proven to have health benefits! Describing pregnancy as some sort of hostile take over of ones body by that of another is sort of hysterical.

And by the way one person is not legally allowed to take over the body of another person. But the unborn aren't people. So the rules don't apply to them! Right?
 
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. As I said, she has the right to be stupid, as long as she is being stupid with her own body. The basis of her right to abort is the fact that the unborn child has no right to take over her body; the reasons why she refuses to sacrifice herself for the child are irrelevant.


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.

Apparently you share my view that many abortions are due to "hysteria."
 
No, the question has nothing to do with what the unborn baby may become. The question is, does the presence of a gay gene merit abortion, and so what matters is the genetic information that is present before the baby is born, not the future behavior of that baby. She aborts it in the hypothetical because of the gene, not because of its adult behavior, real or imagined.

Incorrect.
The given:
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.

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.
Tsk tsk tsk. Assuming that those who do not approve of homosexuals are afraid of them...
Want to go back to the Hoplophobia argument?

I have to say, though, this topic has led to some useful pondering on my part, so for that, I thank you.
I'm good like that. :mrgreen:

It isn't a person. It is human...
A human life. Right. That was my point.
"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.

but "innocent" is a pointless descriptor unless one is religious
Hardly. "Innocent" has many meanings, and not all of them have to do with religion.

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.

I am not a killer.
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.

Actually, the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant...
I think I said that :2razz:

...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.
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.
Same thing.
 
Incorrect.
The given:
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.

Then it becomes impossible to answer rationally. You are asking me to make a judgement in a situation in which I have no right to judge. My personal judgement would be that no, she does not have sufficient reason to abort her fetus, but again, my opinion makes absolutely no difference: she should still have the right to do it, whether I approve of it or not.

Is that an acceptable answer?

Tsk tsk tsk. Assuming that those who do not approve of homosexuals are afraid of them...
Want to go back to the Hoplophobia argument?
Is there a different word you would prefer I use for disapproval of homosexuality? My understanding of the colloquial use of homophobia is that it includes irrational dislike of homosexuality, as well as fear; thus it seemed fitting. But I am certainly not concerned with the term itself.

A human life. Right. That was my point.
"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.

And the mother is also a human life. And a person -- which is a legally applicable term in this issue, like it or not. But this is an argument that we are not going to resolve.

Hardly. "Innocent" has many meanings, and not all of them have to do with religion.

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.

Yes, but since the mother is also innocent by ANY standard, the innocence of the child is not relevant; we are comparing the rights of these two innocent people, not the child and a murderer or rapist. As such, the term "innocent" is only an attempt to appeal to emotion.

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.

Does that mean you are responsible for every killing committed with a gun? And are a parent to every child that is not aborted?

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.

I think I said that :2razz:
And you were right.

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.
Same thing.

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.
 
[
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:
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.
 
Then it becomes impossible to answer rationally. You are asking me to make a judgement in a situation in which I have no right to judge.
:roll: That's never stopped you before.

My personal judgement would be that no, she does not have sufficient reason to abort her fetus
Why?

Is there a different word you would prefer I use for disapproval of homosexuality?
How about "those that disapprove of homosexuals"?

Yes, but since the mother is also innocent by ANY standard, the innocence of the child is not relevant
:shock:
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.
:shock:

Tell me you didnt just say that.

we are comparing the rights of these two innocent people, not the child and a murderer or rapist
We are also conparing death to, in some cases, simple inconvenience.
You;re arguing that someone's right to avoid inconvenience trumps someone's right to avoid death.

As such, the term "innocent" is only an attempt to appeal to emotion.
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.

Does that mean you are responsible for every killing committed with a gun?
ooh- nice try.
But, see, I dont argue that criminals have a right to kill people, so you fall a little short.

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.
Nice backpedal.
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.
 
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.

Pro abortion people kill their babies for much weaker reasons then that......
 
As noted, it was to indicate that the unborn baby had done nothing wrong.

It is extracting the bodily resources of another person, to the detriment of her health.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom