• 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
windovervocalcords said:
If it becomes a government policy to retrict abortions except in cases when the fetus is gay or disabled or female then that would move the abortions into a gencide category.

We don't have that kind of policy now, but if the anti-abortion crowd had a choice we would.

Some of the same folks that are anti-abortion are homophobic too.
Click to expand...

Only if the policy is considered mandatory does it move towards genocide.

As long the choice to abstain exists. it wouldn't really be systematic elimination of a group of people.
 
Absolutley​
​


....but only if they can see into the future and see that this is that baby....

perez-hilton.jpg
 
That piggish fat grunge faggot freak should have been aborted twice. I still say its not too late...
 
Haha, I knew there'd be at least one person on here that'd appreciate the humor in that.
 
Zyphlin said:
Haha, I knew there'd be at least one person on here that'd appreciate the humor in that.
Click to expand...

I can't even hear that thing's name without this fire starting in my belly and my lowest instincts becoming inflamed with murderous intent.

There's never been a "celebrity" I hated but I can say I genuinely hate that nelly clown.
 
jallman said:
That would be Perez Hilton. I also like to call him Dogsh1t, Smegma Breath, Choad Cheese and, if I am lucky one day, Target Practice.
Click to expand...

Of the hotel Hiltons?
 
O.k, the face does match the Carrie (I like to masturbate, and video myself doing it, but I am a christian, blah, blah, blah) Perjean story.:doh
 
jallman said:
I can't even hear that thing's name without this fire starting in my belly and my lowest instincts becoming inflamed with murderous intent.

There's never been a "celebrity" I hated but I can say I genuinely hate that nelly clown.
Click to expand...

You really need to stop repressing your feelings and really say what you think.
 
windovervocalcords said:
The question in the poll is not about what is legal, it is about what is 'ok'.
Click to expand...

I think it's ok for a parent to be the one deciding the reasons for an abortion - no one else.

That's my very broad general abortion view, there. I consider the reasons to be a private issue.
 
IMO, anyone who says that it's OK to abort a baby "for any reason" and also supports hate crime legislation is a hypocrite.
 
Dav said:
IMO, anyone who says that it's OK to abort a baby "for any reason" and also supports hate crime legislation is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Oh good - phew :doh 'cause I don't support hate crime legislations :shrug: I consider them to be unfair - I don't think the perpetrators feelings should put them in jail longer or give them a harsher punishment - it's unfair to those who are victims of those same crimes without racial slurs being tossed into the mix.

(example)
If Person A attacked person B with a baseball bat resulting in injury - and it's classified as a hate crime, then person A gets in jail for 5 years.
If Person C attacked person D with a baseball bat resulting in the SAME injuries - and it's NOT classified as a hate crime, then person C doesn't get put in jail as long as person A - person C might just get 2 years in jail.

How does that make sense? Someone is punished less than someone else while comitting the same crime? That's unjust to the victim. I think that hate-crime extreme should be the mandatory and everyone should be in jail for same time for the same crimes.

However - I don't see a relation between the two :shrug: And that's not at all related ot the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
However- I don't see a relation between the two :shrug:
Click to expand...

It is hypocritical to say that the law shouldn't be based on motives when it comes to abortion, and then say that it should be based on motives for violent crimes when the motive in question is the same for both cases.
 
windovervocalcords said:
Some of the same folks that are anti-abortion are homophobic too.
Click to expand...

Nope, just look at it from an evolutionary perspective.

Parents typically want their genes to survive the test of time, down through the generations.

Parents also know that men who shoot their seed up the sewer pipe aren't likely to make babies that way.

So it makes perfect evolutionary sense for parents to eliminate a known defective fetus that's less likely to demonstrate reproductive success before committing all the resources a full pregnancy and upbringing will consume. Raising a child to maturity is a huge investment and shouldn't be wasted on projects with a demonstrated smaller likelihood of success.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Nope, just look at it from an evolutionary perspective.

Parents typically want their genes to survive the test of time, down through the generations.

Parents also know that men who shoot their seed up the sewer pipe aren't likely to make babies that way.

So it makes perfect evolutionary sense for parents to eliminate a known defective fetus that's less likely to demonstrate reproductive success before committing all the resources a full pregnancy and upbringing will consume. Raising a child to maturity is a huge investment and shouldn't be wasted on projects with a demonstrated smaller likelihood of success.
Click to expand...

:roll::roll::roll:
 
jallman said:
:roll::roll::roll:
Click to expand...

You might not like it Jall but he does have a point. Whole point of evolution is to evolve. The weak get's taken out and the strong survive. And a defective gene is a weakness.

Only difference between evolution by nature and evolution by man is that one is involuntary, the other is voluntary.

Of course a whole new arguement could be made on just what exactly is considered a defective gene. I know those that are born blind don't consider themselves defective so.... Heck they even have their own society.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You might not like it Jall but he does have a point. Whole point of evolution is to evolve. The weak get's taken out and the strong survive. And a defective gene is a weakness.

Only difference between evolution by nature and evolution by man is that one is involuntary, the other is voluntary.

Of course a whole new arguement could be made on just what exactly is considered a defective gene. I know those that are born blind don't consider themselves defective so.... Heck they even have their own society.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true Wilson progressive!:2wave:
 
Kal'Stang said:
You might not like it Jall but he does have a point. Whole point of evolution is to evolve. The weak get's taken out and the strong survive. And a defective gene is a weakness.

Only difference between evolution by nature and evolution by man is that one is involuntary, the other is voluntary.

Of course a whole new arguement could be made on just what exactly is considered a defective gene. I know those that are born blind don't consider themselves defective so.... Heck they even have their own society.
Click to expand...

Evolution of the species is no longer dependent on every human being passing their genes.

And there is nothing defective about the homosexual's ability to reproduce given that we have artificial insemination. From a purely logical perspective, there is nothing barring the homosexual from passing on his genes, even if it were a necessity for the evolutionary survival of the species.

And considering the bulk of his arguments prior to now, I am sure you can overlook my natural lean toward suspicion of any argument he uses that has the word "defect" or anything like it present.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Nope, just look at it from an evolutionary perspective.

Parents typically want their genes to survive the test of time, down through the generations.

Parents also know that men who shoot their seed up the sewer pipe aren't likely to make babies that way.

So it makes perfect evolutionary sense for parents to eliminate a known defective fetus that's less likely to demonstrate reproductive success before committing all the resources a full pregnancy and upbringing will consume. Raising a child to maturity is a huge investment and shouldn't be wasted on projects with a demonstrated smaller likelihood of success.
Click to expand...

This argument is such BS. It presupposes so many things that it makes no logical sense.
It presupposes that straight people would never want to "waste" their seed and would want to spread as much of their seed as possible to preserve their genes. So straight people don't engage in oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, birth control, etc.
Please....the human race is not the animal planet perpetuation of the species that you try to make in this argument.
 
jallman said:
Evolution of the species is no longer dependent on every human being passing their genes.

And there is nothing defective about the homosexual's ability to reproduce given that we have artificial insemination. From a purely logical perspective, there is nothing barring the homosexual from passing on his genes, even if it were a necessity for the evolutionary survival of the species.

And considering the bulk of his arguments prior to now, I am sure you can overlook my natural lean toward suspicion of any argument he uses that has the word "defect" or anything like it present.
Click to expand...

I agree. But doesn't mean that he doesn't have a valid point...from an evolutionary viewpoint.

You're viewpoint here and his are not incompatiable.
 
jallman said:
Evolution of the species is no longer dependent on every human being passing their genes.

And there is nothing defective about the homosexual's ability to reproduce given that we have artificial insemination. From a purely logical perspective, there is nothing barring the homosexual from passing on his genes, even if it were a necessity for the evolutionary survival of the species.

And considering the bulk of his arguments prior to now, I am sure you can overlook my natural lean toward suspicion of any argument he uses that has the word "defect" or anything like it present.
Click to expand...

artificial insemination - not a necessity. Sapphic women can still get pregnant the good old fashioned way - and gay men can knock up a Sapphic.

*gasp* the horror :roll:

syringes not required.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
artificial insemination - not a necessity. Sapphic women can still get pregnant the good old fashioned way - and gay men can knock up a Sapphic.

*gasp* the horror :roll:

syringes not required.
Click to expand...

How wonderful for the child? :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom