• 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
Redress said:
Good lord Zyphlin. You bring up college lesbians and you think guys are going to even notice your point? Once most guys get to that point, they will be thinking about anything but politics...

Edit: well, except for Jallman, but the reason for that should be obvious.
Click to expand...

Sadly it was not as exciting as one would be led to believe. Then again I'm a bit of a helpless romantic and the one oppertunity I had to take advantage of the situation was unfortunantly screwed up by those horrible things known as "emotions".

Grumble Grumble
 
K-1 said:
The onus is not on me to back it up, the onus is on liberals to back up their foolhardy opinion that somehow homosexuality is congenital.
Click to expand...

First off...not a liberal here. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Secondly, evidence has been provided on this forum in numerous places indicating that there are genetic factors that make one predisposed to homosexuality.

So when did you "make a choice" to be straight?
 
K-1 said:
This topic is silly. People choose to be gay, they are not born gay.
Click to expand...

jallman said:
Back this assertion up?
Click to expand...

K-1 said:
The onus is not on me to back it up, the onus is on liberals to back up their foolhardy opinion that somehow homosexuality is congenital.
Click to expand...

You made a statement of fact, it is therefore your responsibility to back up that statement. If Jallman had said "homosexuality is hereditary", he would be responsible for backing that statement, but he did not, he merely questioned your statement.
 
I have seen children born with more female tendencies, and more male, I don't know if this automatically makes them gay, but there is a good chance of that. I don't think this makes them defective, nor is it a disorder, as they are able to live their lives, and many flourish.

This is of course unscientific, but it is all I have to offer.:shrug:
 
Jackboot said:
I have seen children born with more female tendencies, and more male, I don't know if this automatically makes them gay, but there is a good chance of that. I don't think this makes them defective, nor is it a disorder, as they are able to live their lives, and many flourish.

This is of course unscientific, but it is all I have to offer.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Being a gay male does not mean being effeminate, nor does being a gay woman mean you are "butch". There are some incredibly feminine lesbians, and some gay men who are more "manly" than most men. Other than that, I think you are exactly right.
 
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...

The whole point of evolution is to perpetuate the species. Pockets of homosexuality are not a detriment to the perpetuation of the human species, in fact, some can argue that it is beneficial.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Being a gay male does not mean being effeminate, nor does being a gay woman mean you are "butch". There are some incredibly feminine lesbians, and some gay men who are more "manly" than most men. Other than that, I think you are exactly right.
Click to expand...

Well of course you are right, but then I would never have guessed, but I try not to peek in to others bedrooms.;)
 
K-1 said:
This topic is silly. People choose to be gay, they are not born gay.
Click to expand...

I used to believe this was true but nothing is ever that simple. Human sexuality is most likely the result of a subtle and complex interplay between genetics and environment, not a simplistic choice.
 
Jackboot said:
Well of course you are right, but then I would never have guessed, but I try not to peek in to others bedrooms.;)
Click to expand...

I have gay family, so I have been around gay people since I was about 8. I agree though, for the most part, it's none of my business, and gays who bring it up annoy me. Why do I care...
 
Ethereal said:
The whole point of evolution is to perpetuate the species. Pockets of homosexuality are not a detriment to the perpetuation of the human species, in fact, some can argue that it is beneficial.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Evolution is about a species, not the individual members of the species. Homosexuality may have been a socially beneficial adaptation back in the hunter/gatherer times that kept other members of the tribe from being eaten by lions and ****.
 
Ethereal said:
The whole point of evolution is to perpetuate the species. Pockets of homosexuality are not a detriment to the perpetuation of the human species, in fact, some can argue that it is beneficial.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not have a point. It is something that happens. Evolution does not set out to make more fit plants and animals, that is just the result. Further, if I understand things correctly, selection happens on the individual level, not on a species. Dawkins talks about perpetuating genes, not species as an example.
 
Tucker Case said:
Exactly. Evolution is about a species, not the individual members of the species. Homosexuality may have been a socially beneficial adaptation back in the hunter/gatherer times that kept other members of the tribe from being eaten by lions and ****.
Click to expand...
Maybe it also helped keep population down.

But, no one has ever been able to explain this to me...
If people with blue eyes reporduced at the same rate as homosexuality, how long before the blue-eye gene died out, and why doesn that exttinction then apply to homosexuality?
 
Goobieman said:
Maybe it also helped keep population down.

But, no one has ever been able to explain this to me...
If people with blue eyes reporduced at the same rate as homosexuality, how long before the blue-eye gene died out, and why doesn that exttinction then apply to homosexuality?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't die out even if every blued eyed person who is ever born is prevented from procreating.

The genes that dictate blue eyes are recessive, so it is often dormant within the brown-eyed populations.

For example, my father has blue eyes. I have brown eyes. I know I carry the genes necessary to have a blue eyed child becuae that is all I could receive from my father.

The same is true for my wife.

If we assume there are only two genes involved with this trait (there are more, but for the illustation,m we'll just go with a mendellian genotype comparison)

B = brown eyed gene, b = blue eyed gene, both my wife and I have the genotype of Bb.

We a phenotypically brown-eyed, though, because B is dominant.

So when we have children, we each will either pass on a B or a b.

Out of four children ,the genotypes possible are BB, Bb, bB, and bb.

Of these four combination, three will be phenotypically brown eyed: BB, Bb, and bB.

One will have blue eyes: bb.

So while our children have a 75% chance of having brown eyes, they actually have a 75% chance of carrying the gene for blue eyes.

50% of our children would have the chance to be brown eyed with the blue eyed gene so that they don't display the blue eyed trait, but carry on the genes.

If I was breedig with a woman who was genotypically BB, teh results would be:

BB, Bb, BB, and BB


In that case, all children would have brown eyes, there is only a 25% chance that each one would carry the blue eyed gene.

If I was breeding with a woman who was bb the results would be:

bB, bb, bB, bb.

All children would carry the blue-eyed gene, and there would be a 50/50 chance for either eye color.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
It wouldn't die out even if every blued eyed person who is ever born is prevented from procreating.

The genes that dictate blue eyes are recessive, so it is often dormant within the brown-eyed populations.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- I asked the wrong question.

If people with the blue-eye gene reporduced at the same rate as homosexuality, how long before the blue-eye gene died out, and why doesn't that extinction then apply to homosexuality?
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- I asked the wrong question.

If people with the blue-eye gene reporduced at the same rate as homosexuality, how long before the blue-eye gene died out, and why doesn't that extinction then apply to homosexuality?
Click to expand...

I think he answered that question already. A recessive gene can be passed on despite the gene not being expressed. I guess if homosexuality were a recessive gene, you could theoretically have generations go by with no homosexual being born at all and still have the gene present in the population.

Statistically that would be damned near impossible but you get my point.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- I asked the wrong question.

If people with the blue-eye gene reporduced at the same rate as homosexuality, how long before the blue-eye gene died out, and why doesn't that extinction then apply to homosexuality?
Click to expand...

You mean if the heteros that carried the hypothetical gay gene dormantly also didn't reproduce?
 
jallman said:
I think he answered that question already. A recessive gene can be passed on despite the gene not being expressed.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it depends on the gene being reproduced. The lower rate at which this happens, the less time the gene will remain in the pool.
 
Tucker Case said:
You mean if the heteros that carried the hypothetical gay gene dormantly also didn't reproduce?
Click to expand...
No -- if people with the [x] gene, regarldess of orientation, reprodoced at the same rate as homosexual reproduce.
 
Goobieman said:
No -- if people with the [x] gene, regarldess of orientation, reprodoced at the same rate as homosexual reproduce.
Click to expand...

Oh well clearly that would be an issue. Homosexuals reproduce at a lower rate for more reasons that the homosexual behavior. I imagine if the whole population reproduced at the same rate as homosexuals, there would be some shift in the social model that would lead to the population practicing different customs for reproduction.

You would probably first see a degradation in the practice of monogamy.
 
No vote
Utterly disgusting is the initial and immediate response.
Of course no baby should be aborted...........
no baby(still in the womb) could possibly be proven to be homosexual with todays "technology".
Now, should a "baby" who is unfortuniate enough to be a jumbled mess of twins plus be aborted.
yes:(
A fetus without eyes?
yes:(
 
Goobieman said:
Yes, but it depends on the gene being reproduced. The lower rate at which this happens, the less time the gene will remain in the pool.
Click to expand...

Not really. It would still pass on for generations without any outward expression.

Let's look at colorblindness. This is a recessive trait linked to the X chromosome. It's more prevalent in men because we only have one X chromosome so for men, it expresses itself as a dominant trait.

If every man with the flawed X (outward signs of colorblindness) didn't reproduce, then there would never be another female who was colorblind again. Can't happen unless the father is colorblind and the mother is either colorblind or a carrier of the flawed gene.

So lets assume all men with the flawed X stop reproducing. Let's imagine a hypothetical where they are all aborted in utero.

Thus, there would never be any chance of expressing the gene ever again.

But the gene would still pass on.

The mother would have a 50% chance of passing it on to her daughters.

It would continue on in the females who will never, ever express the trait for eternity. This is how it passed on to me. My grandmother is th ecarrier, who passed it on to my mother who passed it on to me. She may have passed it to my sister, who in turn might have passed it to her own daughter.

The fact that the gene is extant means it will always end up resurfacing.
 
Redress said:
Evolution does not have a point. It is something that happens. Evolution does not set out to make more fit plants and animals, that is just the result.
Click to expand...

I agree. I had this same discussion about the random nature of evolution with OC. It only has a "point" in the abstract.

Further, if I understand things correctly, selection happens on the individual level, not on a species. Dawkins talks about perpetuating genes, not species as an example.
Click to expand...

Changes on the individual level can aggregate over the species, but I'm splitting hairs and agree with your point.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry -- I asked the wrong question.

If people with the blue-eye gene reporduced at the same rate as homosexuality, how long before the blue-eye gene died out, and why doesn't that extinction then apply to homosexuality?
Click to expand...

The gene wouldn't 'die out', so to speak, even if everyone with blue eyes on planet Earth were to stop reproducing. The first worldwide generation without blue eyes would have children with blue eyes in the second generation.
 
Redress said:
Evolution does not have a point. It is something that happens. Evolution does not set out to make more fit plants and animals, that is just the result. Further, if I understand things correctly, selection happens on the individual level, not on a species. Dawkins talks about perpetuating genes, not species as an example.
Click to expand...

It's more about how traits that exist will make it more likly those same genes pass on, even if they don't come form the individual expressing the trait.


For example, let's say homosexuality led there to be more males that can be trusted to be left with the females and not bang them when the other men go out hunting.

Being men, they have more physical prowess in general than the average female, and they are not forced to worry about the kids, so they might be more useful in defending the tribe form lions and ****. Keeping the younger ones, probably related to the homosexuals in some way, alive.

Let's say there are many siblings in this group. Their genes are more likely to pass on because of the homosexual's presence. Their genes are also likely to be similar to the genes of the homosexual individual.

So although that man does not pass on his own genes, he ensures the survival of the genes that benefit the species by his very existence AND he helps select for his own genes survival via dormant passing on through hetero siblings.
 
Singularity said:
The gene wouldn't 'die out', so to speak, even if everyone with blue eyes on planet Earth were to stop reproducing. The first worldwide generation without blue eyes would have children with blue eyes in the second generation.
Click to expand...
The blue-eye GENE, not blue eyes.
I rephrased the question as I originally asked it improperly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom