• 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
No vote, of course.
This is sick, truely sick !
And there is NOTHING "gay" about any man being homosexual!
If all those who participated in this farce were to leave "Debate", the forum would be improved !
 
This is sick, truely sick!
Why?
That someone would have an abortion because the child might be gay is "sicker" than having one out of convenience and/or selfishness?
How so?
 
On one hand you write that abortion is murder and a sin, and now you speculate on aborting Gay babies. How can you tell a gay baby while it is still in the womb. I know, I know. they have green spots on their left nipple.

I don't care if people want to be Gay, just as long as they don't try to convert me.

I have read that the same gene that causes people to be gay is the same gene found in people who voted for Bush in the last election.

I believe that some people may be Gay by genetics, and some are gay by learning. I believe that Some folks are so poor at relationships, so lost in seeking a mate, and so dam lonely,, that they take the first available offer and this is reinforced by use and practice. Maybe lonely people and people without confidence are vulnerable and can go either way. :comp:
:boom
 
It should be allowed to abort any baby that the mother wants to or father whose mother will not relinquish child support rights within the range of pregnancy before a certain point, what's the point of this poll???



On a separate topic, if a universal health care system is implemented the state should be given full rights to abort any baby it deems costly(monetarily) to society(deformities, mental retardation, etc), unless the parents forsake their child's right to public health care.
 
On one hand you write that abortion is murder and a sin, and now you speculate on aborting Gay babies. How can you tell a gay baby while it is still in the womb. I know, I know. they have green spots on their left nipple.

I don't care if people want to be Gay, just as long as they don't try to convert me.

I have read that the same gene that causes people to be gay is the same gene found in people who voted for Bush in the last election.

I believe that some people may be Gay by genetics, and some are gay by learning. I believe that Some folks are so poor at relationships, so lost in seeking a mate, and so dam lonely,, that they take the first available offer and this is reinforced by use and practice. Maybe lonely people and people without confidence are vulnerable and can go either way. :comp:
:boom

Take the time to read the first post in this thread and you will see its a hypothetical situation.........
 
/conservative sarcasm/

Hell yea! AboRt them Dere QueeR BaBieS! We don'T NEeD no MoRe of them Dere QueeRs Runnin' ArounD QueerIn' Up duh PlaCe. them DaMned LibRuhls woUlD reallY haTe thAt WudenT Dey JetHro? YEEEE DoGGiE!
 
Last edited:
Liberals believe in abortion on demand and for any reason the mother gives so one can only assume that they would say it would be alright to abort a gay baby...........
 
Of course it's okay.

Until a child has been born, named, and adopted into a family, it has no rights and exists solely at the mercy of the woman whose physiology is supporting it. If I can morally accept abortion to preserve her youthful figure, or abortion to select the sex of her child... how can I condemn her for aborting on the basis of future sexual preference?

I'll note that plenty of people who are morally aghast at the notion of aborting a fetus biologically predisposed to homosexuality would happily support the notion of disowning and condemning a grown child for following that disposition.

How is that moral?
 
Of course it's okay.

Until a child has been born, named, and adopted into a family, it has no rights and exists solely at the mercy of the woman whose physiology is supporting it. If I can morally accept abortion to preserve her youthful figure, or abortion to select the sex of her child... how can I condemn her for aborting on the basis of future sexual preference?

I'll note that plenty of people who are morally aghast at the notion of aborting a fetus biologically predisposed to homosexuality would happily support the notion of disowning and condemning a grown child for following that disposition.

How is that moral?

Just because some of us have a different opinion on gay marriage or gays in the military does not mean we wish them any physical harm or that we hate them............
 
Just because some of us have a different opinion on gay marriage or gays in the military does not mean we wish them any physical harm or that we hate them............

Just because some of you don't, doesn't mean that all of you don't. There's plenty of violent rhetoric directed against homosexuals, and not all of it from disreputable fringe groups.

I'll also note that cutting your son or daughter out of your family is a far cry from wishing physical harm upon him or her... but I have seen it happen more than once.
 
Of course it's okay.

Until a child has been born, named, and adopted into a family, it has no rights and exists solely at the mercy of the woman whose physiology is supporting it.
That's not true. A born baby left unnamed and abandoned by it's mother in a trash can is still considered a person by today's law.
 
Just because some of you don't, doesn't mean that all of you don't. There's plenty of violent rhetoric directed against homosexuals, and not all of it from disreputable fringe groups.

I'll also note that cutting your son or daughter out of your family is a far cry from wishing physical harm upon him or her... but I have seen it happen more than once.

I think those examples are the exception and not the rule........The problem is if you have a difference of opinion radical gays and feel good liberals automatically brand you a homophobe or a bigot...........

I have had gay co workers and am presently on a golf team where our best golfer ( a 2 handicap) is gay and when I told him about this forum he and his partner got a huge kick put of it........Its funny they just want to live their lives in peace without a lot of notoriety..........I have been called a bigot and a homophobe many times in this forum and my gay friend tells me that the people that call those names would not know a bigot from a hole in the wall......
 
I think those examples are the exception and not the rule........The problem is if you have a difference of opinion radical gays and feel good liberals automatically brand you a homophobe or a bigot...........

I have had gay co workers and am presently on a golf team where our best golfer ( a 2 handicap) is gay and when I told him about this forum he and his partner got a huge kick put of it........Its funny they just want to live their lives in peace without a lot of notoriety..........I have been called a bigot and a homophobe many times in this forum and my gay friend tells me that the people that call those names would not know a bigot from a hole in the wall......

It's just name calling to try and belittle the poster and his/her comments. Same as you branding everyone that disagrees with you as "liberal" and "radical left".
 
It's just name calling to try and belittle the poster and his/her comments. Same as you branding everyone that disagrees with you as "liberal" and "radical left".

I label people in this forum liberals or from the left....I label people in the news radical.........I don't mean it as and insult when I call you a liberal......That is what you are...You should be proud of it........I am a very conservative person and proud of it..........Why are you so ashamed of your liberalism?
 
That's not true. A born baby left unnamed and abandoned by it's mother in a trash can is still considered a person by today's law.

I am only concerned with today's law when it might get in my way... and I live my life very carefully in order to avoid situations in which it might. I have already noted that I consider our law's handling of personhood and citizenship to be severely misguided.
 
I am only concerned with today's law when it might get in my way... and I live my life very carefully in order to avoid situations in which it might. I have already noted that I consider our law's handling of personhood and citizenship to be severely misguided.[/QUOTE]

Well at least we can agree on that point.........Hopefully a Conservative SCOTUS will rectify some of those problems......
 
I haven't read many posts but I'll add my opinion. I voted yes because if you're going to allow someone to abort a baby for any reason, why not because its gay? Those would have to be some sick parents, but it's their choice.

By the way I don't think homosexuality is carried in a gene, but I'm going along with the question.
 
... I consider our law's handling of personhood and citizenship to be severely misguided.
Well at least we can agree on that point... Hopefully a Conservative SCOTUS will rectify some of those problems...

A "conservative" Supreme Court-- what we call "conservative" these days is anything but-- would make the problem worse by redefining "personhood" to a point where the law can not logically sustain it.

Not without changing the law in ways that no rational American can support, at least.
 
Upon rereading this thead, I have found a fatal flaw that perhaps no one else has noticed. The OP has created (as I said earlier) quite an ingenious question, one that tests the consistency of one's values. However, it is in the following post that the flaw is committed:

Goobieman said:
But you jsut said that "...it is not my place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives..."

A mother aborting a potuntially gay baby is doing just that. How can you argue that she shouldnt have to defend her decision when that decision is based on how someone lives their life, and dictates that they cannot live their life in a certain way?

It is here that the yet to be born is considered a life or a person. This is a position that pro-choicers do not adhere to. Therefore chosing how this, yet to be born, is to live it's life is fallacious to the pro-choice position, and, therefore, is irrelevant. It is, therefore, completely consistent for one on the pro-choice side to state that it is OK to abort for the reason stated in the OP, as there is no lifestyle to live.
 
Upon rereading this thead, I have found a fatal flaw that perhaps no one else has noticed. The OP has created (as I said earlier) quite an ingenious question, one that tests the consistency of one's values. However, it is in the following post that the flaw is committed:



It is here that the yet to be born is considered a life or a person. This is a position that pro-choicers do not adhere to. Therefore chosing how this, yet to be born, is to live it's life is fallacious to the pro-choice position, and, therefore, is irrelevant. It is, therefore, completely consistent for one on the pro-choice side to state that it is OK to abort for the reason stated in the OP, as there is no lifestyle to live.

Abortion is allowed at any point in pregnancy. Some on this thread are making a distinction at the age of the fetus. That isn't the question--the question is: is it is a "good enough" reason to abort a baby simply because she has hypothetical "gay gene".

Your "yet to be born" WILL live if not aborted. As jallman stated, the intention of the mother is the determiner of the personhood at the pre-viable stage. If a woman chooses to base her decision to abort on the "lifestyle" (I personally hate that term) the child will live--has she not already decided the personhood of her "yet to be born?" And then--isn't she dictating to another how he/she should live? Yes--she chooses he/she should NOT live due to the "person" he or she is.
 
Upon rereading this thead, I have found a fatal flaw that perhaps no one else has noticed. The OP has created (as I said earlier) quite an ingenious question, one that tests the consistency of one's values. However, it is in the following post that the flaw is committed:



It is here that the yet to be born is considered a life or a person. This is a position that pro-choicers do not adhere to. Therefore chosing how this, yet to be born, is to live it's life is fallacious to the pro-choice position, and, therefore, is irrelevant. It is, therefore, completely consistent for one on the pro-choice side to state that it is OK to abort for the reason stated in the OP, as there is no lifestyle to live.

In the unlikely event that my wife becomes pregnant by me again, and she chooses to abort it against my will, she will have forced that life, the life without raising a 3rd child, upon me.

It would be my will to force her to bring that child to term. Pro-Choice 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.

PC actively enables mothers to dictate to others how they will live, which PC says no person has a right to do.
 
In the unlikely event that my wife becomes pregnant by me again, and she chooses to abort it against my will, she will have forced that life, the life without raising a 3rd child, upon me.

It would be my will to force her to bring that child to term. Pro-Choice 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.

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

You should not be able to dictate how your wife lives her life. Her choice does not dictate that you will have to live without raising a third child; you have the option of divorcing her and marrying another person who will give you the desired child. So no, nobody is forcing this life upon you.

Inasmuch as we would bar you from forcing your views on another, yes, that is a limitation of your choices. But it is not a hypocritical one, as the enitre argument is based on the idea that your wish to control another is not right and should not be allowed. That is the main situation in which a person's choices should be limited: when your choices affect another person.
 
Abortion is allowed at any point in pregnancy. Some on this thread are making a distinction at the age of the fetus. That isn't the question--the question is: is it is a "good enough" reason to abort a baby simply because she has hypothetical "gay gene".

Your "yet to be born" WILL live if not aborted. As jallman stated, the intention of the mother is the determiner of the personhood at the pre-viable stage. If a woman chooses to base her decision to abort on the "lifestyle" (I personally hate that term) the child will live--has she not already decided the personhood of her "yet to be born?" And then--isn't she dictating to another how he/she should live? Yes--she chooses he/she should NOT live due to the "person" he or she is.

She isn't doing so if she doesn't see the fetus as a child/person; I would think that if she did see the fetus as a child/person then she would not have the abortion.

However, it is her choice, not mine; since in my view she does not harm another person by her actions, then I will not stand in her way. Whether I approve of her actions or not is irrelevant. Her actions are not those that I think worthy of censure, since she is not telling another person how to live, IMO.

I'm not sure it would be a contradiction even if I did believe she was harming another person; it would become a question of personal responsibility. I don't take drugs, because I think they are harmful and stupid; does that mean I must now go fight a war on drugs in order to live up to my beliefs? Or should I just take care of my own life, and perhaps try to influence others to act as I do? Am I a hypocrite if I allow others to live as I would not, so long as I don't act that way myself? I don't see how.
 
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

I voted no.I am against abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother(meaning she went to a real doctor to have this verified not subhuman scum abortionist rat)
 
She isn't doing so if she doesn't see the fetus as a child/person; I would think that if she did see the fetus as a child/person then she would not have the abortion.
In order to fathom that this thing in her womb is able to be "gay"--it is a foregone conclusion it is a person. If you're a male monkey that has sex with other male monkeys--you're not a "gay" monkey--animals do not have the ability to choose their behaviors dispite any sort of "orientation." PEOPLE do..and so, if she kills her "not yet born" because it will choose to possibly act on some predisposition, she chooses to kill a PERSON. Her thinking makes it so.

I would think you relativist types would TOTALLY get this...you subscribe to "nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." I guess you believe that unless it contradicts the things you'd like to be able to do, like killing unborn humans.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom