• 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
Felicity said:
So this gene causes babies to go on a wild gay hump-fest? I doubt it. You can be "oriented" toward homosexuality without ACTING on it. You CANNOT be oriented toward Tay-Sachs and not have it manifest in your life. You could be a carrier, I guess, but...I don't think that's what CC was talking about. GAYNESS isn't a disease, anyway.:roll:
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't think the premise is realistic; but I learned not to question the givens in the Senator Tom Johnson poll.
 
Felicity said:
That doesn't suprise me...I'm getting a pretty clear picture of your view of human nature, and it's not very complimentary.
Click to expand...


What sort of life is a gay person supposed to have, if they "don't act on" their sexual orientation.
That doesn't make any sense.
Well, I suppose it might make sense, to a Catholic.
The gay person in question could enter the clergy and become a priest or a nun; commit to a life of celibacy.
But we've all seen where that has resulted in tragedy.

Surely you don't expect gay people to force themselves to enter relationships with the opposite sex, to marry and have children?
This is a very poor idea. Then you get the Ted Haggard situation, and a lot of innocent people get hurt.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
Oh, I don't think the premise is realistic; but I learned not to question the givens in the Senator Tom Johnson poll.
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't see actual homosexual behavior was part of the given--just the gay "gene" that predisposes one toward that behavior. --I still don't.
 
Felicity said:
I guess I didn't see actual homosexual behavior was part of the given--just the gay "gene" that predisposes one toward that behavior. --I still don't.
Click to expand...

I don't think actual homosexual behavior can be part of the premise; we're talking about a fetus, here. The question was whether the (assumed hypothetical) gene that predisposes one toward the behavior should be sufficient reason for a mother to abort.
 
1069 said:
What sort of life is a gay person supposed to have, if they "don't act on" their sexual orientation.
That doesn't make any sense.
Well, I suppose it might make sense, to a Catholic.
The gay person in question could enter the clergy and become a priest or a nun; commit to a life of celibacy.
But we've all seen where that has resulted in tragedy.

Surely you don't expect gay people to force themselves to enter relationships with the opposite sex, to marry and have children?
This is a very poor idea. Then you get the Ted Haggard situation, and a lot of innocent people get hurt.
Click to expand...
I believe human beings can control their desires--even their sexual appetites. I agree that it is difficult in today's world. To me it would be like the way I deal with my raging temper...it is a predisposition to frustration and I have to be ever vigilant. Yet I'm a pretty moderate person in general, though beneath the surface at times it's a bubbling mess. Self-control. It is a good thing, really.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
I don't think actual homosexual behavior can be part of the premise; we're talking about a fetus, here. The question was whether the (assumed hypothetical) gene that predisposes one toward the behavior should be sufficient reason for a mother to abort.
Click to expand...
And again--if she can imagine that the gene would influence BEHAVIOR choice(something only a PERSON can manifest)--she has granted personhood to her fetus.
 
Felicity said:
And again--if she can imagine that the gene would influence BEHAVIOR choice(something only a PERSON can manifest)--she has granted personhood to her fetus.
Click to expand...

OOOOhhh, The wheels on the bus go round and round,
Round and round,
Round and round!
The wheels on the bus go round and round,
All through the town!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
This is for you, 1069:

Lets play a game.

It's called "find the errors".

I won't spell check, grammer check nor proof read.

CoffeeSaint said:
Okay, we'll try this again.
You do not have the right to force your wife to bear a child.
Click to expand...

Legaly? I know that that right is not SCOTUS established, which would be why I'm arguing for it, duh.

The child is not a person before it is born....
Click to expand...

I have already cast the "personhood" issue aside, so this is irrelivent.

You can force her to behave in certain ways as long as it has an impact on your children,

There yah go, that's it, abortion has a rather negative impact on my child, so per your argument I should be allowed to force her to behave in a sertin way....ie, bring the child to term.

BUT she has an out: she can relinquish custody of those children to you.
Click to expand...

The bond between mother and child is not severed with a mere stroke of the pen.

It is not her fault that removing the child from her body kills it.

Heh, yes it is.

She always has the right to give up her interest in your children, and if she chooses not to do that, then you have rights concerning them. But you cannot force her to keep custody of those children -- which means you cannot force her to bear a pregnancy to term.
Click to expand...

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.

You endorce women abusing their children by abandoning them.

Also, I don't think that a parent can just up and relinquish right on a whim. I don't have case law or policy on it one way or the other, but that seems very counter intuitive to a "compelling state intrist".

And that's the point:
Click to expand...

Well there you go, she does not have a right to not allow my choices to affect hers. What ever I do will affect her. What ever she does will afect me.

No, I mean keep you from infringing on her rights. We already went over this.
Click to expand...

You are profering the woman. What heppened to equality?

Of course I can't, because she can't do it. That was the point.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is thus falacious and unfounded.

And if it comes to a vote, I'll cast mine for her right to abort your child.
Click to expand...

By your own logic you have no right to force your view on me, so by voting you become a hypocrit.

But not the controller of her body.

Being the controler of her body is not an established requierment to have "a fundimental Liberty intrist in the care, controle and managment" of my children, so your argument is moot.

But she doesn't have to do that if she doesn't want to.
Click to expand...

That's the problem.

No! You do NOT have the right to force another to dio what you want them to do; that is not a right you have, and so it is not something you can claim was taken away from you illegally. Get it straight.
Click to expand...

You want me to stand down and be disabled from protecting my children from being attacked by their mother, all against my will. By casting your vote you are forcing your view on me, which by your oun logic you have no right to do.

So, speaking of choice, you have the choice between being logicly consistant and not voting or acting in a hypocritical way by forcing your view on me.

Thanks for the insight. I vote.
Click to expand...

You just labled yourself a hypocrite, then.

Let me know when you understand that you don't have the right to force another to act against his or her will. You only have that privilege if the other person allows it.
Click to expand...

That's a prity general statment.
So, by your logic, I have no right to force someone to stop assulting me.....without their consent, that is.

When you can bear the child to term, you'll have a leg to stand on in such a debate. After the child is born, of course you have the right to control it; did I ever say you didn't?
Click to expand...

I have 2 legs to stand on, Roe and Troxel.

If my wife can dismiss my fundimental rights on a whim, then given gender equality and the 14th., it logicly followes that I can dismiss her fundimental rights on a whim as well.

Of course we're not. They have the power to vote against us. If they lose the vote, they have the ability to change the laws. Or they can leave the country. By staying here, they are allowing themselves to be controlled -- which means they are not being controlled against their will.
Click to expand...

Pro-Choice has already eliminated that argument.

Just as those exact words carry no water in the eyes of PC who acuse me of forcing them to do this or that when I vote in favor of anti-abortion legislation, neither do those words carry water here when used to defend abortion.

Let's make sure we're still talking about abortion here, please. If you want to move on to society's ability and/or right to compel obedience, that would be a different argument.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Caine said:
C'mon Ya'll Give it up.... you've been going in circles for the last 100 posts!
Click to expand...

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.
 
talloulou said:
What an outrageous cop out that is. Whose freaking fault it is it?

If it's her god damn choice than it's her god damn fault.
Click to expand...

Dude. No, it is not.
Have some eggnog and chill the @#$% out.
 
talloulou said:
If you're gonna demand choice than at the very least have the fortitude to own the decision.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're babbling about.
If women could just "choose" to become pregnant, then men would be unnecessary (not to mention fertility treatments, adoption, IVF, etc).
If women could simply "choose" not to be pregnant, then both contraception and abortion would be unnecessary, and the entire debate would be moot, n'est-ce pas?
Let's just try to stick to the topic at hand, without flying off on weird angry tangents.
 
Just curious...is it too late to abort Goobieman for posing this question?
 
1069 said:
I have no idea what you're babbling about.
If women could just "choose" to become pregnant, then men would be unnecessary (not to mention fertility treatments, adoption, IVF, etc).
If women could simply "choose" not to be pregnant, then both contraception and abortion would be unnecessary, and the entire debate would be moot, n'est-ce pas?
Let's just try to stick to the topic at hand, without flying off on weird angry tangents.
Click to expand...

Women have total control in opening themselves up to the risk of pregnancy, except in cases of rape where pregnancy is rare anyway.

That said, women have absolute control in whether or not they are going to pay someone to kill their offspring!!!!! Whether they are gonna have the human in their womb killed because it is gay, or cause it's a girl, or cause it's inconvenient it is absolutely a choice and one that they have 100% control over and so they are 100% responsible for the decision and the action.
 
Hoot said:
Just curious...is it too late to abort Goobieman for posing this question?
Click to expand...

The question is meant as a trap and yet it has merit anyway. Women have abused the right to abortion. Abortion is being used against females in coutries throughout the world. Females are aborted in higher numbers than males. I'm sure if there were a gene found for homosexuality than homosexuals would be aborted more than heterosexuals. Notice how it is not nearly as common as it use to be to see a person with down syndrome?

Eugenics is a big part of abortion. Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, was a eugenicist. The question is completely valid. The answer to the question is yes. But a better question might be "Should it be okay?"
 
talloulou said:
The question is meant as a trap and yet it has merit anyway.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it as a trap. It touches a fine point in ethics that most people simply haven't considered-- and that most people aren't really willing to get too close to. If asking the tough ethical questions is to be considered dishonest or predatory behavior in debate... I fear for the society our grandchildren will inherit.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I didn't take it as a trap. It touches a fine point in ethics that most people simply haven't considered-- and that most people aren't really willing to get too close to. If asking the tough ethical questions is to be considered dishonest or predatory behavior in debate... I fear for the society our grandchildren will inherit.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. In trap I just meant that the OP understands that many homosexuals are prochoice and that the feminist movement and gay rights movements tend to back each other up for whatever reason. So the op was trying to get a flinch based off that knowledge. But I agree people shouldn't be afraid to make others pause for thought.

I also believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that if there were a gene found for homosexuality than many would abort for that very reason so it does deserve some thought.

I also know how you feel about eugenics so I know that plea for an emotional flinch probably didn't work on you! But that's one of the reasons I respect ya so much. You don't sugar coat and I get very tired of all this talk of "it's not her fault" blah blah blah. You shouldn't have to see pictures of abortion blah blah blah. Women shouldn't have to look an ultrasound of their baby blah blah blah. I feel it allows such an atmosphere of denial that the topic of discussion is actually hidden away even in the language of the discussion.
 
Originally Posted by talloulou
I agree 100%. In trap I just meant that the OP understands that many homosexuals are prochoice and that the feminist movement and gay rights movements tend to back each other up for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Not really.
Witness PLAGAL, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.
Their main theme is that the LGBT community needs to break away from its traditional alliance with the feminist community, because if abortion remains legal it will eventually be used to weed out homosexual fetuses if and when a "gay gene" is discovered.

Frankly, these people are clowns, shooting themselves in the foot.

NOW and other national women's rights organizations have done so much for the LGBT community it's not even funny, even though publicly supporting them is not in our political best interest.

The prochoice cause has the support of about half of the general population; a little more than half.
The Gay Rights movement doesn't have nearly as much mainstream support, nor nearly as much private funding to promote their interests.
Feminists have traditionally allied with Gays because we believe in equality for all people.
And this PLAGAL crap is the thanks we get.

Of course, I realize this is only a fringe element.
The majority of the mainstream GLBT community recognizes the benefits inherent in remaining allied with Women's Rights.
But it's still pretty insulting; I've yet to encounter an equivalent situation involving a feminist group that actively promotes homophobia or discrimination against gays.
 
Jerry said:
Legaly? I know that that right is not SCOTUS established, which would be why I'm arguing for it, duh.
Click to expand...

If the right doesn't exist, you have no point. Thanks.


Jerry said:
You can force her to behave in certain ways as long as it has an impact on your children,

There yah go, that's it, abortion has a rather negative impact on my child, so per your argument I should be allowed to force her to behave in a sertin way....ie, bring the child to term.
Click to expand...
But you don't have that right, so the point is moot.


Jerry said:
The bond between mother and child is not severed with a mere stroke of the pen.
Click to expand...
Legally, it sure as heck is.

Jerry said:
It is not her fault that removing the child from her body kills it.

Heh, yes it is.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.


Jerry said:
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.

You endorce women abusing their children by abandoning them.
Click to expand...
Legally? No it isn't abandonment; women do it all the time when they give their children up for adoption or divorce their husbands and relinquish all custody rights. Do I think it's a good idea? Hmmm . . . oh yeah: they aren't my kids, so it isn't up to me.

Jerry said:
Also, I don't think that a parent can just up and relinquish right on a whim. I don't have case law or policy on it one way or the other, but that seems very counter intuitive to a "compelling state intrist".
Click to expand...

So how do kids end up in foster care? Are they ALL taken away by the state?


Jerry said:
Well there you go, she does not have a right to not allow my choices to affect hers. What ever I do will affect her. What ever she does will afect me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can't follow this. She does not have to obey you; simple as that.

Jerry said:
You are profering the woman. What heppened to equality?
Click to expand...

When it comes to abortion rights, women always take precedence: it is their bodies that we discuss.

Jerry said:
Your analogy is thus falacious and unfounded.
Click to expand...
Your whole argument is fallacious and unfounded.

Jerry said:
By your own logic you have no right to force your view on me, so by voting you become a hypocrit.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's an interesting point. I suppose society and democracy in general might be immoral, then, inasmuch as they limit personal freedom. But I am of the opinion that society and democracy are both beneficial for individuals, and that this would outweigh the loss of freedom implied in laws and rules.

This does not, however, prove that you have the right to command another to give up control of her body. Even society cannot do that. But I will concede that the right to be free to make any and all decisions without any influence from another is not absolute.

Jerry said:
But not the controller of her body.

Being the controler of her body is not an established requierment to have "a fundimental Liberty intrist in the care, controle and managment" of my children, so your argument is moot.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You can control your child, within certain limitations: if you decide it is the spawn of Satan, you can't kill it -- your control over it is imperfect. Your control over it while it is in her body is nonexistent, as it is in her body: to control the child, you would have to control her body without her consent, and you don't have that right.


Jerry said:
You want me to stand down and be disabled from protecting my children from being attacked by their mother, all against my will. By casting your vote you are forcing your view on me, which by your oun logic you have no right to do.
Click to expand...

You still do not have the right to control her body, and so I am not taking rights away from you in this instance. But if you did have that right, this would be one of those things that I would argue society should be able to do: prevent your wife from becoming your slave simply because you impregnated her.

Jerry said:
So, speaking of choice, you have the choice between being logicly consistant and not voting or acting in a hypocritical way by forcing your view on me.
Click to expand...

Well, you may be right, but since I am not an absolutist, I'll probably see it more as two different issues. But even if I am a hypocrite, you shouldn't have the right to control her body.

Jerry said:
You just labled yourself a hypocrite, then.
Click to expand...
So be it.

Jerry said:
That's a prity general statment.
So, by your logic, I have no right to force someone to stop assulting me.....without their consent, that is.
Click to expand...
No, his right to assault you does not exist, so you don't need his consent to protect yourself.


Jerry said:
I have 2 legs to stand on, Roe and Troxel.

If my wife can dismiss my fundimental rights on a whim, then given gender equality and the 14th., it logicly followes that I can dismiss her fundimental rights on a whim as well.
Click to expand...
She can't dismiss your fundamental rights, because your right to control her does not exist.


Jerry said:
Pro-Choice has already eliminated that argument.

Just as those exact words carry no water in the eyes of PC who acuse me of forcing them to do this or that when I vote in favor of anti-abortion legislation, neither do those words carry water here when used to defend abortion.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.


Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when you abandon one argument based on a right that does not exist, you have to move to another right that does not exist: your right to control your wife's body. The fetus doesn't have it, society doesn't have it -- even I as a hypocritical/relativist voter don't have it -- and you don't have it. And you shouldn't.

But as I said, I will concede that the right to be free of any influence is not perfect; but it does apply to bodily sovereignty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom