• 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
By aborting a baby just because he might be gay -- arent you doing just that?

I'm not doing anything. I said I wouldn't abort the baby. However, I am not hypocritical and I do not believe a mother should be able to abort a child for financial reasons but not medical reasons.

No explanation should be needed to abort a child. If the mother is within the time frame and she wishes to choose that path she shouldn't have to defend her decision, just be encouraged to think hard on it. She shouldn't need to answer the question "why" if she doesn't want to. It's her and the father's decision and no one else's.
 
Have a good time in jail since that is illegal.

Isn't the law the result of people telling others how to live?



That's the inherant contradiction in the relativist position. If you can't say something is inappropriate, the relativist can't say my telling you it's inappropriate is inappropriate.
 
No explanation should be needed to abort a child. If the mother is within the time frame and she wishes to choose that path she shouldn't have to defend her decision, just be encouraged to think hard on it.

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?
 
Pro-life people don't care if parent's kill their children slowly by feeding them McDonald's everyday,

Really? Show me evidence that the majority of prolifers wouldn't be against a diet of McDonalds everyday. I find that impossible to believe.


or force them to grow up in a home that is unfit and could lead to drug or alcohol abuse, which could later lead to the deaths of a number of people at the hands of this child.
Really which prolifers are in favor of kids growing up in unfit homes?

Why the fascination with these children before they are born?
Because a born child has the chance and opportunity to overcome any cards they were dealt but the one killed by its mother has no chance and there's nothing sicker than that. Women around the world are using abortion to terminate FEMALES so they can try to get pregnant again and have a male. WOMEN in my opinion are destroying themselves and I can not understand it or wrap my head around it. There is something very wrong with a world where women routinely kill their babies and have their chests cut open so bags of silicone can be tossed into the cavity. Women have reached a new low and it pains me.
 
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?

You are assuming I agree with you that a child before 20 weeks of pregnancy is indeed the same as a born child and has the same rights. Which by today's law they do not.
 
Really? Show me evidence that the majority of prolifers wouldn't be against a diet of McDonalds everyday. I find that impossible to believe.


Really which prolifers are in favor of kids growing up in unfit homes?


Because a born child has the chance and opportunity to overcome any cards they were dealt but the one killed by its mother has no chance and there's nothing sicker than that. Women around the world are using abortion to terminate FEMALES so they can try to get pregnant again and have a male. WOMEN in my opinion are destroying themselves and I can not understand it or wrap my head around it. There is something very wrong with a world where women routinely kill their babies and have their chests cut open so bags of silicone can be tossed into the cavity. Women have reached a new low and it pains me.


In India, getting an ultrasound is expensive for many people. Since they cannot afford it, what they do is actually deliever the baby (not knowing what it is going to be), and if it is a girl 9 times out of 10 it is murdered -- only to try again for a boy.

They believe that a women is more costly and __________ (not sure what word I am looking for; not unloyal but something like that) and will eventually distance herself from the family when she weds. The man however, will end up bringing more money into the family and pay off for it's costs.

Pretty god damn sick if you ask me.
 
You are assuming I agree with you that a child before 20 weeks of pregnancy is indeed the same as a born child and has the same rights. Which by today's law they do not.
None of that is part of the issue.

You said that no one one should dictate how someone else lives.
Isn't aborting a baby because it might be gay doing just that?
How can she not be forced to defend her decision, given that you say she cannot doictate how someone else lives?
 
Really? Show me evidence that the majority of prolifers wouldn't be against a diet of McDonalds everyday. I find that impossible to believe.

Really which prolifers are in favor of kids growing up in unfit homes?

These are not based on documented research, just my observations growing up and reading on here.

I have not seen any threads on here where a Pro-life person was arguing for passing laws that should make sure children, after birth, receive proper emotional support and are fought for to receive rights or a better life if the child is growing up in a home with a alcoholic parent or emotionally cut off parent.

If children had the same attention abortion did these "pro-lifers" would be forcing all parents to receive a license before they could have children.

talloulou said:
Because a born child has the chance and opportunity to overcome any cards they were dealt but the one killed by its mother has no chance and there's nothing sicker than that. Women around the world are using abortion to terminate FEMALES so they can try to get pregnant again and have a male. WOMEN in my opinion are destroying themselves and I can not understand it or wrap my head around it. There is something very wrong with a world where women routinely kill their babies and have their chests cut open so bags of silicone can be tossed into the cavity. Women have reached a new low and it pains me.

Women shouldn't use abortions so freely though how do we limit it succesfully? If you stop it, people will die as a result of back alley abortions. I think a price increase could help but still has casualties that will come with it.

You are mixing society with women. Society as a whole has created women as they are today. Do you think women get breast enlargements for themselves or for the man or men around them? Do men pay more attention to the supermodel or the librarian? Do not cast women down so quickly without giving all of society it's due.
 
None of that is part of the issue.

You said that no one one should dictate how someone else lives.
Isn't aborting a baby because it might be gay doing just that?
How can she not be forced to defend her decision, given that you say she cannot doictate how someone else lives?

As i stated previously you are assuming I agree with you that a unborn child before 20 weeks is indeed "someone". Yes it has the potential to become "someone" but it is not there and might not get there.
 
While it is in no one's interest but the woman's what she does with her body, there is a very big difference between using abortion as a last means birth control and using abortion as a genetic cleansing.

The premise of this poll and the intention of the original poster is sick and deliberately offensive to an extreme. The very idea that a person would choose such a method to achieve a more "acceptable" child could only come from a very dark or very ignorant mind.
 
While it is in no one's interest but the woman's what she does with her body, there is a very big difference between using abortion as a last means birth control and using abortion as a genetic cleansing.
So... is that a yes or a no?
 
These are not based on documented research, just my observations growing up and reading on here.

I have not seen any threads on here where a Pro-life person was arguing for passing laws that should make sure children, after birth, receive proper emotional support and are fought for to receive rights or a better life if the child is growing up in a home with a alcoholic parent or emotionally cut off parent.

If children had the same attention abortion did these "pro-lifers" would be forcing all parents to receive a license before they could have children.
Hrm. No documented research, just what you observed from reading on here -- however, it is because no one specifically said I dont think mcdonalds everyday is a healthy diet? I am not sure if you are aware of it, but if a child is being raised and their parents abuse them, the parent will lose the child. I dont see why pro-lifers need to make that statement for you to not associate us with feeling it is ok for a child to be raised by an alcoholic/abusive parent?

Women shouldn't use abortions so freely though how do we limit it succesfully? If you stop it, people will die as a result of back alley abortions. I think a price increase could help but still has casualties that will come with it.
The abortions shouldnt be used so freely? You just said a few posts ago that is acceptable to abort the baby no matter what the reason? Seems contradictary to me.

You are mixing society with women. Society as a whole has created women as they are today. Do you think women get breast enlargements for themselves or for the man or men around them? Do men pay more attention to the supermodel or the librarian? Do not cast women down so quickly without giving all of society it's due.
How is this related to abortion or this thread?
 
As i stated previously you are assuming I agree with you that a unborn child before 20 weeks is indeed "someone". Yes it has the potential to become "someone" but it is not there and might not get there.
The "might" is assumed in he question, and therefore is not an arguable point.
The mere fact that the baby "might" be gay is enough for the mother.

And just to get you past your point -- assume the mother finds out at 21 weeks that her baby has the gene, of the mother decides at 21 weeks that she doesnt want to take the chance.

So, we're back to your propblem with someone dictating how someone else lives their life, and the mother doing exactly that.

Given that -- how can she not have to defend her decision?
 
These are not based on documented research, just my observations growing up and reading on here.

I have not seen any threads on here where a Pro-life person was arguing for passing laws that should make sure children, after birth, receive proper emotional support and are fought for to receive rights or a better life if the child is growing up in a home with a alcoholic parent or emotionally cut off parent.
Then you haven't been looking hard enough. There are tons of threads on everything from family, adoption, schooling, circumcision, taxes, ect....

You comment is just the newest talking point....prolifers don't care about born babies. It has no merit...just a nice ring. There are tons of government programs as well as charitable organizations that work hard to help women and children. So as far as I'm concerned this is just BS rhetoric.


Women shouldn't use abortions so freely though how do we limit it succesfully? If you stop it, people will die as a result of back alley abortions. I think a price increase could help but still has casualties that will come with it.
The casualities of back alley abortions would never compare to the number of babies dead at the hand of their mother.

You are mixing society with women. Society as a whole has created women as they are today. Do you think women get breast enlargements for themselves or for the man or men around them? Do men pay more attention to the supermodel or the librarian? Do not cast women down so quickly without giving all of society it's due.

I don't know why women get fake breasts quite honestly. Most men I've met like variety. They like all kinds of **** and ***. So I don't buy that women get them for men. I think they're just hysterical loons and I'm trying to figure out why.
 
I don't know why women get fake breasts quite honestly. Most men I've met like variety. They like all kinds of **** and ***. So I don't buy that women get them for men. I think they're just hysterical loons and I'm trying to figure out why.

I take it you don't live in Southern California. I'm not going to focus on this subject though because it is not the basis of the thread.
 
Hrm. No documented research, just what you observed from reading on here -- however, it is because no one specifically said I dont think mcdonalds everyday is a healthy diet? I am not sure if you are aware of it, but if a child is being raised and their parents abuse them, the parent will lose the child. I dont see why pro-lifers need to make that statement for you to not associate us with feeling it is ok for a child to be raised by an alcoholic/abusive parent?

Yes they are taken away but just to be thrown into group homes where they are worse off and are isolated or removed from family and friends. I've had two friends and cousin that went through this.

SpooK said:
The abortions shouldnt be used so freely? You just said a few posts ago that is acceptable to abort the baby no matter what the reason? Seems contradictary to me.

Abortions should be limited so not to be used as a alternate birth control, which is not the majority anyway. I would wonder what the statistics are for a single person having more then one or two abortions in their life, other then those that financially depend on it as birth control.

Abortions should be safe, legal, and unnecessary.

SpooK said:
How is this related to abortion or this thread?
Try reading the thread and you will see I was directly responding to someone.
 
The "might" is assumed in he question, and therefore is not an arguable point.
The mere fact that the baby "might" be gay is enough for the mother.

And just to get you past your point -- assume the mother finds out at 21 weeks that her baby has the gene, of the mother decides at 21 weeks that she doesnt want to take the chance.

So, we're back to your propblem with someone dictating how someone else lives their life, and the mother doing exactly that.

Given that -- how can she not have to defend her decision?

It comes down to what is and what is not life. Is orgasming into a condom filled with spermicide killing potential future children? Where does life start? The fusion of the sperm and egg? When the fetus starts brain activity and is classified technically as human? When the baby is no longer dependent on the body of the mother?
 
Yes they are taken away but just to be thrown into group homes where they are worse off and are isolated or removed from family and friends. I've had two friends and cousin that went through this.

So they would be better off having no life at all than being raised in an orphanage or being adopted?

Abortions should be limited so not to be used as a alternate birth control, which is not the majority anyway. I would wonder what the statistics are for a single person having more then one or two abortions in their life, other then those that financially depend on it as birth control.

Abortions should be safe, legal, and unnecessary.
There is a post on some stupid for mulitple abortions on the abortion thread. I thought you did say earlier in this post though, that a women should be able to get an abortion for whatever they want (it doesnt matter to you). It's their body their choice but now you want to limit it to not be used as an alternate birth control. I find that silly because abortion is just that - birth control.

Try reading the thread and you will see I was directly responding to someone.
I'm sorry, I re-read it.... still not related to the topic though.
 
It comes down to what is and what is not life. Is orgasming into a condom filled with spermicide killing potential future children? Where does life start? The fusion of the sperm and egg? When the fetus starts brain activity and is classified technically as human? When the baby is no longer dependent on the body of the mother?

Does it make a difference in this topic?

To recap: You said that "...it is not my place or anyone else's to dictate to someone else how they should live their lives..."

However, you also said that you would support a mother's decision to abort a fetus so that it isn't born and live a gay lifestyle.

They contradict each other.
 
It comes down to what is and what is not life
No it doesn't.

It comes down to, as you put it, that no one can dictate how someone else lives their life.

In this case, the mother is dictating that the baby cannot be gay.

YOU say that the mother cannot dictate this to the baby.

Given that, how can she NOT have to defend her decision?
 
Allright I'll just jump in here. First of all the entire premise of this topic is flawed, as firstly, being gay hasn't been proven to be genetic, and secondly, there's no way to tell if a child is gay in the womb anyways. I support a woman's right to choose and if she's willing to kill a life because of its sexual orientation, if she's that unAmerican and right-wing, than she should be able to.


Now a question for you:

If it were possible to determine a fetus' political beliefs, and you supported abortions (hey, I can created false premises as well as you can), would you allow a woman to abort a conservative fetus?
 
Allright I'll just jump in here. First of all the entire premise of this topic is flawed, as firstly, being gay hasn't been proven to be genetic, and secondly, there's no way to tell if a child is gay in the womb anyways.
Dont argue the givens.
If Homosexualty is genetic, as many here argue, then the gene can be detected while in the womb.

I support a woman's right to choose and if she's willing to kill a life because of its sexual orientation, if she's that unAmerican and right-wing, than she should be able to.
You better re-phrase that.
 
Allright I'll just jump in here. First of all the entire premise of this topic is flawed, as firstly, being gay hasn't been proven to be genetic, and secondly, there's no way to tell if a child is gay in the womb anyways.
I believe that's what makes the topic hypothetical as it was clearly stated as such.

I support a woman's right to choose and if she's willing to kill a life because of its sexual orientation, if she's that unAmerican and right-wing, than she should be able to.
Ok, but I dont see how being on the right side is unamerican.

Now a question for you:

If it were possible to determine a fetus' political beliefs, and you supported abortions (hey, I can created false premises as well as you can), would you allow a woman to abort a conservative fetus?

So basically you asking me if I didnt feel that abortion is wrong, and I was in favor of abortion, would I then choose to abort a conservative fetus? I dont see how I could pretend to be in favor of abortion and then discuss how I would feel about it in different circumstances.

This is unlike the OP because he is not asking you to change your view.
 
The very idea that a person would choose such a method to achieve a more "acceptable" child could only come from a very dark or very ignorant mind.

This is happening all over the world today! There are countries where the populace has thrown off the balance of men and women by aborting or killing so many female babies. I agree that it is very ignorant, sick, and dark. However I find it interesting that it's okay for a woman to choose death for her child for no damn good reason at all and yet it's somehow more offensive apparently to you if she has a lame reason.

When you get right down to it how is "I don't want a kid right now" any better or more moral than "I don't want a girl or any other trait"?
 
Back
Top Bottom