Dirty Debate Zone: Banning Conversion Therapy vs. Banning Abortions?

[emilynghiem]

President Obama moves to end conversion therapies for LGBT youth - Yahoo News

Can anyone provide a good argument (or bad -- as long as it effectively gets the point across)
of why it is so much more vitally important to stop the suicides, traumas, and deaths caused by
CONVERSION therapy by BANNING it
but NOT going to bat against BANNING ABORTIONS?

NOTE: The Liberal opponent aren't just banning coercion and abuse by forcing someone, especially a minor, to go through CONVERSION against their will but BANNING THE THERAPY itself for minors.

ISN'T THIS LIKE BANNING ABORTION FOR MINORS AND NOT JUST BANNING THE COERCION.

My question:
If ABORTION is known to cause suicidal trauma and damage
but THAT isn't banned, just COERCING it (which is also fought against by prochoice activists)

WHY all this hype about conversion therapy, based on harm it causes, while remaining silent on abortion
and the harm it causes?

Why not ban coercion in both cases then?

Can someone explain to me why bans are not supported the same in both cases?

 

[Mr. H.]

It's the Liberal way. There's no trying to understand it or debate it because it is a psychosis.

 

[Grandma]

Can anyone provide a good argument (or bad ... )
of why it is so much more vitally important to stop the suicides, traumas, and deaths caused by CONVERSION therapy by BANNING it
but NOT going to bat against BANNING ABORTIONS?

Because abortions don't cause suicides, traumas, and deaths to pregnant women.

Because abortions can in fact prevent suicides, traumas, and deaths to pregnant women.

Simple as that.

@Maudes - necessary points made, you can lock the thread now.

 

[Mr. H.]

Can anyone provide a good argument (or bad ... )
of why it is so much more vitally important to stop the suicides, traumas, and deaths caused by CONVERSION therapy by BANNING it
but NOT going to bat against BANNING ABORTIONS?

Because abortions don't cause suicides, traumas, and deaths to pregnant women.

Because abortions can in fact prevent suicides, traumas, and deaths to pregnant women.

Simple as that.

@Maudes - necessary points made, you can lock the thread now.

Gosh, you make abortion sound downright fun!

 

[emilynghiem]

Can anyone provide a good argument (or bad ... )
of why it is so much more vitally important to stop the suicides, traumas, and deaths caused by CONVERSION therapy by BANNING it
but NOT going to bat against BANNING ABORTIONS?

Because abortions don't cause suicides, traumas, and deaths to pregnant women.

Because abortions can in fact prevent suicides, traumas, and deaths to pregnant women.

Simple as that.

@Maudes - necessary points made, you can lock the thread now.

Okay Grandma
And what about FREELY CHOSEN conversion and reparative therapy
that has saved lives, sanity and prevented suicide, too?

Isn't the issue COERCION?

 

[emilynghiem]

It's the Liberal way. There's no trying to understand it or debate it because it is a psychosis.

Aren't there closeminded opponents on the right who are equally locked in their mindsets and hard to understand. Isn't the reactionary extremism and rejection mutual to both left and right that equally repel each other?

BTW Mr. H. and Grandma
neither of you has convinced me yet of your points that don't equally apply to arguments on the other side as well! But keep trying. I appreciate your effort in at least TRYING to explain what is going on here besides a political bias. And yes there is bias on both sides, to be fair. Please try to keep it informative so I can thank your posts. I don't think you are going to convince me if you only take one side, and don't acknowledge it equally applies to the other.

So far the only thing I can think of is that abortion is not thought of as being forced on people but only as a choice; while reparative therapy is thought of as being forced on people instead of voluntarily chosen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Dirty Debate Zone: Banning Conversion Therapy vs. Banning Abortions?"

Pity false comparison fallacies can't be 'banned,' such as the one above.

There's a Constitutional right to privacy, there is no 'right' to attempt to force gay minors to 'become straight.'

States lack a compelling interest to violate a woman's right to privacy by 'banning' abortion, there is no rational basis for doing so nor a compelling governmental interest; there is a rational basis, however, for seeking to ban 'conversion therapies,' where states have a compelling interest to prohibit dangerous and unwarranted 'treatments' that constitute nothing more than charlatanism and quackery, as well as protecting the health and well-being of minor children from this type of charlatanism and quackery.

 

[Grandma]

Okay Grandma,
And what about FREELY CHOSEN conversion and reparative therapy
that has saved lives, sanity and prevented suicide, too?

Isn't the issue COERCION?

Anyone that "freely chooses" to be something that they aren't and never will be is probably doing it just to appease the homophobes that are causing the trauma, mental distress, and suicides. They'll still be gay after the phony "therapy."

Being LGBT isn't mentally stressful. It's dealing with the homophobes that causes the problems.

 

[NYcarbineer]

President Obama moves to end conversion therapies for LGBT youth - Yahoo News

Can anyone provide a good argument (or bad -- as long as it effectively gets the point across)
of why it is so much more vitally important to stop the suicides, traumas, and deaths caused by
CONVERSION therapy by BANNING it
but NOT going to bat against BANNING ABORTIONS?

NOTE: The Liberal opponent aren't just banning coercion and abuse by forcing someone, especially a minor, to go through CONVERSION against their will but BANNING THE THERAPY itself for minors.

ISN'T THIS LIKE BANNING ABORTION FOR MINORS AND NOT JUST BANNING THE COERCION.

My question:
If ABORTION is known to cause suicidal trauma and damage
but THAT isn't banned, just COERCING it (which is also fought against by prochoice activists)

WHY all this hype about conversion therapy, based on harm it causes, while remaining silent on abortion
and the harm it causes?

Why not ban coercion in both cases then?

Can someone explain to me why bans are not supported the same in both cases?

Conversion therapy is either right or wrong. It has nothing to do with abortion.

But playing your retarded game...

...why won't those who support conversion therapy for gays also support same sex marriage for gays?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do people who want children to undergo conversion therapy on the other hand oppose sex education in school?

 

[NYcarbineer]

President Obama moves to end conversion therapies for LGBT youth - Yahoo News

Can anyone provide a good argument (or bad -- as long as it effectively gets the point across)
of why it is so much more vitally important to stop the suicides, traumas, and deaths caused by
CONVERSION therapy by BANNING it
but NOT going to bat against BANNING ABORTIONS?

NOTE: The Liberal opponent aren't just banning coercion and abuse by forcing someone, especially a minor, to go through CONVERSION against their will but BANNING THE THERAPY itself for minors.

ISN'T THIS LIKE BANNING ABORTION FOR MINORS AND NOT JUST BANNING THE COERCION.

My question:
If ABORTION is known to cause suicidal trauma and damage
but THAT isn't banned, just COERCING it (which is also fought against by prochoice activists)

WHY all this hype about conversion therapy, based on harm it causes, while remaining silent on abortion
and the harm it causes?

Why not ban coercion in both cases then?

Can someone explain to me why bans are not supported the same in both cases?

Gay sex never leads to abortion. lol

 

[LoneLaugher]

If therapy works to make a gay person straight, can it also make a straight person gay?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If therapy works to make a gay person straight, can it also make a straight person gay?

I think that's called the 'pray until I'm gay' method.

 

[G.T.]

I think its a really, REALLY poor comparison.

Like.....not even in the same Universe as the same realm of discusssion.

But BANNING the therapy altogether is not necessary. Banning it being forced, or banning insurance covering it makes sense though.

 

[G.T.]

If therapy works to make a gay person straight, can it also make a straight person gay?

Can you therapy me into thinking I'm a Rooster?

I know. This discussion already will lead to my cock.

Hah. Inevitable.

 

[G.T.]

i dont care for abortion unless there was a rape or medical reason, to be honest. i cant see any rational justification for it apart that

 

[LoneLaugher]

i dont care for abortion unless there was a rape or medical reason, to be honest. i cant see any rational justification for it apart that

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for abortion. We'd have quality sex education for all kids and access to affordable and reliable contraceptives....including morning after pills.

Those of us who are pro choice also don't care for abortion. We want to reduce the number of abortions.......but we fully understand that the decision lies with the woman carrying the fetus.

 

[G.T.]

i dont care for abortion unless there was a rape or medical reason, to be honest. i cant see any rational justification for it apart that

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for abortion. We'd have quality sex education for all kids and access to affordable and reliable contraceptives....including morning after pills.

Those of us who are pro choice also don't care for abortion. We want to reduce the number of abortions.......but we fully understand that the decision lies with the woman carrying the fetus.

I kinda think sex education is a canard.

Everyone who knows how to put penis to vagina.........knows it can make a baby. Cmon lone.

You think theyre sitting around their red cave dwelling at the fire and they find the two new tools and just kinda look at each other, grunt, (and then the female cavewoman grunts back in a sexier more effeminate grunt).....

And then after a while they just think that taking a nut load is "fattening?"

The abortion discussion needs to make cleaner use of logic.

Tell me the compelling reason its ever ok to stop another life's formation if it wasnt forced inside the woman or causing her medical harm?

I can be honest and cordial this entire discussion, you know that. Youre my homey.

 

[LoneLaugher]

i dont care for abortion unless there was a rape or medical reason, to be honest. i cant see any rational justification for it apart that

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for abortion. We'd have quality sex education for all kids and access to affordable and reliable contraceptives....including morning after pills.

Those of us who are pro choice also don't care for abortion. We want to reduce the number of abortions.......but we fully understand that the decision lies with the woman carrying the fetus.

I kinda think sex education is a canard.

Everyone who knows how to put penis to vagina.........knows it can make a baby. Cmon lone.

You think theyre sitting around their red cave dwelling at the fire and they find the two new tools and just kinda look at each other, grunt, (and then the female cavewoman grunts back in a sexier more effeminate grunt).....

And then after a while they just think that taking a nut load is "fattening?"

The abortion discussion needs to make cleaner use of logic.

Tell me the compelling reason its ever ok to stop another life's formation if it wasnt forced inside the woman or causing her medical harm?

I can be honest and cordial this entire discussion, you know that. Youre my homey.

Nope. Sex Ed includes a discussion about how to have safe sex and prevent pregnancy and gets kids thinking about the reality of parenthood. It certainly reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Comprehensive Sex Education Research and Results

I'm not telling you anything is OK. I'm telling you that I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision other than the woman carrying the fetus. If she isn't prepared or willing to give a child the care that it requires....the decision is hers.

 

[G.T.]

i dont care for abortion unless there was a rape or medical reason, to be honest. i cant see any rational justification for it apart that

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for abortion. We'd have quality sex education for all kids and access to affordable and reliable contraceptives....including morning after pills.

Those of us who are pro choice also don't care for abortion. We want to reduce the number of abortions.......but we fully understand that the decision lies with the woman carrying the fetus.

I kinda think sex education is a canard.

Everyone who knows how to put penis to vagina.........knows it can make a baby. Cmon lone.

You think theyre sitting around their red cave dwelling at the fire and they find the two new tools and just kinda look at each other, grunt, (and then the female cavewoman grunts back in a sexier more effeminate grunt).....

And then after a while they just think that taking a nut load is "fattening?"

The abortion discussion needs to make cleaner use of logic.

Tell me the compelling reason its ever ok to stop another life's formation if it wasnt forced inside the woman or causing her medical harm?

I can be honest and cordial this entire discussion, you know that. Youre my homey.

Nope. Sex Ed includes a discussion about how to have safe sex and prevent pregnancy and gets kids thinking about the reality of parenthood. It certainly reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Comprehensive Sex Education Research and Results

I'm not telling you anything is OK. I'm telling you that I don't think anyone has the right to make that decision other than the woman carrying the fetus. If she isn't prepared or willing to give a child the care that it requires....the decision is hers.

Im not sure you supported giving her that sort of power over human life with logic. Thats all im looking for.

What reasons - logically - can be used to justify giving a woman the right to end a life for "any reason she wants?"

I mean......is it logical to allow someone to kill someone theyd otherwise have to take care, because its them that would have had to take care of them so that other life is then in their hands?

I dont see the merit to even allowing it.