Question for the pro-abortion crowd:

[doniston]

Yes, I think most "pro-choice" people would say that you have that right. Of course, we might think you are an idiot, but we maintain that you have the right to be an idiot.

I can only agree under certain conditions

"IF" it is in the first trimester, and is not otherwise deformed. Homosexuality does NOT qualify.

I am pro-choice, but within limits.

 

[doniston]

Not exactly. The basis for the "pro-choice" position is that a woman is the person to decide whether she wants to carry the pregnancy through to term. There doesn't have to be any justification for the decision. The responsibility lies with the woman to make the decision on her own grounds.

If the woman feels she needs to justify her actions, she can do so however she wants. I may think she is an idiot for acting on the basis of such reasons, but it is not my place (or the government's - at least at the moment) to deny her the right to have an abortion.

-------------------Sorry, but that is YOUR basis for your pro-abortion stance. not mine. and that basis is definitely NOT universal.

 

[doniston]

Given the subject, why do you suppose I chose to ask the question based on a potentally homosexual baby over, say, a Downes baby?

Because you appear to be a homophobic biggot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because you appear to be a homophobic biggot.

Given what I have seen from you thus far, I am not -at all- surprised that you reached that conclusion.

 

[doniston]

I take it you didn't want to answer my question then.


Theres a chance, howver slight, that it's not obvious why you shy away from a question that will make your motives for posting this thread appear as retarded as it is.

It does appear that his main reason for posting anything is his desire to bate people with whom he disagrees. He doesn't win, but he argues, Tho considering his past efforts, I think we are both right, and that,in addition, he is a homphobic bigot.

 

[maineman]

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. I know of no one who is "pro-abortion".

I am reluctantly anti-government intrusion into the biological functions inside a woman's uterus. period.

I find abortion to be a terrible terrible thing. I just find the thought of the government becoming involved in the matter to be an even more terrible thing.

It is a decision that should be left to a woman... and her doctor.... and her God.

 

[doniston]

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. I know of no one who is "pro-abortion".

I am reluctantly anti-government intrusion into the biological functions inside a woman's uterus. period.

I find abortion to be a terrible terrible thing. I just find the thought of the government becoming involved in the matter to be an even more terrible thing.

It is a decision that should be left to a woman... and her doctor.... and her God.

I must reiterate that it depends when it is done ---before or after it becomes a person

 

[M14 Shooter]

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. I know of no one who is "pro-abortion".
I am reluctantly anti-government intrusion into the biological functions inside a woman's uterus. period.

People who who hold the exact same views toward guns are "pro-gun",
Thus, pro-abortion.

I find abortion to be a terrible terrible thing. I just find the thought of the government becoming involved in the matter to be an even more terrible thing.
It is a decision that should be left to a woman... and her doctor.... and her God.

You didnt answer the question.
Is a not wanting a potentially homosexual child a 'good enough' reason to have an abortion?

 

[maineman]

I must reiterate that it depends when it is done ---before or after it becomes continent

absolutely. viability changes the dynamic.

 

[Shogun]

pro-choice... pro-abortion.. whatever.


Like I've said.. I would give gals, christian or otherwise, a window to abort a zygote up until a discernible heartbeat.


It would be just as nutty to see a christian all of a sudden back abortion rights just to keep from giving birth to a homosexual as it would be for a pro-choicer to gt tangled up about choice when christians want to abort potentially homosexual babies.


the wrench in the gears of M14's logic is that homosexuality would become a protected status under discrimination laws as soon as a biologic connection can be proven so his scenario wouldn't even occur in the first place.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think we are both right, and that,in addition, he is a homphobic bigot.

Oh you are SUCH a deep thinker!! Wow!!!

 

[maineman]

People who who hold the exact same views toward guns are "pro-gun",
Thus, pro-abortion.



You didnt answer the question.
Is a not wanting a potentially homosexual child a 'good enough' reason to have an abortion?

whatever. I am not PRO-abortion and refuse to let you label me as such.

In answering your question.... what part of "it's up to a woman and her doctor and her God" did you NOT understand? That DOES answer your question.

 

[Shogun]

You didnt answer the question.
Is a not wanting a potentially homosexual child a 'good enough' reason to have an abortion?

Is knowing that your child has an extra chromosome a GOOD ENOUGH reason?

Why won't you answer this?



Typically, women are offered a "triple screen" blood test during the second trimester of pregnancy (see chart). The results are entered into a computer along with the mother's age, and the machine spits out her individual risk of carrying a child with Down. If the risk is high--say more than 1 in 300--she will be offered amniocentesis, a needle-in-the-belly test that allows doctors to conclusively diagnose genetic aberrations, including Down, but carries about a 1-in-300 risk of causing miscarriage. If an extra 21st chromosome is found--the hallmark of Down--the woman or couple face a fateful choice: to terminate a pregnancy that has already reached the second trimester, or prepare to raise a child with Down, which causes mild-to-moderate retardation and often other health problems as well. Doctors estimate that 80% to 90% choose the first path.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129545,00.html?promoid=googlep

 

[ReillyT]

-------------------Sorry, but that is YOUR basis for your pro-abortion stance. not mine. and that basis is definitely NOT universal.

Fair enough. Of course, most people (including myself) believe in certain restrictions based on the length of the pregnancy. That is prevalent. I hope I didn't suggest otherwise.

It is "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion." There is a difference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

whatever. I am not PRO-abortion and refuse to let you label me as such.

You can refuse it all you want -- its not MY standard.

In answering your question.... what part of "it's up to a woman and her doctor and her God" did you NOT understand? That DOES answer your question.

Well, OK -- but just to be clear -- you think that the possibility of having a homosexual child is an acceptable reason to have an abortion.
Right?

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course, the premise is askew because they will NEVER be able to predict homosexuality in a fetus. It's not genetic.

Tests for Down's syndrome already take place at the 5-month marker, and they are specifically given to give the parents a chance to abort the 5-month old fetus.

Explain to me why the pro-abortionists think it's okay to abort babies at any stage...and yet have voted into existence the law which makes it MURDER to kill a woman carrying a baby?

Makes about as much sense as passing a law which makes it illegal for an 11 year old to have sex with anyone...then offering 11 year olds birth control.

 

[ReillyT]

Well, OK -- but just to be clear -- you think that the possibility of having a homosexual child is an acceptable reason to have an abortion.
Right?

We already went over this above. Are you just going to keep asking the question until you get an answer that is worded in the form that you like? Whether it is an "acceptable reason" is ultimately up to the woman herself. MM or myself probably don't think that it is a good reason, but we respect that the "choice" rests with the woman.

Sorry MM that I spoke for you. Let me know if I misrepresented you in any way.

** Also, since you asked what "pro-choice" advocates would think, and there are a limited number on this board, I am writing as if I am stating the consensus position, but of course there is a great deal of nuance and diversity on the issue.

 

[Shogun]

come on, left... I've already told you what kind of booby trap he's laid out for you all. If the abortion option is available for parents of potential DOWN SYNDROME babies, supported by pro-choicers, then he's going to pounce on you for being selective about the same application for potentially gay babies.



Ask M14 if HE supports the right of 80-90% that choose to terminate a Down baby pregnancy instead.

 

[Shogun]

Of course, the premise is askew because they will NEVER be able to predict homosexuality in a fetus. It's not genetic.

Tests for Down's syndrome already take place at the 5-month marker, and they are specifically given to give the parents a chance to abort the 5-month old fetus.

Explain to me why the pro-abortionists think it's okay to abort babies at any stage...and yet have voted into existence the law which makes it MURDER to kill a woman carrying a baby?

Makes about as much sense as passing a law which makes it illegal for an 11 year old to have sex with anyone...then offering 11 year olds birth control.

Slow neuron day, eh Allie?

*smootches*


M14 presented a hypothetical that relies on the acknowledgement of the biological factors. If you don't believe in biologic influence then why post? If you don't believe in Aliens why go heckle david icke at a convention?



makes about as much sense as posting evidence that CLEARLY states that the scientific consensus is that there is a biologic factor, eh?

 

[AllieBaba]

Instead of referring to the "scientific" consensus offered (unnamed) by Wikipedia, or to the APA, who aren't scientists at all but a group of pro-gay activists, I should have said,
"It's the consensus of the world's leading geneticists and genetics departments" that homosexuality is not genetic.

Is that better? It should make you feel dumb, but I doubt it will. Apparently, you can't be made to feel dumb.

As I said, I posted because it's a red herring, a straw man. It will never be an issue because we will never be able to determine which children will be homosexual using genetics. Read up, bozo. Arm yourself with knowledge!

And I notice that nobody has actually jumped in and given an answer.

Down's syndrome babies aren't typically deformed...yet they're aborted (late stage pregnancy) every day. What about children with CF? They aren't deformed or mentally challenged. Is it okay to abort them based upon genetic markers?