Aborting Potential Gay Babies Choice or Bigotry?

[Weegle777 78]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

O_o

...admitted straight person...

So it is a choice.

[AuburnNTexas 7,148]

What is unique in the argument for Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is with a few exceptions the majority of people who are Pro-Life are Socially conservative and the majority of Pro-Choice are Socially Liberal. This is a generalization so not true in every case.

Socially Liberal people tend to be categorized as well educated, secular but that does not mean they are not religious. While Socially Conservative tend to be a cross section from less Educated to well Educated and tend to be fundamentally Religious. Again a generalization there are exceptions on both sides.

An earlier poster put it clearly there are only two choices Life or Death if you believe that life starts at conception you tend to be Pro-Life and if you believe that life starts at a later point you tend to be Pro-Choice.

Most of the well educated Socially Liberal people believe in Science especially when talking about evolution, Climate change , etc. but when science gets in the way of their views they ignore it. As a biology major many many years ago I was taught how to distinguish a living object from an inanimate object. One key area is how a living object would re-act to external stimuli an amoeba touched with a sharp object moves away put a toxic substance in the area where an amoeba is it moves away from it. After conception the zygote scientific term of a fertilized egg or the embryo reacts the same way any other living object does to external stress it tries to avoid it.

Scientifically the embryo is alive.

Everybody who is Pro-Choice will tell you they are Pro-Life they will tell you I am not really killing a baby I am giving a woman the choice on how to make decisions on their own body. That sounds fair but our legal system is a balance between individual choice and protecting the rights of others. Also they are denying Science and the definition of life.

As long as my choice is not hurting another person or society as a whole I should have the right to make the choice. A woman or a man has the choice to have sex or not to have sex unless one of them knows that they are carrying a disease that will hurt the other one. A woman has the choice to use or not to use contraceptives when having sex of if for religious reasons can't use contraceptives to only have sex during certain time frames. Choice comes with consequences if your choices lead to a life then nobody should have the right to kill that life.

I am Social Catholic Conservative who believes in the teaching of my Church and I believe in Science as does the Catholic Church. I believe in evolution, climate change impacted by man but also impacted by natures cyclic changes, and I believe in the Scientific definition of life. I am Pro-Life within the teaching of my Church No to the Death Penalty, No to Abortion, you can kill to protect self or others or in a just war.

So getting back to the original question as to whether I knew the baby was going to be Gay ( I know you can't know for sure but for the sake of the argument we will assume you can say the baby will be Gay) could I as a Pro-Life person abort the Child. The answer is No. You can't be half Pro-Life.

[quietfan 233]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

I don't know what you mean by "homosexual lifestyle".

But I presume you mean a self-described heterosexual person engaging in homosexual sex acts, in which case I would say:

1) If the person enjoyed it or felt sexually aroused by someone of the same sex, then the person probably has a least some homosexual tendencies.

2) If the person felt no arousal, there could be other reasons he/she participated in the act: Money, curiosity, pity, blackmail, peer pressure, adventure, etc., etc,. etc., and gender orientation is irrelevant.

and most importantly:

3) I don't know for sure, it's none of my business, and I don't know why any third party should care.

you forgot prison.

Hence the "etc,. etc., etc..."

[AUDub 11,149]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

O_o

...admitted straight person...

So it is a choice.

Nope.

If a straight man wants to have sex with a man, that doesn't mean that they're suddenly gay. There has to be an enduring attraction to the same sex.

Edit: Mistype the italicized word on the iPad. Oops.

[Weegle777 78]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

Sorry to interrupt, but we define homosexuality by a person's declared sexuality and/or their behavior which reveals their sexuality consciously or not.

A self-declared "straight" person who "chooses" to engage in homosexual sex is either:

1) bisexual

2) kidding themselves about heterosexuality or

3) engaging in homosexuality as a temporary substitute for heterosexual sex.

So, it is a declared choice.

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

If you believe that life begins at conception, yes. If you don't then no it isn't.

Mighty big risk to take not knowing when life begins.

[AUDub 11,149]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

Sorry to interrupt, but we define homosexuality by a person's declared sexuality and/or their behavior which reveals their sexuality consciously or not.

A self-declared "straight" person who "chooses" to engage in homosexual sex is either:

1) bisexual

2) kidding themselves about heterosexuality or

3) engaging in homosexuality as a temporary substitute for heterosexual sex.

So, it is a declared choice.

...we define homosexuality by a person's declared sexuality and/or their behavior which reveals their sexuality consciously or not....

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

If you believe that life begins at conception, yes. If you don't then no it isn't.

Mighty big risk to take not knowing when life begins.

And how is that a risk?

[quietfan 233]

Most of the well educated Socially Liberal people believe in Science especially when talking about evolution, Climate change , etc. but when science gets in the way of their views they ignore it. As a biology major many many years ago I was taught how to distinguish a living object from an inanimate object. One key area is how a living object would re-act to external stimuli an amoeba touched with a sharp object moves away put a toxic substance in the area where an amoeba is it moves away from it. After conception the zygote scientific term of a fertilized egg or the embryo reacts the same way any other living object does to external stress it tries to avoid it.

Scientifically the embryo is alive.

Everybody who is Pro-Choice will tell you they are Pro-Life they will tell you I am not really killing a baby I am giving a woman the choice on how to make decisions on their own body. That sounds fair but our legal system is a balance between individual choice and protecting the rights of others. Also they are denying Science and the definition of life.

As long as my choice is not hurting another person or society as a whole I should have the right to make the choice. A woman or a man has the choice to have sex or not to have sex unless one of them knows that they are carrying a disease that will hurt the other one. A woman has the choice to use or not to use contraceptives when having sex of if for religious reasons can't use contraceptives to only have sex during certain time frames. Choice comes with consequences if your choices lead to a life then nobody should have the right to kill that life.

I don't believe anyone has questioned whether an embryo is alive, the question is whether said embryo is a human life, with legal rights, consciousness, or soul.

We all take life in one way or another: We all kill, or allow to be killed, plants or animals because we cannot photosynthesize. Most of the non-vegans among us are perfectly happy for an animal to be killed so we can wear its skin on our feet even though synthetic substitutes are available. A tumor is alive, but I hear no one defending a tumor's right to life. Every bottle of beer consumed, every body piercing, or every playground scratch probably results in the death of many living cells. How many of us have never stomped on a cockroach when we saw one, or slapped a mosquito? A sperm cell is alive, but how many quadrillions of them are killed by persons watching internet porn in this country daily? How many poor, unfortunate spermatozoa are sent to their deaths against condoms, spermicides, diaphragms, or wombs rendered infertile by other contraceptives?

So again: At what point does an embryo/fetus become a human, with legal rights, consciousness, or soul? I don't know and I do not believe anyone else knows for sure. So I refuse to make that decision for someone else and refuse to second guess or condemn them for whatever decision they make. Also, I do not think the state or politicians are any more enlightened than I am, and therefore should not make that decision for others either.

[alexava 6,973]

Most of the well educated Socially Liberal people believe in Science especially when talking about evolution, Climate change , etc. but when science gets in the way of their views they ignore it. As a biology major many many years ago I was taught how to distinguish a living object from an inanimate object. One key area is how a living object would re-act to external stimuli an amoeba touched with a sharp object moves away put a toxic substance in the area where an amoeba is it moves away from it. After conception the zygote scientific term of a fertilized egg or the embryo reacts the same way any other living object does to external stress it tries to avoid it.

Scientifically the embryo is alive.

Everybody who is Pro-Choice will tell you they are Pro-Life they will tell you I am not really killing a baby I am giving a woman the choice on how to make decisions on their own body. That sounds fair but our legal system is a balance between individual choice and protecting the rights of others. Also they are denying Science and the definition of life.

As long as my choice is not hurting another person or society as a whole I should have the right to make the choice. A woman or a man has the choice to have sex or not to have sex unless one of them knows that they are carrying a disease that will hurt the other one. A woman has the choice to use or not to use contraceptives when having sex of if for religious reasons can't use contraceptives to only have sex during certain time frames. Choice comes with consequences if your choices lead to a life then nobody should have the right to kill that life.

I don't believe anyone has questioned whether an embryo is alive, the question is whether said embryo is a human life, with legal rights, consciousness, or soul.

We all take life in one way or another: We all kill, or allow to be killed, plants or animals because we cannot photosynthesize. Most of the non-vegans among us are perfectly happy for an animal to be killed so we can wear its skin on our feet even though synthetic substitutes are available. A tumor is alive, but I hear no one defending a tumor's right to life. Every bottle of beer consumed, every body piercing, or every playground scratch probably results in the death of many living cells. How many of us have never stomped on a cockroach when we saw one, or slapped a mosquito? A sperm cell is alive, but how many quadrillions of them are killed by persons watching internet porn in this country daily? How many poor, unfortunate spermatozoa are sent to their deaths against condoms, spermicides, diaphragms, or wombs rendered infertile by other contraceptives?

So again: At what point does an embryo/fetus become a human, with legal rights, consciousness, or soul? I don't know and I do not believe anyone else knows for sure. So I refuse to make that decision for someone else and refuse to second guess or condemn them for whatever decision they make. Also, I do not think the state or politicians are any more enlightened than I am, and therefore should not make that decision for others either.

that was awesome

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

If you believe that life begins at conception, yes. If you don't then no it isn't.

Mighty big risk to take not knowing when life begins.

And how is that a risk?

Would you want the blood of an innocent life all over your hands?

[Weegle777 78]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

Sorry to interrupt, but we define homosexuality by a person's declared sexuality and/or their behavior which reveals their sexuality consciously or not.

A self-declared "straight" person who "chooses" to engage in homosexual sex is either:

1) bisexual

2) kidding themselves about heterosexuality or

3) engaging in homosexuality as a temporary substitute for heterosexual sex.

So, it is a declared choice.

...we define homosexuality by a person's declared sexuality and/or their behavior which reveals their sexuality consciously or not....

The funny thing about your post is that you don't even understand what it says, and you posted it. You said, "we define homosexuality by a person's "declared" sexuality."

To declare means that a choice has been made.

Then:

"And, or by their "behavior"."

I have known straight men, that if you were to meet them, you would swear up and down that they were gay. And vice versa.

[Weegle777 78]

I have never seen you guys this confused. Read your posts before posting them.

[AUDub 11,149]

I have never seen you guys this confused. Read your posts before posting them.

You're the one missing the point and we're confused?

[AUDub 11,149]

The funny thing about your post is that you don't even understand what it says, and you posted it. You said, "we define homosexuality by a person's "declared" sexuality."

To declare means that a choice has been made.

Then:

"And, or by their "behavior"."

I have known straight men, that if you were to meet them, you would swear up and down that they were gay. And vice versa.

Actually, Homer said it. He's correct.

I understand what it says. You're the one that seems to be nuance-proof.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

If you believe that life begins at conception, yes. If you don't then no it isn't.

Mighty big risk to take not knowing when life begins.

And how is that a risk?

Would you want the blood of an innocent life all over your hands?

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical, but it is confusing. I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

[Weegle777 78]

Thanks for the replies y'all. Hope this at least broadened our minds a little to a different point of view. WDE.

[homersapien 11,377]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I beg your pardon. "Pro Choice" is most certainly not a non-committal position.

I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

That's not fence sitting.

Ok, so back to the original premise, would you have an issue if a couple wanted to abort a fetus that had the "gay gene", or would you keep your stance that a woman has that right?

I repeat: I ultimately believe that a woman has the right to rule her own body.

That includes the ultimate right to an abortion for any reason she deems appropriate, at least in the first trimester. Later term abortions should be discouraged but the health of the woman remains paramount.

Isn't that clear enough to make your own deduction?

I was going to thank you for the clarification, but after the smart ass remark, nevermind.

Sorry, but that seemed so obvious, I mistook your question as being disingenuous - or "smart-assed". :-\

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[homersapien 11,377]

What is unique in the argument for Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is with a few exceptions the majority of people who are Pro-Life are Socially conservative and the majority of Pro-Choice are Socially Liberal. This is a generalization so not true in every case.

Socially Liberal people tend to be categorized as well educated, secular but that does not mean they are not religious. While Socially Conservative tend to be a cross section from less Educated to well Educated and tend to be fundamentally Religious. Again a generalization there are exceptions on both sides.

An earlier poster put it clearly there are only two choices Life or Death if you believe that life starts at conception you tend to be Pro-Life and if you believe that life starts at a later point you tend to be Pro-Choice.

Most of the well educated Socially Liberal people believe in Science especially when talking about evolution, Climate change , etc. but when science gets in the way of their views they ignore it. As a biology major many many years ago I was taught how to distinguish a living object from an inanimate object. One key area is how a living object would re-act to external stimuli an amoeba touched with a sharp object moves away put a toxic substance in the area where an amoeba is it moves away from it. After conception the zygote scientific term of a fertilized egg or the embryo reacts the same way any other living object does to external stress it tries to avoid it.

Scientifically the embryo is alive.

Everybody who is Pro-Choice will tell you they are Pro-Life they will tell you I am not really killing a baby I am giving a woman the choice on how to make decisions on their own body. That sounds fair but our legal system is a balance between individual choice and protecting the rights of others. Also they are denying Science and the definition of life.

As long as my choice is not hurting another person or society as a whole I should have the right to make the choice. A woman or a man has the choice to have sex or not to have sex unless one of them knows that they are carrying a disease that will hurt the other one. A woman has the choice to use or not to use contraceptives when having sex of if for religious reasons can't use contraceptives to only have sex during certain time frames. Choice comes with consequences if your choices lead to a life then nobody should have the right to kill that life.

I am Social Catholic Conservative who believes in the teaching of my Church and I believe in Science as does the Catholic Church. I believe in evolution, climate change impacted by man but also impacted by natures cyclic changes, and I believe in the Scientific definition of life. I am Pro-Life within the teaching of my Church No to the Death Penalty, No to Abortion, you can kill to protect self or others or in a just war.

So getting back to the original question as to whether I knew the baby was going to be Gay ( I know you can't know for sure but for the sake of the argument we will assume you can say the baby will be Gay) could I as a Pro-Life person abort the Child. The answer is No. You can't be half Pro-Life.

You are making a lot of generalized assumptions in this.

[homersapien 11,377]

Regarding the genetics:

We now know that there is a genetic or hereditary disposition toward breast cancer. However, not everyone with those genes gets breast cancer, while plenty of people without that genome still get breast cancer. But in no way does that make breast cancer a "choice".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. In case it isn't obvious, in no way am I suggesting homosexuality is a disease or comparing homosexuals and cancer victims. Simply using this example to point out that genetics alone does not always tell the whole story.

Personally, I do not believe homosexuality is a choice or something one can counseled or "prayed" out of (or needs to be) any more than my heterosexuality was an conscious choice on my part or something that can be changed. My honest opinion is that homosexuality is much like left-handedness: a perfectly natural trait, but present in a minority of the population--not a choice, not a "sin", not a threat to anyone, nothing that needs changing, not the government's business, and certainly not a reason to discriminate. Oh, and also none of my business. Although quite frankly, even if homosexuality were a choice, I would see it as a choice that harms no one and a choice the state should not regulate...and certainly not regulate based on the dogma of any specific religious faith.

So if an admitted straight person chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, is that person gay or straight?

Sorry to interrupt, but we define homosexuality by a person's declared sexuality and/or their behavior which reveals their sexuality consciously or not.

A self-declared "straight" person who "chooses" to engage in homosexual sex is either:

1) bisexual

2) kidding themselves about heterosexuality or

3) engaging in homosexuality as a temporary substitute for heterosexual sex.

So, it is a declared choice.

No, it is a declaration they are homosexual.

Obviously (?) such a declaration doesn't make them homosexual unless it reflects their true or natural sexuality.

[homersapien 11,377]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

If you believe that life begins at conception, yes. If you don't then no it isn't.

Mighty big risk to take not knowing when life begins.

Much more comforting to rely on "Daddy" to tell you, huh?

[homersapien 11,377]

Most of the well educated Socially Liberal people believe in Science especially when talking about evolution, Climate change , etc. but when science gets in the way of their views they ignore it. As a biology major many many years ago I was taught how to distinguish a living object from an inanimate object. One key area is how a living object would re-act to external stimuli an amoeba touched with a sharp object moves away put a toxic substance in the area where an amoeba is it moves away from it. After conception the zygote scientific term of a fertilized egg or the embryo reacts the same way any other living object does to external stress it tries to avoid it.

Scientifically the embryo is alive.

Everybody who is Pro-Choice will tell you they are Pro-Life they will tell you I am not really killing a baby I am giving a woman the choice on how to make decisions on their own body. That sounds fair but our legal system is a balance between individual choice and protecting the rights of others. Also they are denying Science and the definition of life.

As long as my choice is not hurting another person or society as a whole I should have the right to make the choice. A woman or a man has the choice to have sex or not to have sex unless one of them knows that they are carrying a disease that will hurt the other one. A woman has the choice to use or not to use contraceptives when having sex of if for religious reasons can't use contraceptives to only have sex during certain time frames. Choice comes with consequences if your choices lead to a life then nobody should have the right to kill that life.

I don't believe anyone has questioned whether an embryo is alive, the question is whether said embryo is a human life, with legal rights, consciousness, or soul.

We all take life in one way or another: We all kill, or allow to be killed, plants or animals because we cannot photosynthesize. Most of the non-vegans among us are perfectly happy for an animal to be killed so we can wear its skin on our feet even though synthetic substitutes are available. A tumor is alive, but I hear no one defending a tumor's right to life. Every bottle of beer consumed, every body piercing, or every playground scratch probably results in the death of many living cells. How many of us have never stomped on a cockroach when we saw one, or slapped a mosquito? A sperm cell is alive, but how many quadrillions of them are killed by persons watching internet porn in this country daily? How many poor, unfortunate spermatozoa are sent to their deaths against condoms, spermicides, diaphragms, or wombs rendered infertile by other contraceptives?.......

Now, that's a droll sense of humor!

[homersapien 11,377]

I have never seen you guys this confused. Read your posts before posting them.

Well, there's my nomination for the most ironic post of the year!

[AUDub 11,149]

Most of the well educated Socially Liberal people believe in Science especially when talking about evolution, Climate change , etc. but when science gets in the way of their views they ignore it. As a biology major many many years ago I was taught how to distinguish a living object from an inanimate object. One key area is how a living object would re-act to external stimuli an amoeba touched with a sharp object moves away put a toxic substance in the area where an amoeba is it moves away from it. After conception the zygote scientific term of a fertilized egg or the embryo reacts the same way any other living object does to external stress it tries to avoid it.

Scientifically the embryo is alive.

Everybody who is Pro-Choice will tell you they are Pro-Life they will tell you I am not really killing a baby I am giving a woman the choice on how to make decisions on their own body. That sounds fair but our legal system is a balance between individual choice and protecting the rights of others. Also they are denying Science and the definition of life.

As long as my choice is not hurting another person or society as a whole I should have the right to make the choice. A woman or a man has the choice to have sex or not to have sex unless one of them knows that they are carrying a disease that will hurt the other one. A woman has the choice to use or not to use contraceptives when having sex of if for religious reasons can't use contraceptives to only have sex during certain time frames. Choice comes with consequences if your choices lead to a life then nobody should have the right to kill that life.

I don't believe anyone has questioned whether an embryo is alive, the question is whether said embryo is a human life, with legal rights, consciousness, or soul.

We all take life in one way or another: We all kill, or allow to be killed, plants or animals because we cannot photosynthesize. Most of the non-vegans among us are perfectly happy for an animal to be killed so we can wear its skin on our feet even though synthetic substitutes are available. A tumor is alive, but I hear no one defending a tumor's right to life. Every bottle of beer consumed, every body piercing, or every playground scratch probably results in the death of many living cells. How many of us have never stomped on a cockroach when we saw one, or slapped a mosquito? A sperm cell is alive, but how many quadrillions of them are killed by persons watching internet porn in this country daily? How many poor, unfortunate spermatozoa are sent to their deaths against condoms, spermicides, diaphragms, or wombs rendered infertile by other contraceptives?.......

Now, that's a droll sense of humor!

Made me think of this:

[homersapien 11,377]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

I am pro-choice and I don't see that as riding the fence of an issue that can have a million different circumstances. Women choose abortion for many different reasons. Pro-choicers see the reality of different circumstances and don't put women in a "baby killer " box. I cannot speak for all pro-choicers only myself. I'd hope that no one would chose abortion because of a gay gene, but if they do, it's their choice.

But it is ending a life correct?

If you believe that life begins at conception, yes. If you don't then no it isn't.

Mighty big risk to take not knowing when life begins.

And how is that a risk?

Would you want the blood of an innocent life all over your hands?

I'm not sure if your question is rhetorical, but it is confusing. I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.

He's looking for empirical objective proof for his opinion.