Aborting Potential Gay Babies Choice or Bigotry?

[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!

Made me think of this:

Perfect!

How about this one:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Woody+allen+sperm+scene&oq=woody+allen+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i57j0l3.4380j1j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

[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?.......

Now, that's a droll sense of humor!

Made me think of this:

Big Python fan, but haven't seen that clip in years. Thanks!

Add the Lumberjack Song and you have pretty much covered the topic(s) as insightfully as any poster in the thread!

[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.

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

My daddy?

[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?

My daddy?

Freudian metaphor involving need for authority.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

And they say women are the ones with Daddy issues. ;-)

[Weegle777 78]

What in the world are you guys talking about?