Would you abort a son or daughter if you knew they would be gay?
- Thread starter homerjsimpson
- Start date
Well, the situation is not quite that simple. There are reasons to believe that homosexuality may have a genetic component. The first is that the behaviour is seen in animals, many animals in fact, and they don't succumb to political correctness.I have my doubts. I think they are leaning in response to the direction of the winds of political correctness.
If they do find one, maybe they'll find one for pedophiles as well, which would then make it more acceptable since they have no choice.
If there's a gay gene, it stands to reason there should be a gene for most if not every sexual orientation.
Do you think there is something unacceptable about being gay that makes you compare it to pedophilia?
You are mixing two separate questions. The are, is a conduct acceptable, and is a conduct caused by genetics. They can be answered completely separately.
There is some good evidence that rape is a evolutionary adaptation for certain men...but that ain't going to lead to legalizing it.
if you expand the question to what traits to screen and abort for......i would say NOT to gender, sexual orientation,aesthetics or conditions that do not affrct quality of life.
if the condition affects quality of life it is up to the parent. for example lets say down syndrome. if the child will need support their whole life and the parent is concerned about what happens when they die.....i could see that as being ok to abort.
but something like aspergers where they could function independently then i would say keep it.
if the condition affects quality of life it is up to the parent. for example lets say down syndrome. if the child will need support their whole life and the parent is concerned about what happens when they die.....i could see that as being ok to abort.
but something like aspergers where they could function independently then i would say keep it.
Outstanding post!! All the people who have said the question should not even be asked, are advocating in favour of political correctness, thought police, and against mature discussion. No topic should be off limits; at the very least it brings to light those proponents of (what the society of the day feels to be) reprehensible ideas.Don't like to see this.
If you disagree vigorously with someone, by all means say so, and give your reasons. But it is repulsive and reprehensible to want to bar the subject from being raised.
I can only guess at what is meant by "a decrement mind", but it is certainly contrary to the formalities of civilized debate to attack the speaker because you disagree with the speech.
That said, its still fun to tell the true fucktards of TERB that they are double-digit fucktards. But banning topics for debate, is symptomatic of a failing society.
op could have just said could you accept if your child was gay. no need to add eugenics to the mix.
or if he was gunning for what traits to screen for then ask it thay way.
there are nice and crude ways to ask for the same thing.
ask in a crude manner expect crude responeses.
or if he was gunning for what traits to screen for then ask it thay way.
there are nice and crude ways to ask for the same thing.
ask in a crude manner expect crude responeses.
Yay, anti-gay/anti-abortion and anti-circumcision threads on the same day. I guess Rush Limbaugh has computer access today.Hey, I think it's idiotic and offensive that a woman can just go get an abortion at any time just because she feels like. In fact, I would call it murder, yet it happens every day.
Replacing gay with some terminal genetic defect might be a more interesting question.
Wasn't there a member sometime back that went off on the fact that his girlfriend, recently ex'd from him I think, had an abortion without asking permission.Yay, anti-gay/anti-abortion and anti-circumcision threads on the same day. I guess Rush Limbaugh has computer access today.
Replacing gay with some terminal genetic defect might be a more interesting question.
No. But they are both sexual orientations which are considered "out of the norm". If the fact that one is attracted to a member of their own sex is due to genetics, it stands to reason being attracted to children or animals or whatever would be due to a similar cause.Do you think there is something unacceptable about being gay that makes you compare it to pedophilia?
Not difficult to understand. Straight up, genetics is the cause of sexual preferences, whatever they may be.
i would not abort a kid if i knew they were gonna be gay. i would abort if i knew the kid was gonna be drastically ill, deformed and live a pain filled life that would end in a premature death.
however i am not a woman and i can't abort anything, so my opinion doesn't matter.
however i am not a woman and i can't abort anything, so my opinion doesn't matter.
I've decided to ignore the close-minded dickheads, I mean christ, I feel like I'm back in high school arguing grade 9 philosophy shit.
But this is worth answering.
But I'm talking about this problem with abortion, in today's world where chicks still have a choice to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.
This whole gay thing is a powder-keg it seems. There have been topics throughout history that have just grown so touchy that people instantly blow up if you put that topic in a negative light. God help you if you voice differently, even just to pose a thoughtful question. If you were at a gathering (party) and someone said, "Hey, what percentage of the population would have abortions if there a test to show their kid would turn out gay?" .. would you (dickheads) suddenly blurt out the same response? Maybe you would. That's kind of scary in a way. THINK LIKE WE DO OR BE STONED TO DEATH. I wonder if a screenwriter who poses this kind of topic in one of his stories would also be considered to have, "symptoms of a decrement mind with no use to humanity whatsoever."
What if I had used a different topic? Take other examples. You (or your wife) is pregnant and there's a test that shows your child will be morbidly obese their entire lives. Well that sucks, abort that sucker. Or maybe your child will have a max IQ of 80. That sucks too. No university for you kiddo, you gotta learn to drive a truck. If I had asked either of these questions, would I still have a 'decrement mind' or be considered psychotic for even thinking such a thing?
By the way, as of this posting there are 60 people who say no, they wouldn't get an abortion, and 9 that say either yes, they would get an abortion or yes if it was a boy. So 15% of respondents would at least consider the abortion. That's a pretty big number when you think about it. Is the question so absurd?
But this is worth answering.
There is a huge difference. When your kid is 12 and he comes to you and says, "Dad, I'm gay." At that point you give your son a big hug and say, "Be whoever you want to be, I love you just as much as yesterday and always will." And for those that feel differently, they still have no choice. Its their kid and they have to deal with it.op could have just said could you accept if your child was gay. no need to add eugenics to the mix.
But I'm talking about this problem with abortion, in today's world where chicks still have a choice to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies.
This whole gay thing is a powder-keg it seems. There have been topics throughout history that have just grown so touchy that people instantly blow up if you put that topic in a negative light. God help you if you voice differently, even just to pose a thoughtful question. If you were at a gathering (party) and someone said, "Hey, what percentage of the population would have abortions if there a test to show their kid would turn out gay?" .. would you (dickheads) suddenly blurt out the same response? Maybe you would. That's kind of scary in a way. THINK LIKE WE DO OR BE STONED TO DEATH. I wonder if a screenwriter who poses this kind of topic in one of his stories would also be considered to have, "symptoms of a decrement mind with no use to humanity whatsoever."
What if I had used a different topic? Take other examples. You (or your wife) is pregnant and there's a test that shows your child will be morbidly obese their entire lives. Well that sucks, abort that sucker. Or maybe your child will have a max IQ of 80. That sucks too. No university for you kiddo, you gotta learn to drive a truck. If I had asked either of these questions, would I still have a 'decrement mind' or be considered psychotic for even thinking such a thing?
By the way, as of this posting there are 60 people who say no, they wouldn't get an abortion, and 9 that say either yes, they would get an abortion or yes if it was a boy. So 15% of respondents would at least consider the abortion. That's a pretty big number when you think about it. Is the question so absurd?
At last! At long last, my wait is over, and it's really gonna happen! Someone is finally going to explain to me just how an actual human child is harmed by a pervert possessing depictions /descriptions of imaginary child porn - the crime for which prison time is mandated in Canada.Says the guy who doesn't think child pornography hurts children
"Imaginary" child porn? - c'mon - that's where no real children have been used -- where the pictures are cartoons etc of a child doing sex things, drawn from the pervert's own imagination, or where the model is a consenting adult who is merely pretending to be under-18.
No? Ah, well. Back to aborting gay babies, then.
LOL you consider 15% significant? In a gathering of 10 people that would be you plus maybe one other person.
So Homer what is your point?
Are you concerned about abortion? Or potentially gay children?
You talk about how abortion is a problem.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/canada/ab-canadar2-ON.html
Looks like from the 80s to 2007 the abortion rate is about 17 to 25%...... so let's say 21% on average.
So 1 out of 5 pregnancies. subtract out abortions due to health concerns for mom or child. remove unplanned pregnancies. The number of abortions for trivial reasons is probably small.
Even if we assume that the amount of abortions due to thses three reasons are equal (which is probably is not..... unplanned would be the largest, health concerns second, trivial third)
We are talking 7% of all pregnancies......REALISTICALLY it would be LESS THAN 7%.
So less than 7 out of 100 pregnant women are opting for termination of pregnancies for trivial reasons is a concern?
So Homer what is your point?
Are you concerned about abortion? Or potentially gay children?
You talk about how abortion is a problem.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/canada/ab-canadar2-ON.html
Looks like from the 80s to 2007 the abortion rate is about 17 to 25%...... so let's say 21% on average.
So 1 out of 5 pregnancies. subtract out abortions due to health concerns for mom or child. remove unplanned pregnancies. The number of abortions for trivial reasons is probably small.
Even if we assume that the amount of abortions due to thses three reasons are equal (which is probably is not..... unplanned would be the largest, health concerns second, trivial third)
We are talking 7% of all pregnancies......REALISTICALLY it would be LESS THAN 7%.
So less than 7 out of 100 pregnant women are opting for termination of pregnancies for trivial reasons is a concern?
By the time this is possible hopefully people will be more liberal about homosexuality so that it would be a moot point.While the question is stupid on the face of it, it is a question we need to think more about as a society. There is a good possibility that a gene or combination of genes is connected to homosexuality (despite the apparent darwinian illogic on the face of it) and sooner or later those genetic factors will be identified and thus can be tested for.
Now while I think the rational mind would immediately suggest the answer should be "of course not" we know that people will kill or abort children based on their gender, so the risk then occurs that they might do the same based on sexual orientation.
I think the broader question becomes do we place limits on fetal genetic testing to prevent this sort of tragedy?
But this is also assuming that homosexuality is 100% nature and 0% nurture.
Interesting response to the question.
While it seems reprehensible, let's not forget that there are folks who do abort children merely because of their sex. That goes on now. They also abort because it's inconvenient. And a host of other relatively trivial reasons.
Freedom of choice is a bitch isn't it?
While it seems reprehensible, let's not forget that there are folks who do abort children merely because of their sex. That goes on now. They also abort because it's inconvenient. And a host of other relatively trivial reasons.
Freedom of choice is a bitch isn't it?
Yes and hopefully the percentage of abortions for these types of reasons are low.Interesting response to the question.
While it seems reprehensible, let's not forget that there are folks who do abort children merely because of their sex. That goes on now. They also abort because it's inconvenient. And a host of other relatively trivial reasons.
Freedom of choice is a bitch isn't it?
you raise an excellent point that with any personal freedom there will be some people who do things that offend you (but it is their right).
