Political Crossfire Forums

[Ptalkopher]

I posted this in a topic on another forum I frequent, but I want to see what other people feel about it. And don't jump on me for posting something related to gays in this forum, I couldn't decide which place was better, but I ultimately chose this one. If it's more appropriate in the Gay & Lesbian forum, feel free to move it. :)

Anyway:
You're the ruler of the world, you have complete power over everything. If you say it, it happens. Now, your head scientists have just developed a machine that shoots a harmless ray into a woman's uterus and can detect the amount of homosexuality of the fetus. You are also highly against abortion. What do you do?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Your post assumes that everyone who is against abortion is also homophobic-- or at least politically opposed to gay rights.

Personally, I have no objection to abortion. I'd allow the ray to be used by potential parents for screening purposes, but I wouldn't use it myself or abort a child based on the results.

[Ch33kY]

Can they actually detect the homosexuality of the fetus? Sounds like a myth.

If they could detect if the fetus had a 'Christian gene' that determines whether he or she will be a Christian, then that makes my decision much easier! :lol:

[Ptalkopher]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Your post assumes that everyone who is against abortion is also homophobic-- or at least politically opposed to gay rights.
Oh, yeah. I probably should've mentioned that it's not meant to stereotype anyone or combine two opinions. The thing is, I posted it in a topic (on the afforementioned forum) that was debating both issues, and it was aimed mostly at people who were both against abortion and gays.

[Gilbert1908]

Ptalkopher wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: Your post assumes that everyone who is against abortion is also homophobic-- or at least politically opposed to gay rights.
Oh, yeah. I probably should've mentioned that it's not meant to stereotype anyone or combine two opinions. The thing is, I posted it in a topic (on the afforementioned forum) that was debating both issues, and it was aimed mostly at people who were both against abortion and gays.

This is THE social question.

There is little doubt that abortion on demand is leading to boutique abortions. Where the parents will choose to terminate a pregnancy because of traits, trends and characteristics.

This is another reason to either oppose or seek much greater restrictions for abortion.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Why? What's wrong with parents using abortion as a tool to pick traits for their future son or daughter?

[Selfish_Meme]

The deficit of 40 million women in China and India maybe? And they are not even doing it all through abortion.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/01/10/girl_deficit_grows_in_india/

[galba]

Ptalkopher wrote: I posted this in a topic on another forum I frequent, but I want to see what other people feel about it. And don't jump on me for posting something related to gays in this forum, I couldn't decide which place was better, but I ultimately chose this one. If it's more appropriate in the Gay & Lesbian forum, feel free to move it. :)

Anyway:
You're the ruler of the world, you have complete power over everything. If you say it, it happens. Now, your head scientists have just developed a machine that shoots a harmless ray into a woman's uterus and can detect the amount of homosexuality of the fetus. You are also highly against abortion. What do you do?

Well, as I am anti-abortion, I'll answer. No, doesn't matter if you could tell a fetus is gay or not (even if it is genetic), you still don't have the right to kill it. Remeber, for those who are anti-abortion, it makes no difference wether the a person is in the womb or not.

[Kt]

Ch33kY wrote: Can they actually detect the homosexuality of the fetus? Sounds like a myth.

If they could detect if the fetus had a 'Christian gene' that determines whether he or she will be a Christian, then that makes my decision much easier! :lol:

Good call, Abort all the christian babies. :lol:

[The Grandmaster]

Being staunch pro-choice, I believe she should have the right to determine what is inside her body based on whatever reason she chooses. The Anarchist said it best when he said “Even is she wants to get pregnant, with the soul intention of having an abortion only to eat the fetus, that is okay by me.” The reason is irrelevant. She has dominion over her body.

[Gilbert1908]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Being staunch pro-choice, I believe she should have the right to determine what is inside her body based on whatever reason she chooses. The Anarchist said it best when he said “Even is she wants to get pregnant, with the soul intention of having an abortion only to eat the fetus, that is okay by me.” The reason is irrelevant. She has dominion over her body.

You have made your self a pathetic joke with this ridiculous statement.

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Being staunch pro-choice, I believe she should have the right to determine what is inside her body based on whatever reason she chooses. The Anarchist said it best when he said “Even is she wants to get pregnant, with the soul intention of having an abortion only to eat the fetus, that is okay by me.” The reason is irrelevant. She has dominion over her body.

You have made your self a pathetic joke with this ridiculous statement.

I remain consistent in my belief that the reasons for her choosing to have an abortion remain irrelevant. While the attention grabbing illustration that the Anarchist is probably unlikely, it remains an effective metaphor to illustrate this point. It doesn’t matter why in my eyes a woman wants to have an abortion. As I believe to a point she is not killing a life, and that she has the right to sovereignty over her body, it entails she has a right to determine was is in it motives notwithstanding.

[Gilbert1908]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Being staunch pro-choice, I believe she should have the right to determine what is inside her body based on whatever reason she chooses. The Anarchist said it best when he said “Even is she wants to get pregnant, with the soul intention of having an abortion only to eat the fetus, that is okay by me.” The reason is irrelevant. She has dominion over her body.

You have made your self a pathetic joke with this ridiculous statement.

I remain consistent in my belief that the reasons for her choosing to have an abortion remain irrelevant. While the attention grabbing illustration that the Anarchist is probably unlikely, it remains an effective metaphor to illustrate this point. It doesn’t matter why in my eyes a woman wants to have an abortion. As I believe to a point she is not killing a life, and that she has the right to sovereignty over her body, it entails she has a right to determine was is in it motives notwithstanding.

But she DOES NOT have full legal dominion over her body, nobody does. If she did abortion on demand would be legal AT ANY POINT, it is not.

The question is and remains the point at which in the development of a human life there is a greater good done in protecting the unborn than permitting the mother to terminate the life. This point presently begins after the 2nd trimester and it is possible that it can change.

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote:

But she DOES NOT have full legal dominion over her body, nobody does. If she did abortion on demand would be legal AT ANY POINT, it is not.

The question is and remains the point at which in the development of a human life there is a greater good done in protecting the unborn than permitting the mother to terminate the life. This point presently begins after the 2nd trimester and it is possible that it can change.

What restricts the full dominion you have over your body? Does the Goverment limit it, can they tell your heart how many times to beat every minute? Does your body try to do whatever you tell it to do without argument? You cannot be disasociated from your body without killing you. You are one and the same. Nobody else in the universe has the right to tell you what to do with whats inside your skin. Therefore you have full legal dominion over your body.

Are you trying to say someone else can't have that same right? There IS a case for abortion at any stage of a pregnancy unless we recognise an absolute point at which a contract can be said to exist between mother and embryo, preventing her aborting it.

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Being staunch pro-choice, I believe she should have the right to determine what is inside her body based on whatever reason she chooses. The Anarchist said it best when he said “Even is she wants to get pregnant, with the soul intention of having an abortion only to eat the fetus, that is okay by me.” The reason is irrelevant. She has dominion over her body.

You have made your self a pathetic joke with this ridiculous statement.

I remain consistent in my belief that the reasons for her choosing to have an abortion remain irrelevant. While the attention grabbing illustration that the Anarchist is probably unlikely, it remains an effective metaphor to illustrate this point. It doesn’t matter why in my eyes a woman wants to have an abortion. As I believe to a point she is not killing a life, and that she has the right to sovereignty over her body, it entails she has a right to determine was is in it motives notwithstanding.

But she DOES NOT have full legal dominion over her body, nobody does. If she did abortion on demand would be legal AT ANY POINT, it is not.

The question is and remains the point at which in the development of a human life there is a greater good done in protecting the unborn than permitting the mother to terminate the life. This point presently begins after the 2nd trimester and it is possible that it can change.

My point was that concerning the legality of abortion, if it is to be legal, then the mother should be able to have an abortion for any reason she chooses within the allotted timeframe, whether her pregnancy was a result of rape, or she simply doesn’t want the inconvenience of a baby. Though I would not be opposed to allowing abortion during the full term, allowing her only the first trimester is also acceptable to me, as it seems reasonable anyone would have enough time to make a decision within this frame.

[Gilbert1908]

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Being staunch pro-choice, I believe she should have the right to determine what is inside her body based on whatever reason she chooses. The Anarchist said it best when he said “Even is she wants to get pregnant, with the soul intention of having an abortion only to eat the fetus, that is okay by me.” The reason is irrelevant. She has dominion over her body.

You have made your self a pathetic joke with this ridiculous statement.

I remain consistent in my belief that the reasons for her choosing to have an abortion remain irrelevant. While the attention grabbing illustration that the Anarchist is probably unlikely, it remains an effective metaphor to illustrate this point. It doesn’t matter why in my eyes a woman wants to have an abortion. As I believe to a point she is not killing a life, and that she has the right to sovereignty over her body, it entails she has a right to determine was is in it motives notwithstanding.

But she DOES NOT have full legal dominion over her body, nobody does. If she did abortion on demand would be legal AT ANY POINT, it is not.

The question is and remains the point at which in the development of a human life there is a greater good done in protecting the unborn than permitting the mother to terminate the life. This point presently begins after the 2nd trimester and it is possible that it can change.

My point was that concerning the legality of abortion, if it is to be legal, then the mother should be able to have an abortion for any reason she chooses within the allotted timeframe, whether her pregnancy was a result of rape, or she simply doesn’t want the inconvenience of a baby. Though I would not be opposed to allowing abortion during the full term, allowing her only the first trimester is also acceptable to me, as it seems reasonable anyone would have enough time to make a decision within this frame.

In case you missed it before, you and I agree on this concept. I do not ever assert the MY preference for NO abortion is either realistic or even manageable. I just want the point of protection moved back and for people to begin to have a different discussion.

My entire arguement is based upon raising the awareness on exactly what CHOICE a woman is making and getting people to stop being defensive about the so called RIGHT and focus on the actual CHOICE that is being made.

I believe that realistically we can make abortion far less common and hopefully make it a last resort. Today among many people it is so entrenched as a "right" they often ignore what the actual impact of the choice.

Perhaps the most interesting statistic from polling is that consistently 65% of Americans believe that there should be greater restrictions on abortion.

I fall into that 65%.

[thebreadloaf2003]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Why? What's wrong with parents using abortion as a tool to pick traits for their future son or daughter?

to further this, in biology class you learn that animals and organisms mate and only the ones that adapt survive, so if a parent aborts because of a trait, they are basicaly taking responsiblity for not letting that undesirable trait to be brought about. survival of the fittest

[Kt]

Shim Eun-Ha approves of aborting baby to eat it.
It is APPROVED.

[The Grandmaster]

Gilbert1908 wrote:
In case you missed it before, you and I agree on this concept. I do not ever assert the MY preference for NO abortion is either realistic or even manageable. I just want the point of protection moved back and for people to begin to have a different discussion.

My entire arguement is based upon raising the awareness on exactly what CHOICE a woman is making and getting people to stop being defensive about the so called RIGHT and focus on the actual CHOICE that is being made.

I believe that realistically we can make abortion far less common and hopefully make it a last resort. Today among many people it is so entrenched as a "right" they often ignore what the actual impact of the choice.

Perhaps the most interesting statistic from polling is that consistently 65% of Americans believe that there should be greater restrictions on abortion.

I fall into that 65%.

If by greater restriction, they mean limited to the first or perhaps second trimester, as I said this is acceptable in the name of compromise. I also do not believe it is realistic to expect abortion to be legal until literally the hour before a natural birth would occur anyway. So long as a reasonable timeframe is allowed that a woman is able to make a choice whether to continue or not. Apparently on this, we well might be able to agree on. My qualms come from those advocating nothing less than complete criminalization abortion altogether, even sometimes down to the morning after pill. Against these people I shall never rest my battles with them.

By the way Gilbert, you are invited to my 2000 Post Political Genius Celebration Party in the lounge later tonight. Prole, you as well are invited of course, as one of my favorite PC posters. Everyone here on the abortion forum is invited. Except Sailor. She is not invited.

Hope to see you all there.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Selfish_Meme wrote: The deficit of 40 million women in China and India maybe? And they are not even doing it all through abortion.

If you'll pardon my brief excursion into Social Darwinism, I'd say that those cultures will either learn to appreciate the value of female children, or they will eugenicize themselves out of existence.

Hell, it's already forcing them to look into different methods of importing marriagable women, which will eventually lead to dilution of their culture.

thebreadloaf2003 wrote: ... if a parent aborts because of a trait, they are basicaly taking responsiblity for not letting that undesirable trait to be brought about.

Yes. And this is something I am in absolute support of.

I believe the vast majority of parents would, given the opportunity, do everything within their means to give their children the best possible chance at being happy, healthy, and successful. Allowing parents every opportunity to choose traits for their children will, in the vast majority of cases, lead to the improvement of the species.

And I do believe that we can try to impose some limitations on this process by forbidding the deliberate selection of certain traits, such as known genetic disorders.

There's a bit of controversy surrounding parents deliberately trying to have deaf children so that their children can experience their culture. I cannot begin to express just how ghastly I find that concept.