Posted on 10/20/2013 3:50:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
LGBT rights= don't try to kill off the sexually deviant,
but
Abortion rights = go ahead, kill them off.
Author comes down in favor of the liberty to target potentially gay babies for a good killin', but somehow she doesn't quite like that.
All prolifers believe in the right to life of even the gay, disoriented, dizzy and twisty-tailed-around, but "prochoice feminists" would say it's OK to kill 'em all.
How progressive is that?
A discussion that starts with an impossible premise reveals a lot about the people discussing it, but doesn’t generate much light in terms of usable ethics.
Remember “If it could be proved that Mary had other children ...”?
No.
“belief that homosexuality is ‘a good’ on par with heterosexuality.”
Insane reasoning. Earlier death, no reproduction, alcoholism, drug use, suicide, abuse, incontinence.
“because homosexual behavior is crucial to the ability of homosexual people to enjoy their lives”
Pedophiles feel that way about having sex with children. Alcoholics feel the same way about getting wasted every night.
You know, there was a time when the default wasn’t “you must do everything you can to enjoy life.” It used to be “you must to everything to be virtuous and righteous, even if it means sacrifice”
Why women have a right to sex-selective abortion
The Guardian ^ | 9/19/2013 | Sarah Ditum
Posted on 09/19/2013 10:46:50 AM PDT by mojito
When you talk about being pro-choice, sex selective abortion is often slung at you as the triumphant gotcha. "You love women so much you want them to be in charge of what grows inside their bodies, but what about the women who are aborted, have a go at answering that? ZING!"The answer is actually remarkably simple, and it's this: it doesn't matter whether what's growing inside you is liable to end up as a man or a woman. What matters is whether the person it's growing inside – the person who is going to have to deliver the resulting baby, at not inconsiderable personal peril – actually wants to be pregnant and give birth to this child. In a world where it's possible to end a pregnancy safely and legally, it seems like rank brutality to force anyone to carry to term against her will.
And as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter why any woman wants to end her pregnancy. As the conscious and legally competent entity in the conception set-up, it's the woman's say that counts, and even the most terrible reason for having an abortion holds more sway than the best imaginable reason for compelling a woman to carry to term.
In their private lives, parents will de-select homosexuality.
If we can actually identify the “gay gene” we can eliminate it.
Ain’t life ironic?
Question in liberal speak...
Why should you get to have the child of your choice.
Wouldn’t it be more fair to deliver them all in to a
government cheche and then they are redistributed
randomly to give each an equal chance?
</liberalism>
In real life, gay activists will consider the existence of a prenatal gay test as being a hate crime, will make life hell for any researcher attempting to come up with such a test, and will torch any lab daring to process such a test.
No. Look at China and their one child policy.
I’ve often wondered how the left would react if the following two conditions were met:
-Proof of a genetic cause for homosexuality (and all the variations related to it);
-A woman decided to abort the child based upon that genetic evidence.
If the article above is any indicator, my suspicions would likely turn out to be correct. That is, the far left and their LGBT allies would probably start screaming that “orientation-based abortions” were discriminatory and human rights violations. The media would follow up with “outrage” and anyone who went on record for having an abortion for that reason would become a pariah (unlike the likes of Gloria Steinem and Whoopi Goldberg, who had “necessary” abortions, to use the language of the far left).
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEXUAL ORIENTATION AT BIRTH.
IT’S SIMPLY AN EXCUSE TO GIVE SEXUAL IDENTITY TO CHILDREN SO THAT PEDOPHILES CAN MOLEST THEM WITH AN EXCUSE.
You have to think that if abortion is indeed the left’s sacrament, then the pro-homosexual tendency gene testers will win. More abortion is more abortion. It will still be one heck of a fight, if it ever happens.
Not a good sign for those with some sort of hypothetical homosexual genetic predisposition syndrome, you don’t see many little people or down syndrome kids around much, like this witch says. In any case, if the hypothetical genetic selector only gives a predisposition to homosexuality, there will still always be those that were cleared who turn out gay.
Eventually they might solve the impasse by being able to manipulate the genes, giving the ability to assign sex attraction to order. Then they could ensure a 100% chance of same-sex attraction.
Freegards
Actually parents DO pick the sexual orientation of their children. They can provide a stable home with love, discipline and learning to have a normal child.
Or they can have a model leftists household and screw the child up.
Best answer of the day.
There is only one sexual orientation, NATURAL!
There is no genetic element to deviance.
Sin is sin.
I agree with the sentiment behind this, but the fact is that you can have a family with ten children, all but one turn out decent, and that kid will be problematic.
It doesn’t matter if it’s drugs, stealing, capital crimes, or something like homosexuality. It’s impossible to tell why so many kids turn out great, and a few don’t growing up in the same family environment.
What a great way to screw up a kid.
Kids already have way too much pressure on them as it is. And when would parents decide to “change the sex” of their child? When the reach puberty? Way before puberty?
There are tomboy girls and effeminate boys. When both are mature adults, both like the opposite sex and are very happy.
Gays never seem to be happy or satisfied anyway. I has little to do with perceived discrimination. And people who have sex change operations don't seem to be happy either.
Choosing kid’s sex —
One major flaw.
We pick, from in utero information. But this is chromosome based.
What if the chosen boy (or girl), after being born says he/she is a girl (or boy)???
And, what if the parent wants to choose a kid who will be a transgender?
... or ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ or ... etc.....
I am confused, and incapable of understanding all the ramifications of this.
It is a good thing that the ACA will improve health care to the point that this will all be predictable, and kids will all be the sex (or deviant) desired by both the parents and the kids themselves!
I don’t think that will happen.
We are all sinners, so we are all pre-disposed to sin.
Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.