The genes responsible for homosexuality and heterosexuality will soon be identified, after which genetic testing will be able to identify these genes in utero.
Is your support for abortion rights absolute, or will you oppose the practice of aborting fetuses based on the probability that the fetus will develop into a gay person?
There is no gay gene. Homosexuality is caused by hormonal shifts in the mother during pregnancy. Once they figure that out and which hormones, they won't need to abort, Mom will just another pill along with her fish oil supplement.
One interesting theory is that a hormone released during a stressful period for the mother while gestating could be one of the causes of homosexuality. It's a self protective mechanism for the stressed out mom - creating a child that will never mate / leave her side, therefore always there to protect her.
And how legal will the homo death pill be? If America is legalizing gay marriage, this isn't the seething cauldron of homophobia some freepers and chicken littles like to imagine.
There idea that there is one single biological cause/indicator for homosexuality seems not to be true based on everything we know.
The evidence shows there is a genetic component, the evidence shows there is a non-genetic biological component (like the hormones during pregnancy).
Homosexuality is almost certainly epistatic, caused by a combination of biological factors.
Of course this has nothing to do with the OP who just wants to rile people up and try to convince them they should be against a woman having a right to choose whether she wants to have a kid.
I like R4.
I believe this was the premise of Jonathan Tollins's play, "Twilight Of The Golds". Gave me the creeps then, gives me the creeps now that it's come to pass.
And all those anti-abortion redneck Republicans. However will they choose?
Aborting a gay fetus should only be allowed in cases in which prenatal testing reveal he will be fat or have tinymeat.
How does the theory of a "gay gene" mesh with the fact that larger families tend to include gay male siblings?
For the billionth time, one cannot prevent women from aborting fetuses, one can only prevent women aborting fetuses safely. It is not my body, it is not my call.
R4 is a presumptuous ass, an internet stranger questioning my motives. Fuck you, I don't come to DL to be ridiculed by fellow gays. I deal with enough assholes in real life.
Anyway, I know there is probably no gay gene, but there is a genetic component which influences homosexuality. That component -whether it exits at conception or develops later in utero due to hormonal changes- will soon be identified. Some feminists have problems with sex selection abortion because female fetuses are disproportionately aborted. This is the same type of question.
R4, is it okay for me to ask questions or should I get prior approval from you?
"will soon be identified"
This phrase is meaningless and appears in the first and tenth posts in this thread. That's twice too often.
Well, if it was a lesbo, of course. If it was male and hung, of course not.
OP, better that than be born into a family that hates/fears (talk with Greg Herek about whether it's fear or hatred) homosexuality so much that they'd abort as if it were a terminal illness/syndrome.
How much abuse would such a child go through?
Trust me, there are more than enough of us (parents of gay kids, gay people who want to be parents) to keep having gay kids, even IF your hypothetical comes true.
It's not unlike the usual anti-abortion rhetoric - "if you knew the fetus was going to be deaf and dumb would you abort? - congratulations, you just killed Beethoven" - and many others. I support a woman's right to choose because I feel unless that fetus is viable outside of her womb it's still part of her body. I'm sure for most reasons on some level I would feel it is wrong to abort, however I don't feel it's my choice, but hers and therefore none of my business. I don't see that it matters what her reasons are. As prenatal genetic testing progresses and is demanded I believe people will be screening their unborn for all sorts of things and homosexuality may be one of them. Most things (including homosexuality) are a result of more than one gene and environmental issues as well, so I think the testing will be based on probability and yes I'm sure people will be even making this decision based on eye color because I think that's what humans have become. So yes OP I would support her choice even if she is aborting because genetic testing tells her the baby will be gay. I don't believe it's the right thing to do in the first place regardless of circumstances, however again I believe it's her choice to make. Does that answer your question?
"Supporting a woman's right to choose" doesn't mean "supporting women who make exactly the choices I would," so yes, I would still be pro-choice, regardless of the reasons why any woman would want to terminate her pregnancy.
[quote]R4, is it okay for me to ask questions or should I get prior approval from you?
I'm not r4, but this is an old anti-choicer "trick" question that's very loaded and devised to trip pro-choicers up. The fact that you titled this thread "Aborting HOMOSEXUAL Fetuses" tends to lend credence to the idea that you're just another tiresome rightwing shit-stirrer.
OP is not a shit stirrer. This type of selective abortion is inevitable.
I don't come to a pro-choice website to "trip up" anyone here. I think it's an interesting question and will be more so as technology advances. But I might be a republican infiltrator, so it shouldn't be discussed, right? Hysterics such as you are tiresome.
R16 is evil
I believe a woman's right to choose should always be protected, but I obviously oppose selective abortion for gender or sexuality reasons. My liberal values tell me that women should have control over their bodies, but they also teach me that it's wrong to discriminate.
A woman who would willingly carry a heterosexual fetus but abort a homosexual one has already exercised her right to control her body -- she's willing to carry a pregnancy to term -- but she's discriminating if she choices to abort a gay fetus.
I don't see how that's incompatible, OP. The vast majority of abortions are either poor women, unmarried middle-class teenaged girls and women under 25, and older women who already have children and don't want a difficult, risky pregnancy followed by another infant that needs constant care for 18 more years. These aren't women who would base their decision on the supposed sexuality of the fetus.
The idea that the discovery of "the gay gene" is going to affect the issue of abortion in some way is absurd.
Most heterosexual couples will still have kids by fucking, so this will never become something mainstream. And it will be expensive. Plus aren't there regulations in place so that people can't change things like eye color and so on?
All that said, I don't think it'll ever be pinned down to one gene as being a sole cause. Epigenetics and hormones and everything else present too many variables to try to ensure a change.
Plus, I don't think medical companies want the first lawsuit from parents whose kid turned out gay anyway.
Yeah I don't agree with r16 either. This is eugenics we're talking about here and it should be outlawed. I think it would be too. There would definitely be a lot of debate about it and no liberal pundit would be able to get away with saying they support abortion as a tool of eugenics.
CTFU at a "gay gene!" There is none, everyone is born straight, homosexuality is a CHOICE
Hey, OP? Your question is a well-known rhetorical device of the far right wing. Some of us have actually been around a while and have seen this one before. There's nothing new or clever about it, it's just as ludicrous and poorly-thought-out as its ever been.
Maybe you are an out and proud gay person who supports liberal causes and just sorta stumbled upon paying $18 to start a thread that repeats a common Republican talking point. Who knows? You just might be that stupid. But if you're wondering why R4 and others are attacking you, it's because you regurgitated a Republican talking point but posed it as an innocent question.
Also, as others have pointed out, there is likely no one "gay gene", and regardless of what that email said that your Tea Party Aunt Sally forwarded to you, nothing remotely like that "will soon be identified". At the very least, you should read up on the recent scientific research done on this subject. Educate yourself before you start a thread like this.
The anti-abortionists tend also to be the homophobies. In fact, if there were a gay gene, it would be more of a challenge for them: how would one of the One Million Moms respond if she discovered she was pregnant with a gay fetus?
If R16 isn't a freeper troll playing make-believe, then he's a sociopath. They're not all conservatives, btw.
Actually, R16 is just being honest and sincere, both with him/herself, as well as, with others.
Either women are able to individually decide when they terminate their pregnancies, or they don't.
Women who would suddenly run out to get an abortion because they're carrying a gay fetus, would certainly be just as vile to that person if carried to term.
If you're looking for an excuse to lecture women (I'm not one, so I don't much care) about the moral failings of abortion practices, just do it. Masking it behind your conditional approval is unnecessary.
Feel free to defend eugenics r28, it's what you have to do to support your position.
Sorry you can't handle an honest, consistently applied point of view, freepers. But I support a woman's right to choose wholeheartedly and 100 percent. Little trick questions like yours aren't going to get me to change my mind.
I think that if the 'gay gene' were to be known during pregnancy, the term would be too far along to abort, for most people anyway. That being said, my pro-choice position doesn't change.
This is a subject the anti-abortion freaks love to conceptualize, and get the liberal gays going on an anti-abortion bent...it's doesn't work on this liberal gay.
[quote]I don't come to a pro-choice website to "trip up" anyone here. I think it's an interesting question and will be more so as technology advances. But I might be a republican infiltrator, so it shouldn't be discussed, right? Hysterics such as you are tiresome.
Oh, please. You want to talk tiresome? Go look at the ninnies who shriek "Sociopath!" "Eugenics!" and "Evil!" at someone for having a pro-choice position and answering your supposedly entirely innocent question honestly.
I'm not defending eugenics, R29. If women use abortions to selectively breed, you can express your outrage at them (assuming it comes to that).
Again, I don't have a womb; I cannot get pregnant, nor terminate a pregnancy I'll never have.
The premise of this thread here on DL is just tired. You call it eugenics, but there's always some reason to bring up abortion here, and it never is to affirm women's choice in the matter.
R28, don't get so damn huffy while you're supporting selective eugenics for gay fetuses, moron. Goes for you too, r32.
I think I'll just judge you harshly for wanting the government to limit a woman's right to make choices regarding her own body, sicko at r34.
In case it wasn't clear, you make me sick and you're the very last person who should be attempting to make moral judgments here.
So, yes. I will continue to be huffy and even in-your-face regarding my Pro-Choice point of view. I hope you choke on it, you piece of shit.
THIS old canard, OP?
lame & tired as it was 5 years ago, and the 5 years before that.
r35 = Michfest pea-brain, except even they would being that mindlessly absolutist.
R34, you should really calm down, loosen up back there and breathe. No one is selectively aborting gay fetuses, because no one knows what their unborn child will grow up to be. Getting worked up about a brain-dead hypothetical is disturbing, to say the very least.
Also, I agree with R16/32/35. Jump off a thousand bridges.
r37, you clearly don't talk to many Pro-Choice people.
Granted, your sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, but I got the gist of it. You are shocked - SHOCKED! - that a Pro-Choice person is arguing a Pro-Choice point of view.
Which pretty much tells me everything I need to know about you on the matter.
I am sure the Christian crackpots will somehow try to justify the termination of a gay fetus. I will be waiting to see how they will make homosexuality more important than murder (which is what they refer to abortion as).
[quote] you should really calm down, loosen up back there and breathe.
[quote] Jump off a thousand bridges.
Oh but I'm the one who needs to calm down!
I am pro-choice, I'm just not an absolutist about it like you. But I have pretty much been accused of being a freeper because I oppose eugenics. Reminds me of when people dare to make minor criticisms of Obama and then are always accused of being freepers by assholes like you. In your absolutist world, everyone loves Obama unquestioningly and supports full unrestricted abortion rights even if it's being used as a tool of eugenics, or they're a freeper. No shades of grey, just black and white, ironically just the way freepers view the world.
R40, who needs Christians to support it? The pro-choice absolutists here don't have any problem supporting either.
I love how r41 calls people morons, pea-brains and assholes, but gets completely bent out of shape when people call him a freeper.
Once again, telling us all we need to know about r41.
[quote]Bringing Obama into it was the tipoff.
Thank you, R42, I was just about to post the same thing.
I knew you two like to go around calling any critic of Obama a freeper, called it.
There was a story on 60 Minutes that investigated the research that showed the youngest child or a four or five kid family is usually gay.
Hey, OP. Since we're sitting around the dorm kicking around our deep thoughts, what if we learn how to gestate fetuses in artificial wombs? Is it still up to the female to decide what happens to the fetus, or if she doesn't want to carry the fetus, can it be compelled to be born artificially if the father wants it?
OMG, r1 - that scenario is creepier than the OP's.
What about eight, r45?
Nicholas Bradford, who always felt like he never fit in
[quote]I knew you two like to go around calling any critic of Obama a freeper, called it.
Oh, I don't think you're a freeper because you criticized Obama. I think you're a freeper because you call people with liberal opinions "morons," "assholes," and "pea-brains" when they honestly answer a question DESIGNED BY RIGHTWINGERS to make people with liberal opinions look bad.
And also because you brought Obama into the conversation for no good reason.
Face it, sweetheart. You've been made.
Yes, you need to calm down. I didn't call you a freeper. I have never called anyone a freeper. I don't know how freepers view the world, you seemingly do. What you think of Obama is no business of mine. I was only responding to your protestations about 'eugenics' which are entirely unfounded because none of, well, anything is happening. Then you learned a new word, 'absolutist'. How clever you are, who's a good girl!
There aren't any shades of any color here, either. I don't understand why you feel so passionately about something that isn't even going on. In any case, we have several levels of government for this very scenario. Elect officials wherever you live that give you what you need. Regulations exist, you know.
This thread has nothing to do with reality. It's tired premise is brought up by people who already object to abortion, who, for whatever deluded reason, think they are being original by positing made-up consequences, or 'shades of grey', on a subject that is not difficult to grasp.
Jump off a few more bridges, it will do you a world of good.
R7 is on to something.
[quote] I don't understand why you feel so passionately about something that isn't even going on.
Because he wants to yell at liberals, of course.
Yes, R44 you must learn to keep your Tourette-ish Obama hatred under wraps if you want to be a stealth freeper.
I've always hated abortion with a passion and the idea of selective abortion is even more repugnant. However there is no way you can stop abortions because of selective reasons. Yes there will be straight people that will choose to terminate their pregnancies BUT a slippery slope will happen if you are banned from having an abortion because of a gay gene, then because the baby has some other gene. Pro-abortion ,abortion rights groups will adamantly press for abortion despite the idea of a gay gene. Especially most women. Good or bad they don't need guys(gay or fundamentalists) telling them whether or not they should have a baby.
Killing is killing.
r55 weeps every time someone swats a housefly.
This gets the award for the lamest post of the day.
My take on abortion will always be whatever the woman decides, is her right to decide.
OP, aside from your silly observation genes can identify right now all manner of genetic markers for traits and disease. Suggest you look there for an indication of what you are trying to provoke on this thread.
I'd like to figure a way out of this, but really can't.
Seems to me that you are either pro choice or pro life.
If you're pro choice, then you cannot be in the business of dictating the qualitative rationale for that choice. People already abort for things like down syndrome and other birth defects. I'm betting in some countries, it's probably common to abort for gender.
If you're pro life, then there ought not be any exceptions - rape, incest or even life of the mother. It's disingenuous to say you're pro life, but are willing to kill the baby to save the mother (if you subscribe to the idea that it's a baby from conception). Outside the womb, we'd never allow someone to kill a baby to save the life of another person, so it's logically flawed to do so in utero. Likewise, rape and incest, while psychologically and emotionally damaging to the mother, have no bearing on the baby - from a pro life perspective.
Seems like you cannot consistently and logically get yourself out of either box without some type of mental gymnastics.
R57, Absolutely, if a woman can live with herself after murdering a person she should absolutely have that right. Odds are that baby was going to be up to no good.
A fetus is not a person, r57.
Interesting conundrum. Whats a pro-life & anti-gay bigot to do?
Sorry, I meant r59.
R57, Not long ago, black people weren't considered people and just look where I am now.
R61 They have the kid and they give the baby up for adoption.
In places like Canada, private clinics are already figuring out the sex of babies for Indian and Chinese clients.The Canadian government has tried to stop this practice on a public level BUT the private method is a way of circumventing that. The female fetuses are aborted because of cultural reasons. It is preferable to have a boy.There is no way the pro-abortion/abortion rights/pro-choice side can stop this. Once one type of abortion is banned THEN all types of abortions will be banned.
[quote]If you're pro choice, then you cannot be in the business of dictating the qualitative rationale for that choice.
Who says? We already have qualitative restrictions on later-termed pregnancies so why not earlier term pregnancies?
But in the end, it's the woman's choice, either way.
[quote]They have the kid and they give the baby up for adoption.
How fascinating that you know exactly what all anti-Choice people would do in this dilemma.
[quote]There is no way the pro-abortion/abortion rights/pro-choice side can stop this. Once one type of abortion is banned THEN all types of abortions will be banned.
Nope. You're just feverish and delusional.
R65 It's a slippery slope. Most people agree that late term abortions are wrong morally on both the pro-abortion/pro-choice and the pro-life/anti-abortion side.Even though what is the difference between having an abortion because the fetus is female, the baby has Downs syndrome or the baby is gay. In the end, we've been hearing for years that the fetus is not a baby at under 3 weeks right? Women are aborting now for economic reasons,using it as birth control and a gazillion other reasons, so how can you ban certain abortions because of sex selection or a gay gene? what makes a women fetus more important to preserve than a male one?
[quote]Seems like you cannot consistently and logically get yourself out of either box without some type of mental gymnastics.
That is simply untrue. Women terminate their pregnancies for all kinds of reasons, and I'm quite sure I wouldn't agree with those reasons in every instance. But I still believe the choice is hers and hers alone to make. I feel no differently about it if it's a so-called "gay fetus" she's aborting.
That last sentence should tell you just how ludicrous this whole "debate" is, because there's no such thing as a "gay fetus," of course.
[quote]Women are aborting now for economic reasons,using it as birth control
Women have ALWAYS terminated their pregnancies for economic reasons, and they use abortion as birth control because that's exactly what it is.
I support a woman's right to choose.
I would find terminating a pregnancy on many grounds - including gender, testing for which has already existed for some time - disgusting.
I would certainly feel the same way about terminating a pregnancy on the grounds of sexual orientation of the life being carried.
But, to answer your question, I would oppose any legally imposed litmus test of questioning a woman's reasons for terminating a pregnancy and deciding which reasons are legitimate and which are not. That is the choice of the woman alone to be considered with those she seeks to consider it with.
So eugenics is OK as long as a woman makes the decision? Fuck I should have given Eva Braun more power.
Keep trying, r59 / r63 / r71! Here are some more names for you to humorously sign your posts, in order to heavy-handedly make your "point:"
Jack the Ripper
It's fun! And it totally gets Pro-Choice people to question their entire political philosophy!
And, while you're at it, find a new word to use. 'Eugenics' has lost its punch. I'll concede when eugenic screening is taken on, at a systematic and organized level, until then it is just abortion.
But r7, that would mean the extinction of Datalounge.
Only angry lesbians would be posting!
The gay population is possibly determined by society, meaning that an equitable amount of gay people are born to a community. If gay fetuses are being aborted, this could spike the amount of gay babies born to mothers who carry to full term. In other words, it could be a wash or a net gain in the gay population.
Plus, there's the idea that anyone who would abort a baby because of its sexuality probably wasn't going to be the best parent to said baby anyway.
It riles you girls up, that's all I wanted to do. Plus, on some level, you know it is an issue.
I hope I still live in the US when it hits the new that a woman aborts a baby because it had a genetic predisposition to be gay. Gays will be marching in the streets and demanding the same right to be born as straight people. You can't have it both ways and for the majority of gays gay rights trumps any other issue.
Sex selective abortions are horrifyingly prevalent in many parts of the world. As disturbing as I find it, I still don't feel I have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, even if I disagree with her choice and her reasoning. Misogyny and homophobia are deeply embedded in many cultures and will not be eradicated by outlawing abortion. The root causes need to be dealt with.
If you support a woman's right to chose, you can't start examining her thought process.
Although I am definitely not a member of One Million Moms, or even religious, I've talked to enough far-right wing Christians to understand their point of view. I feel that I must speak up because so many posters do not appear to understand how they think.
First of all, OMM are all characterized by their completely unrealistic, even delusional, world view. No they would never have an abortion, especially if it's not to save the life of the mother. "It's God's will." Nor would they ever truly believe that they were carrying a gay child, since they definitely don't think that science is always right.
I think they most OMM members (all 12) would have an abortion in a minute if the circumstances of her life required one. She'd find a way to justify her exception to herself and keep it a secret from everyone else.
I base this on the fact that the bible belt has more unmarried mothers than any other part of the country and Utah buys the most online porn per capita.
R55, what are your thoughts on the death penalty? Are you an anti-war pacifist? Did you support the Iraq War? I'd just love to hear your views on gun control. Are you a vegan, by chance?
"...for the majority of gays gay rights trumps any other issue. "
BULLshit, you troll.
Speak for yourself, that is if you ARE gay.
[quote] Gave me the creeps then, gives me the creeps now that it's come to pass.
It has not come to pass
R76? You're actually expecting this scenario to come to pass?
Do you also believe moon colonies and flying cars are in our near future?
You are a shit-stirring troll and nothing more, you admitted it. Like most trolls, you're an idiot. Your scenario has been torn apart a hundred times in this thread but you're choosing to ignore it: one "gay gene" does not exist, scientists believe there are multiple factors, genetic and environmental, that can determine sexual orientation; therefore there will never be a "test" to determine future sexuality. As others have noted, no company would market such a test since the inevitable "false-negatives" would result in lawsuits and bad publicity. Besides the fact that these tests would be expensive and only sought out by homophobes, who, I'm sure you're disappointed to learn, are quickly decreasing and dying off in our society. Not many young mothers-to-be in this day and age are virulently opposed to gay people. Our society, thankfully, is evolving to the point where homophobia will be a refuge for no one but the worst bigots.
Sexuality is a bit more nuanced than, say, Down's syndrome or spinal bifada. The idea that women will be getting such tests en masse is ludicrous. Even if science progressed to that point, it would take so long that we'll have a gay President and Russia will have gay marriage. Mainstream homophobia will be long since relegated to the garbage pile by then, along with mainstream racism and sexism. Your arguing a viewpoint that's already on the wrong side of history.
R80, Congrats, you have managed to compare apple to oranges and some how deduce they were actually pineapples.
R80, Of course many on the religious right are hypocrites. There are so many young unmarried moms in the Bible Belt because many singles aren't on birth control. "Lack of judgment" or "drinking" is a common excuse. Others stray from the Church, indulge, and then later return "seeking forgiveness."
For a anti-gay mother to abort her supposedly gay fetus, she'd have to be totally convinced that she couldn't change his orientation, once born. I personally don't think that's possible.
There are plenty of women who would either love or have no problem with having a gay child, so, even if a test for a "gay fetus" were possible, plenty of women would still choose to have the child.
Anyone who thinks otherwise has both no knowledge of what many women are really like, and a pathological disrespect for women they need to look in to.
Plenty of women today, even after they get the in utero tests for Down Syndrome have the baby. OP is a jerk.
Nobody said every woman would abort a gay fetus,.
There are PLENTY of women that would want gay children. Ayellet Waldman said & wrote that she keeps wishing her young son was gay because she wants a gay son. Unfortunately for her I think her son is straight.
You are an idiot r89 (et al)
If such a test were possible, it wouldn't be part of the typical scans women go in for - you would have to actively request it. Anything otherwise would suggest being gay is a 'developmental issue' that needs to be screened for. Most won't ask.
And pretty much it's hormonal not genetic.
OP smells like a trolling freeper.
And there is no gay gene, as pointed out at the start of the thread. So the entire underpinning of the OP's arguyment is built of fraufarts and vitriol.
WIth that said, anyone who supports a woman's right to choose supports a woman's right to choose. If women today are terminating unwanted pregnancies based on what may seem to be the most subjective of reasons (What else would they be?), what is the difference between that and a medically or socially driven factor in the decision making.
Meaning if you can accept a termination on the grounds of inconvenience, loss of figure, monetary concerns, career impediment, spite to the biological father, parental pressure, or just plain cussedness, you will tolerate anything - including reasons that are morally offensive to you.
Because it's not your business.
R91, That seems to be the DL battle cry for anyone that might have a different opinion. Calling someone an idiot isn't going to change their mind open discussion might. Give it a try some time, unless it is more important to you to insult someone instead of educating them on your opinions.
You are in no way moderate, and the fact that you self-identify as Republican says it all.
I don't think people should be so casual about abortion. I lived in China for 7 months and was horrified at how casual abortion was (mainly the termination of unborn girls). It was nothing, it was an hour off work and viewed with total phlegmatic casualness and detachment.
Even I as an atheist, found found it rather uncomfortable.
r90, why would she want a gay son? fOR HIm to be hated and then get HIV!!!
Perhaps if an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy wasn't such a financial disaster for many families there would be far less abortions performed.
Unfortunately,the concerns of conservative 'pro-family' lawmakers for the fetus evaporate at the delivery room door.
The child poverty rates in this country are a disgrace.
Oh.. almost forgot.. when asked whether it would be possible to eliminate homosexuality in future generations,Dr.C.A. Tripp,author of a pretty interesting book,'The Homosexual Matrix' replied,
"For while it is always tempting to opt for any kind of uniformity which would automatically reduce human conflict,only a fool would reach into some giant computer that nobody understands and start yanking out transistors".
I'm opposed to abortion as it is and I get shit for it all the time from my gay friends. Yet, I know people who, if they found out their fetus was homosexual, would abort in a heartbeat.
I never understood the strong connection between abortion rights and gay rights. To me, they are at odds because if anything, homosexuality has nothing to do with abortion. Homosexuals do not conceive if they are true to themselves, so, if anything, homosexuality is the answer to cutting back on abortion.
Homosexuality is about love, or the potential to CREATE a loving relationship.
Abortion is about DESTRUCTION, pure and simple.
Yet they remain intrinsically connected.
[quote]I never understood the strong connection between abortion rights and gay rights.
probably because you're not very smart. Abortion rights is about equality for women. equality, get it? no? oh, well, like I said you seems incredibly dim.
R101, you are a brave man and I applauded you for speaking what you believe in a non confrontational manner.
non-confrontational? give me a break!
R105. Did he call anyone an idiot? Accuse them of being dim? No, he did not. He expressed his opinion.
[quote]I never understood the strong connection between abortion rights and gay rights. To me, they are at odds because if anything, homosexuality has nothing to do with abortion. Homosexuals do not conceive if they are true to themselves, so, if anything, homosexuality is the answer to cutting back on abortion.
They are both about personal autonomy and privacy. They are both resisting the subjugation of the female, in the case of gay men indirectly. Gays and women share a common enemy--people who think their religious values give them the authority to decide what you do with your body.
[quote]Abortion is about DESTRUCTION, pure and simple.
You are a republican, aren't you? Abortion is about freedom.
My vacuumed pussy stinks!
Have an abortion today!
OP, your mom should have aborted you!
What [R87] said. Are there any women here who have given birth? There is no abortion tactic that will EVER influence a woman to terminate a baby she can care for. Mother nature just doesnt work like that. Women are usually distraught after short term miscarriages. There is no way in hell a woman is going to judge her own unborn flesh.
At least Ayelet Waldman's husband is gay.
he's bi, silly.
[bold]Is your support for abortion rights absolute, or will you oppose the practice of aborting fetuses based on the probability that the fetus will develop into a gay person? [/bold]
I will never believe that life begins at conception. It begins at [italic]birth[/italic].
[italic]By the way:[/italic] FF the TROLL @ [bold]R24[/bold].
Oh my goodness. The OP of this thread is a George Zimmerman defender, and, judging by his other threads, quite possible G/R/umpy.
Oh dear. And now to troll-dar r59 in this thread....