Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has nothing to do with what you mention. The words "gay gene and abortion" are enough for me. I think this thread is shameworthy and it smacks of eugenics. Tell me, are conservatives for eugenics? This has nothing to do with liberalism, rather human decency and being appalled that someone would even post such a thread.
Apparently it is only you who is thinking that stuff about eugenics. Women should absolutely have every right to abort regardless of anything else. I believe what offends you about the thread is the fact that so called liberals would be against this, if women decide not to have gay babies. Remember its their CHOICE. And you talk about eugenics? Women for the most part decide who they want to mate with; tall, handsome, buff, etc, and leaving out the short, scrawny guys because you don't want children like that. Lets see how you would like it if liberals screamed at you for being too narrow with your preferences. It's basically the same thing. The only difference is that gay is a crutch subject to liberals and they can't see beyond their own hysterics.
This would have liberals in a conundrum. A lot of women who get abortions are black, yet liberals are not decrying that fact so much since blacks are more abundant than gays. However if women were having abortions to prevent having a gay son/daughter I think they would consider that some kind of "hate crime".
no more so than a Jew or a black having an abortion. it is a personal choice, not a hate crime. For those that want to eradicate a child because some scientist thinks it may be gay should simply have their reproductive rights eliminated as they are not fit parents.
To the second post -
Fred Phelps is simply a douchbag with a great deal of nasty Karma coming his way.
no more so than a Jew or a black having an abortion. it is a personal choice, not a hate crime. For those that want to eradicate a child because some scientist thinks it may be gay should simply have their reproductive rights eliminated as they are not fit parents.
You pretty much show how liberalism works, it's not about the individual rights of people but its contribution to the overall social agenda. That is the prime motive. Some women have abortions because they dislike children and would hate to raise one because of their crying and pooping. No liberal would bat an eye and instead scream about the rights of women. Add "gay" into the equation and all that rhetoric about women's choice regardless of morality goes down the toilet.
Apparently it is only you who is thinking that stuff about eugenics. Women should absolutely have every right to abort regardless of anything else. I believe what offends you about the thread is the fact that so called liberals would be against this, if women decide not to have gay babies. Remember its their CHOICE. And you talk about eugenics? Women for the most part decide who they want to mate with; tall, handsome, buff, etc, and leaving out the short, scrawny guys because you don't want children like that. Lets see how you would like it if liberals screamed at you for being too narrow with your preferences. It's basically the same thing. The only difference is that gay is a crutch subject to liberals and they can't see beyond their own hysterics.
Blah, blah, blah! It has everything to do with just what I said it had to do with. Anytime someone uses X gene and abortion in the same sentence I think eugenics. The ONE exception to this would be in the case of a child who would be born into a life of suffering and hell due to severe birth defects. Think as you will. I don't really care.
I'm not gay so you can leave that out of it. Gay is no "crutch" to me anymore than is black, purple or polka dot, etc. And I am not that either.
Blah, blah, blah! It has everything to do with just what I said it had to do with. Anytime someone uses X gene and abortion in the same sentence I think eugenics. The ONE exception to this would be in the case of a child who would be born into a life of suffering and hell due to severe birth defects. Think as you will. I don't really care.
I'm not gay so you can leave that out of it. Gay is no "crutch" to me anymore than is black, purple or polka dot, etc. And I am not that either.
If parents could decide their children to be born with darker skin and kinkier hair, or for them to be born athletic instead of nerdy you would not say a single negative thing about it. And it would still be eugenics.
Liberals like you are full of hypocrisy at all levels, spare me the false outrage.
If parents could decide their children to be born with darker skin and kinkier hair, or for them to be born athletic instead of nerdy you would not say a single negative thing about it. And it would still be eugenics.
Liberals like you are full of hypocrisy at all levels, spare me the false outrage.
Of course I'd have a LOT of negative things to say about it. You don't even know me, so enough of your crystal ball. Welcome to my ignore list.
Of course I'd have a LOT of negative things to say about it. You don't even know me, so enough of your crystal ball. Welcome to my ignore list.
You avoided the main point from the topic. What a surprise that a liberal wouldn't want to respond to something that nullifies their tired rhetoric, and then try to divert the discussion to eugenics. Nobody needs a crystal ball to figure out predictable liberals. I have answered the topic: It does not matter why reason a woman wants to abort, it's her choice. Even if its because she does not want gay children.
Legally, it would be acceptable. However, personally, I feel that it would reek of eugenics. Just like how I support the decision to allow Westboro speak (since it is their constitutional right), I don't agree with their message.
I think the main reason would not be because the mothers hates homosexuals, but rather that possibly the mother would dislike the pain their child may endure because of societal treatment of homosexuals. If society treats homosexuals equally, FEW people would abort based on this trait.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
