In an imaginary future, they've discovered a "gay gene" and can test for it before birth. A woman who is morally opposed to homosexuality wants to get an abortion when she finds out her child will be gay. Who do you sympathize more with?
This is one of the most selfish, unconscionable reasons to have an abortion. Screw the mother. Bring the baby to me - I'll raise him/her.
Good question! Imagine the heads that might explode if you asked:
"Upon discovering that her son will be born gay, she decides to abort. Is her decision morally different than someone deciding to abort for other personal (non-medical) reasons?"
Haha I always like to imagine heads exploding when I ask things ;)
Abortion should be recriminalized.
Then welfare should be increased to support those new babies and all those in favor of re-criminalizing should be forced to adopt the unwanted babies from the forced births you insist upon.
They will still occur but dangerously.
True, but if they are going to be so self righteous, then they ought to take responsibility for their high and mighty belief. They can't insist it is a life and then insist it is on its own once it is born. You demand to bring the life into the ...
then you be responsible to take care of it!
Many abortions happen for the sake of inconvenience, if the mother feels that it would be inconvenient to have a homosexual child then anyone who is pro-choice should support her decision.
I do support her decision, but I don't really feel that much sympathy with her.
This isn't asking if we support we decision... It's just asking who we sympathize more with.... Those may be different answers.
While she may be a bigoted asshole, it's still her right to get an abortion and do with her body as she pleases.
Kermie- I support a woman's choice through the first trimester for any reason.
Why the first trimester? Just curious. It's interesting to me how everybody has a different date.
Killing is wrong. You can teach a child to not act on feelings.
Oy. That to me seems almost as horrible.
Really? Resisting temptation to do something unhealthy is just as bad as murder?
Dotails, I am straight. How would you feel if the majority was reversed and straight was the minority? You are straight and told you had to suppress that unhealthy behavior. Your statement is idiotic. There is nothing unhealthy about homosexually.
(Cont) Except your bigoted point of view!
Um feeling homosexually is not unhealthy but having physical intimacy outside marriage is. We can love everybody but that doesn't mean it is healthy to try to reproduce with everybody.
Are you having a stroke, that makes no sense in the context of what we are discussing? Sex is not just for reproducing, it is a small aspect. Typical family has 2-3 kids, are you saying you should only have sex 2-3 times in their entire marriage?
Sex has a primary role in intimacy, in relationship building. Procreating is such small part of sex!
How is sex unhealthy? Scientific documentation please!
I don't want to go into details if you don't already know because I just had lunch and would like to keep it down. Intimacy is for the purpose of reproducing if you are doing it for another reason maybe this will help...
...This is like saying that a stove is for burning myself. Though the purpose of a thing is not necessarily dependent on all its effects.
Oh maybe you mean hugging. Hugging's purpose is to show affection and build upon your relationship with that expression.
So what you are saying is a married couple, after having all the kids they want should not have sex ever again? I mean if they have their kids then having sex after would be for intimacy only and there is no procreation in that...you're ridiculous!
And your stove comment is so off base, 1st, it is an inanimate object. 2nd, human interaction is far more complex than a simplistic comparison. 3rd, who are you to tell anyone how their genitals should be used!
I was trying to simplify it for you. And its just basic biology already. It is easy to see why physical intimacy exists as people trying to get the dopamine rush from it go to great lengths to try to block the natural effect of the activity.
Statistically it isn't identical but the idea is the same: what would you do if you found out that you sister was a smoker. You had learned the harm smoke has on the body and mind? Would you try to break it down and tell her it is wrong to smoke?...
Now imagine 30 years ago you try to tell her this you would be called names and hated for telling someone you disagree with them on cigarettes. You see we know where marriage originated and it's purpose. When u use something outside it's purpose...
...like a stove or sugar or leaves or money or pills or many other good things we discover danger there.
You're making the assumption that it is harmful, the most proof you have is anecdotal at best and how you feel about it at worst. You don't have to make it simple for me, I don't use the bible, that is chock full of errors, to support my arguments.
Wow. Talking about sex makes you throw up? I'm sorry that you were so shamed about sex as a child. It's not too late to change.
And if you're too scared to, I understand. But if you can't give a single reason why sex is unhealthy, I'll keep at it.
It's not physical intimacy that makes me sick alone but the methods at which people have used to make there part fit where they weren't designed to. I also don't want to be thrown out of soh for being specific.
...The same activities are the ones in which bacteria and viruses have a hayday.It is already exponentially more dangerous for you the more"partners"you have but when it leaves the designed gender or even to animals it compounds the risk so much more
Do you know that a lot of gay men have sex without ever fucking each other's assholes (oops, look, I said it!)? And also there are lesbians, many of whom never go in that area. And straight sex can lead to bacteria and viruses too.
I have to end this conversation cause I'm gonna loose my dinner.The response to that is in my comment above&in the unmentionable comment I won't utter.Basically I'm saying we ought minimize risk and only use our reproductive organs for reproducing.
Dotails, feel free to minimize your risk with your frigid behavior, but don't you dare demand that people don't do it so you can keep your lunch down. Don't like gay sex, don't have it, but don't demand others don't to quell your self righteousness.
Hey I am far from righteous I am a mess but if I see a hole that other seem to fall in and hurt themselves, if I love them I'm gonna mention the hole so they are aware.I love you and wont demand only make suggestions and hope you would do the same...
...so I don't fall in any holes either. No need to get mad bro.
The baby if course. Don't try to "change" his/her sexuality.
As a teacher, though, I often sympathize with people being idiots.
I sympathize with the baby. However, if the abortion takes place before the second trimester ends i have no say in the matter.
Just curious--for what reasons do you pick that deadline?
Thats the law. If my understanding is correct you can't have a legal abortion after the second trimester.
Oh I see. Thanks.
While although I support a woman's right to choose, you're a mother. No matter what, support your children or you aren't qualified to be a parent in the first place
I suppose I sympathize with the mother, because she's the one who is actually alive and it is still her right to choose what happens with her body and her life -- but I'm not leaning toward viewing her as a decent person, because she is basing her
choices on bigotry. Furthermore, I could sympathize with her due to all the hatred she must experience so often, and it may be a good thing that this child isn't born under her care. But that's a tough situation. Trying on my morals both ways.
I feel like that's one of my lifelong journeys, is learning to have sympathy for people I detest and really trying to understand how much self-hatred they must feel if they turn it outward on others. That's not easy though.
Wow, talk about moral enigmas! Normally I would side with the mother's right to choose, no matter what her reasons. But I'm compelled to make a serious exception in this case when the reason for the abortion is bigotry.
Excelent question, very thought provoking. Of course it's just a hypothetical, but maybe I'm not quite as rigid in my pro-choice beliefs as I thought. I wish I could come up with stuff like this!
I feel sorry for the baby, having a bigot for a parent.
Ah just realized I misread it. I presumed the baby was genetically selected.
My answer is still the same though.
I know you like the "gay gene" for questions, but you do know it's not a or even some genes, right?
I dunno. I think kermie looks pretty good in his gay genes. As long as they're the relaxed fit, and not the boot cut.
Yep, this is all just hypothetical.
The mother. If she chose not to I would sympathize with the child for having to grow up in her home.
Ugh, don't like any of the choices. This is one of the reasons I don't think we should make genetic tests. The population should not be homogeneous through genetic selection.
I don't disagree. But it's also an incoming ship we won't be able to stop.
Yes I know, and I don't like it.
Not to be callous, but IF mom is so opposed to having a gay child, and knowing it would be gay, abortion would spare the child all attempts by the mother to pray the gay away, and the deep scarring that said child was never loved, xcept by father?
I don't think that's callous. A lot of people would have been better off not being born and avoiding traumatic lives. IMHO.
UNLESS of course mother could be convinced to carry to term and give the child to a loving, legally married gay couple in MN.
If someone was somehow mortally opposed to any other genetic trait nobody would sympathize with the woman
Haha I was like, aww shit, did I say mortally opposed!?
I would still always sympathize with a woman who has to make that choice over a fetus who isn't even born. Even if her reasons are heinous.
I am a bit surprised by that. You may have much more integrity than me on this one, Kermie. I've always considered myself very rigidly pro choice, but I have never even considered a scenario like this. You've given me a lot to think about here.
Oh good--that was the goal of the question :) there's no easy answer.
Sympathize with? The unborn.
Who do I think is a moron? The mother.
It's still her choice, though.
You sympathize with something that isn't even alive?
I suppose sympathize wouldn't be the word...
Damn it. I'm going to bed. :P
I said mother in the end, because she is making this decision based on hatred for something which is natural.
There's that too. Good night ;)
h/t to MrMilkdud for proposing a variation of this question.
I like the way you worded this.
Results should be very interesting
I thought simply saying should mom have the right would just split down pro choice/pro life lines. I am kind of surprised how lopsided these results are though. I thought the pro-choice crowd would have more integrity on this.