Politics Forum.org | The international political discussion forum.
Your PostsActive Topics  | Display:DesktopMobile
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Homosexuality and Abortion

POST REPLY

Would you abort a homosexual fetus and should it be allowed?

Yes, allowed
17
25%
No, allowed
21
31%
Yes, not allowed
1
1%
No, not allowed
24
36%
Other
4
6%
 
Total votes : 67
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x2)
Political cogitations: 5255
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:45 pm
Absolutely Corrupt (x2)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:19 pm
If the genetic theory of homosexuality was validated and genetic testing for homosexuality was possible, would you abort the fetus and should the procedure be allowed or banned like sex-selective abortions?
Last edited by Quantum on Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Image


"This world ain't nothing much than a big brothel anyway. Prostitutism is the dominant ideology" - Noelnada
[+-]
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Political cogitations: 7779
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:22 pm
Ideology: Anarchist
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:23 pm
I wouldn't abort. Homosexuality is sufficiently accepted in our society that a person's chances at success and happiness are not significantly reduced for being a homosexual.

I would allow it, because it should be the absolute right of the mother to decide whether to allow the fetus to continue to use her body.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
[+-]
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x10)
Political cogitations: 20769
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:05 pm
Ideology: Liberal
Absolutely Corrupt (x10)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:28 pm
No, not allowed
Image

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child,
I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly.

His name was spessul olymmian
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Political cogitations: 6856
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:47 am
Ideology: Conservative
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:18 pm
No, not allowed.

I'm curious how pragmatists get around this, though. There's no practical reason for homosexuality to be tolerated.

The same thing applies for gay marriage. Homosexuality shouldn't be restricted, but only ideally speaking.
______________

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
[+-]
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Political cogitations: 7779
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:22 pm
Ideology: Anarchist
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:23 pm
Quote:
There's no practical reason for homosexuality to be tolerated.

This is a mind-boggling statement.

1. Why does one need a practical reason to tolerate something? Isn't it the case that, at best, one needs a practical reason to not tolerate?

Put differently, what practical reason is there to tolerate opera? Or red cars? Or striped shirts?

2. There is, actually, a practical reason to tolerate homosexuality, namely homosexuals. They are people who's lives become much better when their preferences are tolerated. What better practical reason is there to do anything beyond that of making people's lives better?
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x2)
Political cogitations: 4404
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:14 pm
Ideology: Liberal
Absolutely Corrupt (x2)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:34 pm
No, allowed
I support abortions generaly. I wouldn't allow abortion in a late stage pregnancy, unless of severe genetic illness- and homosexuality is not one of these- because that person could have good life (theoretically), and to the pragmatists- he is not a burden on the society..
Unsettling myself
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x8)
Political cogitations: 17626
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:27 pm
Absolutely Corrupt (x8)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:36 pm
Eran wrote:
I wouldn't abort. Homosexuality is sufficiently accepted in our society that a person's chances at success and happiness are not significantly reduced for being a homosexual.

I would allow it, because it should be the absolute right of the mother to decide whether to allow the fetus to continue to use her body.


I agree completely, except for the bit where you said that "homosexuality is sufficiently accepted in our society that a person's chances at success and happiness are not significantly reduced for being a homosexual".

I would still raise my homosexual child with all the joy I am currently raising my current children (who may be gay for all I know), but I would teach them to be proud of themselves despite the homophobia they will undoubtedly experience.

My wife takes me to Red Lobster.
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Political cogitations: 6856
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:47 am
Ideology: Conservative
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:40 pm
Eran wrote:
Why does one need a practical reason to tolerate something?


Tolerating the impractical exposes you to self-destruction.

The only need to tolerate the impractical is when you're in the fellow company of idealists.

Quote:
Isn't it the case that, at best, one needs a practical reason to not tolerate?


Burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative.

I agree though, elitists can and will take the practical excuse to not tolerate those with sexual difficulty.

Quote:
There is, actually, a practical reason to tolerate homosexuality, namely homosexuals. They are people who's lives become much better when their preferences are tolerated. What better practical reason is there to do anything beyond that of making people's lives better?


Collective consciousness does not exist. One person's life becoming better does not mean other people's lives become better.

Are you familiar with the utility monster argument?
______________

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
[+-]
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x5)
Political cogitations: 10704
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:43 am
Ideology: Communist
Absolutely Corrupt (x5)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:44 pm
No. Allowed. I completely agree with Eran.
libertarians - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
KSR

The Tea Party is a rear guard, not a vanguard.
CS
78% Corrupt
Political cogitations: 1560
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:00 am
78% Corrupt
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:06 pm
What an awful scenario. And I will deal with it if and when we prove the gay gene.
For the love of God, jump off the wheel.
User avatar
4% Corrupt
Political cogitations: 91
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:39 pm
Ideology: Conservative
4% Corrupt
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:17 pm
Troll.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

Winston Churchill
[+-]
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Political cogitations: 7779
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:22 pm
Ideology: Anarchist
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:21 pm
Quote:
Collective consciousness does not exist. One person's life becoming better does not mean other people's lives become better.

Are you familiar with the utility monster argument?

I am. I can see how my phrasing could make one suppose I somehow advocate maximization of general utility.

I was following your use of the adjective "practical".

My actual view is that all non-aggressive behaviours ought to be tolerated. Homosexuality (in and by itself) is non-aggressive, and so should be tolerated.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Political cogitations: 6856
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:47 am
Ideology: Conservative
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:23 pm
Eran wrote:
My actual view is that all non-aggressive behaviours ought to be tolerated. Homosexuality (in and by itself) is non-aggressive, and so should be tolerated.


Yes, I agree.

Can you prove pragmatism is non-aggressive though?
______________

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
[+-]
User avatar
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Political cogitations: 7779
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:22 pm
Ideology: Anarchist
Absolutely Corrupt (x3)
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:03 pm
The other way around - I can show that non-aggression is pragmatic. I would point you to the entire body of Austrian School Economics for evidence in the economic realm.

The same insights tend to apply regarding non-economic issues.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
[+-]
User avatar
Red Card
Political cogitations: 22793
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:30 pm
Ideology: Fascist
Red Card
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:54 pm
Yes, allowed

Sex selective abortion should be illegal but we don't need gays for anything so this isn't a problem
Everything you believe is wrong. Yes, you!
Bramlow wrote:
Boom. You just got Dave'd.
User avatar
Red Card
Political cogitations: 16901
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:00 pm
Ideology: Libertarian
Red Card
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:12 pm
No, not allowed. Homosexuality is partly environmental based on twin studies, so even if this was legal, it would have hilarious consequences.
User avatar
24% Corrupt
Political cogitations: 490
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:17 pm
24% Corrupt
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:27 pm
Daktoria wrote:

I'm curious how pragmatists get around this, though. There's no practical reason for homosexuality to be tolerated.



a) respecting human dignity makes baby jesus smile
b) tolerating people supports peaceful coexistence, social stability
c) efficient functioning of economy relies on self-actualization/fullfillment of workforce, equal access to opportunities, consent of workforce...
d) because the more bothered you are by gay people, the more gay you truly are. So showing your intolerance will get you found out
User avatar
28% Corrupt
Political cogitations: 576
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:54 pm
28% Corrupt
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:36 pm
These polls shine a disturbing light on the 'PoFo' readership!
User avatar
21% Corrupt
Political cogitations: 437
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:16 pm
Ideology: Other
21% Corrupt
Post Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:46 pm
No, allowed.

Obviously a homosexual can be a productive member of society as anyone else and it's even better if homosexuality is not viewed at as a taboo, since personal happiness is obviously better for the individual and therefore for society than feeling like an outcast.
I'm in favor of abortions for any reason (in the first months), so the second part of the answer is not exactly related to homosexuality.
» Next Page »
POST REPLY

Back to: Opinion Polls

Log-in to submit your comments.
More Political Forums: The Politics Forum UK. Historical Forums: The U.S.S.R. Forum, The History Forum.
© 2003-2016 Siberian Fox network. Privacy.