Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

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%
User avatar
By Quantum
#13902221
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 23 Feb 2012 08:14, edited 2 times in total.
#13902224
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.
#13902226
No, not allowed
#13902246
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.
#13902250
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?
#13902254
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..
#13902255
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.
#13902259
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.

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.

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?
#13902287
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.
#13902289
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?
#13902309
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.
#13902361
Yes, allowed

Sex selective abortion should be illegal but we don't need gays for anything so this isn't a problem
#13902578
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
#13902599
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.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Is it OK to wear a facekini? It isn't a religious […]

I don't care or know about your esoteric nonsense […]

Syrian war thread

Assads corridor is in the desert, there are very […]

East Germany - A Left Fascist State?

Fine. Do you want to talk about your hurt feels as[…]