Homosexuality and Abortion - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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%
#13903046
So what? Others think it's necessary and so that's what is important, isn't it?


Answer a legitimate question.

How do you intend to deter women from making choices based upon such factors as racial, ethnic, mental health, and intelligence concerns when any woman in question has no obligation to declare such reasons upon having an abortion?

The liberal moral order for the world isn't a question of enforcement or reality, but fancy free.
#13903068
No, allowed.

Mothers should be free to abort based on sexuality, but it shouldn't be a state-sanctioned practice since homos can be productive, and there are a host of available measures to prevent homosexuality from being accepted in society.
#13903070
How do you intend to deter women from making choices based upon such factors as racial, ethnic, mental health, and intelligence concerns when any woman in question has no obligation to declare such reasons upon having an abortion?

The short answer is - I don't intend to. A woman should be free - completely free - to decide how to use her body (and, in particular, whether to allow a fetus to continue to stay within her body).

The only exceptions are (1) prior contractual commitment of the woman (e.g. a paid surrogate) and (2) a viable fetus has to be extracted live.

The longer answer depends on the meaning of "deter". One can deter behaviour without prohibiting it, e.g. by engaging in an educational campaign aimed at changing people's views on the behaviour. A community can legitimately deter a behaviour by ostracising a person engaged in that behaviour.

Such tools can continue to be available, without the need to question the woman or prohibit (completely or conditionally) abortion.
#13903071
Eran wrote:The only exceptions are (1) prior contractual commitment of the woman (e.g. a paid surrogate) and (2) a viable fetus has to be extracted live.


How is conception different from a unilateral contract (accepted in spontaneous circumstances)?
#13903076
The short answer is - I don't intend to. A woman should be free - completely free - to decide how to use her body (and, in particular, whether to allow a fetus to continue to stay within her body)


In the name of said hypothetical woman and in the interests of society I emphatically agree, but my question was addressed to Godstud and his facade of liberal dogma.
#13903137
Godstud wrote:So what? Others think it's necessary and so that's what is important, isn't it?


Look at it this way: it is similar to freedom of speech. You may not like what the other fellow has to say, but you can still agree that this person has a right to say it.

The same with abortion law in this case. You may not agree with the reasons for it, but you can still agree that the woman has a right to do it.
#13903147
How is conception different from a unilateral contract (accepted in spontaneous circumstances)?

There is no such thing as a unilateral contract. A contract is a (potentially conditional) transfer of title (ownership) over some property.

You cannot sign a contract with yourself. If you did, that would be akin to a New Year Resolution - nothing binding.

Besides, most women don't sign any piece of paper before conception.

I am not talking about an implicit, vague or implied contract, but an actual contract, written and signed. Even then, one can argue that the pregnant mother should be entitled to change her mind, though the contract may stipulate financial penalties.

Note that the contract approach could also work in the context between a husband and wife. The wife could sign a contract (perhaps as part of the marriage contract, or following it) in which she commits not to abort any pregnancies (or commits to abort any pregnancies at the husband's requires). The penalty could be dissolution of the marriage under unfavourable terms, etc.

edit:
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Look at it this way: it is similar to freedom of speech. You may not like what the other fellow has to say, but you can still agree that this person has a right to say it.

If only you extended this admirable attitude to "capitalist acts between consenting adults"...
#13903157
Eran wrote:There is no such thing as a unilateral contract. A contract is a (potentially conditional) transfer of title (ownership) over some property.

You cannot sign a contract with yourself. If you did, that would be akin to a New Year Resolution - nothing binding.


You don't seem to know what a unilateral contract is.

A unilateral contract is a public offer of compensation in exchange for performance, not a promise. At the very least, this is necessary for people seeking to associate with others by making a public broadcast, indicating interest in company.

I am not talking about an implicit, vague or implied contract, but an actual contract, written and signed. Even then, one can argue that the pregnant mother should be entitled to change her mind, though the contract may stipulate financial penalties.


Without implicitness, initial association would be impossible as just described regarding public broadcasts.

Financial penalties wouldn't be meaningful either because the victim couldn't be compensated.
#13903166
The so-called "unilateral contract" is not a contract, but rather an offer to enter into a contract. A bilateral contract is subsequently created when members of the public accept the terms of the offer.

What does that have to do with a private act of conception is beyond me.

Financial penalties wouldn't be meaningful either because the victim couldn't be compensated.

That's because you are thinking of the fetus as the victim. While the fetus, in some sense, is an obvious victim, it is not (and could not) be a party to a contract. The compensation would go to third parties (e.g. the people who paid for surrogate services, or perhaps the husband).
#13903213
Eran wrote:The so-called "unilateral contract" is not a contract, but rather an offer to enter into a contract. A bilateral contract is subsequently created when members of the public accept the terms of the offer.

What does that have to do with a private act of conception is beyond me.


Bilateral contracts are defined by private negotiations, but that's another story.

Anyway, this is why I referred to spontaneous circumstances.

To keep things simple, say you're on a sidewalk unilaterally offering hugs. Someone approaches you closely and possibly squeezes you. You're obligated to reciprocate a hug.

Now say someone dances into your arms. You're obligated to reciprocate a hug.

Now say someone dances strangely into your arms. You're still obligated to reciprocate a hug.

Now say someone stumbles into you arms. Are you obligated to reciprocate a hug?

The answer is "yes" because distinguishing between a strange dance and a stumble is subjective.

The same thing applies to conception. Conception is spontaneous, but we still have to cover it because it's impossible to tell the difference between intention and accident. In the case of intercourse, a public broadcast must be recognized. Otherwise, we would be endorsing torture.

For example, how is there any difference between abortion and an unfulfilled public offer? If you announce you're giving hugs, someone approaches you, but you don't reciprocate, that would be fraud. The approacher would be confused in understanding reliable language.
#13903220
In the case of intercourse, a public broadcast must be recognized. Otherwise, we would be endorsing torture.

Why torture? Are you going to claim that a fetus which is a few weeks old, and only has a handful of brain cells and the intellectual capacity of an ant feels pain when it is aborted?

Conception is one of the most private acts possible in our society. In what possible sense does it comprise of a "public offer"? What would be, in your view, the stipulated terms of such offer?
#13903249
Eran wrote:Why torture? Are you going to claim that a fetus which is a few weeks old, and only has a handful of brain cells and the intellectual capacity of an ant feels pain when it is aborted?

Conception is one of the most private acts possible in our society. In what possible sense does it comprise of a "public offer"? What would be, in your view, the stipulated terms of such offer?


I am claiming it's impossible to tell when cognition exists, so we must give it the benefit of the doubt. For example, nobody is obligated to express rationality in a certain way to you to deserve respect.

The comprising sense would be exposure to ejaculation, stipulated by secure fertilization and growth until independence.

By independence, I don't mean in a biological sense here either, but in a social sense. After all, we're talking about society here, not biology. "Immaturity" would carry until offspring ADMIT rationality such that they appreciate duty of care, burden of proof, and other philosophy needed for socializing. This admission must be compatible with other adults in our society. Otherwise, we're forcing current adults to endure the risk of socializing with children.

For example, an adult shouldn't be held liable for employing a child who commits fraud, presents a fake ID, etc. Contracts require a culture of reliability.
#13903285
No, allowed.

This is keeping in mind that I only accept male homosexuality as a biological development and not female, which is social. I am far too romantic to abort my own child and am personally against abortion being raised a Roman Catholic.

If this was the case, perhaps I would name my son Alexander.
#13903352
I am claiming it's impossible to tell when cognition exists, so we must give it the benefit of the doubt. For example, nobody is obligated to express rationality in a certain way to you to deserve respect.

While it might be impossible to tell when cognition exists, it is easy to tell when it cannot reasonably exist. That would be the case for weeks-old fetuses.

I have no objection to making reasonable efforts to avoiding the infliction of pain on older (but still not viable) fetuses as part of the abortion process. I have no idea whether that's something anybody gave any thought to.
#13903377
Eran wrote:While it might be impossible to tell when cognition exists, it is easy to tell when it cannot reasonably exist. That would be the case for weeks-old fetuses.

I have no objection to making reasonable efforts to avoiding the infliction of pain on older (but still not viable) fetuses as part of the abortion process. I have no idea whether that's something anybody gave any thought to.


It's not about pain. It's about capacity.

For example, should I be allowed to cut your arm off if it doesn't have any pain nerves in it?
#13903412
Quantum wrote: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?


Personally? No, I wouldn't abort, but being pro-choice (within reason) I would allow the mother to decide. However, we all know how politically charged the topic of 'homosexuality' is so I'm sure some group would intervene and prevent the abortion for all women because it was a 'hate-crime' or something of a 'politically correct' nature.

I do believe it's possible that one day medical science will allow the sexual orientation of the fetus to be determine in utero, although I also think medical science may provide a 'cure'. Whether the mother should be allowed to allow the doctor to administer the 'cure' should be an interesting debate.
#13903469
Allowing a woman to abort solely on the reasons that the child is a male or female, is exactly the same as allowing a woman to abort based on whether the child is homosexual. Yes, it might very well be possible for women to do that(I'm a realist, after all), but women bent on abortions aren't normally having ultrasounds to determine the sex of the child, so this isn't a concern.

Making such things LEGAL, however, would be allowing a form of discrimination, which the state should NOT be doing. I doubt the state would allow abortion on sexual determination, nevermind, orientation, and yet this is exactly where it could lead. Opening the floodgates, as it were.

That clear enough for you Far Right sage? Incidentally, your pseudo-fascist conservative dogma is repulsive to anyone with a hint of morality. :p
#13903485
Godstud wrote:Allowing a woman to abort solely on the reasons that the child is a male or female, is exactly the same as allowing a woman to abort based on whether the child is homosexual. Yes, it might very well be possible for women to do that(I'm a realist, after all), but women bent on abortions aren't normally having ultrasounds to determine the sex of the child, so this isn't a concern.

Making such things LEGAL, however, would be allowing a form of discrimination, which the state should NOT be doing. I doubt the state would allow abortion on sexual determination, nevermind, orientation, and yet this is exactly where it could lead. Opening the floodgates, as it were.

That clear enough for you Far Right sage? Incidentally, your pseudo-fascist conservative dogma is repulsive to anyone with a hint of morality. :p


How would allowing the abortion be a form of discrimination if the fetus has no rights?
#13903488
There should be no other reason for an abortion other than that of the mother not wanting to raise/have the child. If you start adding in allowing excuses such as gender preference, etc. then you open the floodgates to a whole heap of trouble.

I do not think that a fetus, after 24 weeks, should be aborted, unless there is direct danger to the mother. At 24 weeks it SHOULD have some rights, as it's determined, by medical science, that it's a human being. I'm not above compromise when it comes to the abortion issue, like some people(pro-life/pro-choice).

Whether the fetus has rights or not doesn't matter. If the woman is aborting on the basis of discrimination, we can disallow it.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

@Scamp Bombing Mexico is the STUPIDIEST idea […]

63 is beyond the military age in Israel. More non[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

That's the problem though. People in general don'[…]

No one is more manly than me. We know there is […]