Being gay might be genetic

[soulcougher73]

I would never abort for this reason but wouldn't care if someone else did. I don't consider other people's choices about their pregnancies any of my business.

This.

 

[Texashiker]

I would never abort for this reason but wouldn't care if someone else did. I don't consider other people's choices about their pregnancies any of my business.

When is genocide your business? When it is against the unborn, against Jews, against Muslims, against Christians, against some tribe in Africa?

When does the selective ending of life become the business of society?

If it is legal it is none of your business?

What is the deciding point when something should become your business, or the business of society?

Some sovereign nation says they are going to kill all of the jews, christians and muslims in their border, is it the business of the world?

 

[momeNt]

Neither of you are seeing the bigger picture,

http://www.ibtimes.com/selective-ab...india-creating-gender-imbalance-crisis-793298

"None of my business" is leading to a gender imbalance issue in asia.

So?

Freedom is better than the alternative.

 

[jackstar7]

When is genocide your business? When it is against the unborn, against Jews, against Muslims, against Christians, against some tribe in Africa?

When does the selective ending of life become the business of society?

If it is legal it is none of your business?

What is the deciding point when something should become your business, or the business of society?

Conflate, conflate, conflate.

It's not your business. It never was and never will be. You are imposing yourself for reasons I'd rather leave to a psychologist in your area.

 

[justoh]

Interesting conundrum for the pro-life crowd as well - how will the pro-life/anti-gay people handle this issue?

Interesting, if you're a moron. Where's the conundrum for pro choice?

 

[Texashiker]

Conflate, conflate, conflate.

It's not your business. It never was and never will be. You are imposing yourself for reasons I'd rather leave to a psychologist in your area.

You did not answer the core question, when is it your business?

 

[soulcougher73]

When is genocide your business? When it is against the unborn, against Jews, against Muslims, against Christians, against some tribe in Africa?

When does the selective ending of life become the business of society?

If it is legal it is none of your business?

What is the deciding point when something should become your business, or the business of society?

Some sovereign nation says they are going to kill all of the jews, christians and muslims in their border, is it the business of the world?

I don't concider fetus' at an early stage life really. So genocide wouldn't qualify to me in this case.

 

[ch33zw1z]

When is genocide your business? When it is against the unborn, against Jews, against Muslims, against Christians, against some tribe in Africa?

When does the selective ending of life become the business of society?

If it is legal it is none of your business?

What is the deciding point when something should become your business, or the business of society?

Some sovereign nation says they are going to kill all of the jews, christians and muslims in their border, is it the business of the world?

Your entire argument is based around a fetus being considered life. This is where these arguments always differ.

There is no genocide if it's a fetus.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

When is genocide your business? When it is against the unborn, against Jews, against Muslims, against Christians, against some tribe in Africa?

When does the selective ending of life become the business of society?

If it is legal it is none of your business?

What is the deciding point when something should become your business, or the business of society?

Some sovereign nation says they are going to kill all of the jews, christians and muslims in their border, is it the business of the world?

This is silly hysteria. I will reiterate that I don't see a woman's choice about her pregnancy as my business. I do not think "genocide" means what you think it means.

 

[brandonb]

Your entire argument is based around a fetus being considered life. This is where these arguments always differ.

There is no genocide if it's a fetus.

I was out working on my lawn work the other day, and was pulling up my cocklebur plants and placing them into the fire pit. I was thinking "Wow. This plant is life. Not intelligent life, but its life non the less. Tree huggers are typically liberals and they try to protect the environment, even at huge costs. They believe this cocklebur has more rights than a human fetus. When did society shift and stop protecting human life (fetuses) and start trying to protect plant life? Those who want to protect plant life are the ones against protecting fetuses, and are pro choice. Why does it seem like a conflict in interest? It doesn't make sense to me."

Now I see this thread and spread my thoughts.

Not really here to discuss, as this horse has been beaten on a weekly basis on this forum the last 5 years. But it surprises me what people think and how they view things.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I was out working on my lawn work the other day, and was pulling up my cocklebur plants and placing them into the fire pit. I was thinking "Wow. This plant is life. Not intelligent life, but its life non the less. Tree huggers are typically liberals and they try to protect the environment, even at huge costs. They believe this cocklebur has more rights than a human fetus. When did society shift and stop protecting human life (fetuses) and start trying to protect plant life? Those who want to protect plant life are the ones against protecting fetuses, and are pro choice. Why does it seem like a conflict in interest? It doesn't make sense to me."

Now I see this thread and spread my thoughts.

Not really here to discuss, as this horse has been beaten on a weekly basis on this forum the last 5 years. But it surprises me what people think and how they view things.

I agree.

So someone stopped you from burning the cocklebur, right? Or you burned it to your hearts content without anyone telling you not to?

See, your entire arguement is based around your opinion that a fetus is a human life. That's where people's opinions differ, and the arguement's stem from.

 

[momeNt]

The difference is when a person is protecting their liberty vs when they are not. A mother has the right to be free from caring for their child. I don't find it necessary to make the distinction between whether or not the child is born. There is enough chemical/biological processes involved in being pregnant and then being a mother that the women who choose their freedom from their child would be a very small minority.

Aggression against Jews, Muslims, Christians, tribes in Africa are all quite different, because the group that is being aggressive is not protecting their liberty, perhaps they feel they are doing it prophylactically, but they would be unjustified in this line of thinking. Even so, ceasing to be pregnant, or to be a caring mother, is immediate, not prophylactic, so it is different still.

The coercion aspect from the article is a little troubling. I will grant you that. It seems that many pregnant women in India are being pressured and perhaps threatened to have these abortions. Not much you can do about that, they will find a balance eventually, or they will wipe themselves out, in which case problem solved.

 

[justoh]

I was out working on my lawn work the other day, and was pulling up my cocklebur plants and placing them into the fire pit. I was thinking "Wow. This plant is life. Not intelligent life, but its life non the less. Tree huggers are typically liberals and they try to protect the environment, even at huge costs. They believe this cocklebur has more rights than a human fetus. When did society shift and stop protecting human life (fetuses) and start trying to protect plant life? Those who want to protect plant life are the ones against protecting fetuses, and are pro choice. Why does it seem like a conflict in interest? It doesn't make sense to me."

Now I see this thread and spread my thoughts.

Not really here to discuss, as this horse has been beaten on a weekly basis on this forum the last 5 years. But it surprises me what people think and how they view things.

That's just nonsense.

 

[Texashiker]

The difference is when a person is protecting their liberty vs when they are not. A mother has the right to be free from caring for their child. I don't find it necessary to make the distinction between whether or not the child is born. There is enough chemical/biological processes involved in being pregnant and then being a mother that the women who choose their freedom from their child would be a very small minority.

You are missing half the point of this thread.

Yes a mother has a so called "right" to end her pregnancy, but society also says discrimination against gays is wrong.

Isn't terminating a pregnancy because the fetus tested positive for a gay gene a form of discrimination?

Those who want to protect plant life are the ones against protecting fetuses, and are pro choice. Why does it seem like a conflict in interest? It doesn't make sense to me."

That is simply not true. I am a conservative tree hugger.

Pic from a camping trip a few years ago. My daughter laughing because I am hugging a tree.

 

[smackababy]

So, according to this thread aborting gay babies is the equivalent of the holocaust?


I guess that is great and all they found the "gay gene", but you can put me under the "who gives a fuck who a person is attracted to*".

*I feel I should add that I am not against people being attracted to anything. In fact, I actually feel bad for pedophiles. They can't control their brains make them attracted to pre pubescent persons. I am, however, against acting on said attractions unless it is between two consenting individuals.

 

[alzan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-share-genetic-similarities-study-claims.html


You pro abortion liberals, how do you feel about a this gay gene being added to fetal genetic screening? Doctor tells the mother and father there is a 90% chance their child will be gay, so the parents opt for an abortion.

How far does your tolerance go?

A woman has control of her body, but society should not discriminate against gays either.

I think some of the members here are gay. I do not remember their names but some of yall have posted that there are some gay people here. How do yall feel about a gay fetus being aborted? How do you feel about genocide on the fetal level.

Finally come to grips with your latent homosexuality?

It's a woman's right to decide whether or not to abort a fetus.

A fetus is not a human being therefore "genocide" does not apply.

Are you calling out gay members to ascertain their opinion or are you looking for a peer group?

 

[Texashiker]

Are you calling out gay members to ascertain their opinion

I would like a gay persons honest opinion on this thread.

How do gay people feel about mothers aborting children who test positive for a gay gene?

 

[bshole]

Well at least this proves beyond all doubt that homosexuality is 100% natural. It is something completely beyond the control of the person. They are attracted to who they are attracted to because of the genetic material they are composed of. God MADE them like that. This also proves that homosexuality cannot possibly be a sin. God injected the DNA into that person to make them attracted to others of the same sex. A computer is programmed to do what it's maker wants it to do. God programmed homesexuals to want sex with others of the same sex. How can it be a sin to follow the program that God installed in you?

This is truly a triumph for science.

 

[smackababy]

I would like a gay persons honest opinion on this thread.

How do gay people feel about mothers aborting children who test positive for a gay gene?

Does it matter if the children are gay or the reasons for them aborting? Do you think gay people are building an army or something? Every gay baby aborted is delaying their new world order?

 

[Texashiker]

Well at least this proves beyond all doubt that homosexuality is 100% natural. It is something completely beyond the control of the person. They are attracted to who they are attracted to because of the genetic material they are composed of. God MADE them like that. This also proves that homosexuality cannot possibly be a sin. God injected the DNA into that person to make them attracted to others of the same sex.

This is truly a triumph for science.

You are pro abortion.

How do you feel about mothers aborting children who test positive for a gay gene?

Does it matter if the children are gay or the reasons for them aborting? Do you think gay people are building an army or something? Every gay baby aborted is delaying their new world order?

Does this thread create an uncomfortable question for you?

Because you are doing your best to avoid answering.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That's between the woman (potentially her spouse or significant other) and her doctor. It's none of my business nor is it your business. It's very easy to see what you're trying to do with this new argument to garner support on opposing abortion.

 

[Genx87]

I figured this was a given. Interesting to see they are verifying it.

 

[smackababy]

Does this thread create an uncomfortable question for you?

Because you are doing your best to avoid answering.

Not at all. I don't give a shit why a women chooses to have an abortion. I only care that the choice is available for her to make. If she doesn't want a gayby or simply prefers her ass not to get fatter, that is her choice.


What if they found a gene that gave people a predisposition to Christianity? How would YOU feel if women abort their babies because of that gene?

 

[Pens1566]

No. I am actually right.

See: http://www.deafecho.com/2010/12/hearing-privilege/

Now most normal people would refer to deafness as a disability instead of referring to hearing privilege.

But it made me realize that disability and privilege are just 2 ways of looking at the same thing.

So basically every time you say "X privilege" you are implicitly saying you think that "!X is disabled".

That you actually believe the bolded means my previous post was dead on.

 

[Texashiker]

It's very easy to see what you're trying to do with this new argument to garner support on opposing abortion.

I have no dog in this fight. My stance on abortion should be well known.

For those who are pro abortion and pro gay, genetic testing opens a pandoras box of ethical questions.

I interested in how the gay community will respond to mothers aborting children (fetus as most people call them) who test positive for a possible gay gene.

Lets say in 5 years there is a genetic test for a gay gene, how will the gay community feel about births of gay children taking a nose dive?