Yes if the baby is somehow determines to have homosexual tendencies and the biological parents want to adopt him/her out I think that should be allowed.
Abandoning a child at any stage is very destructive, no matter what gender a parent is, but at least that child has been acknowledged to have existed and not cut off and discarded as a piece of trash
Whoa!
We will be able to selectively abort homosexual fetuses?!
Happy days…soon homosexuals will no longer exist and the world can enter a period of peace and prosperity!
For the same reason they have the first one, they believe their head which overrides their heart. They hide their heart from themselves to stop the pain.
Well, that’s very generous of you, but the question was whether pro-lifers would support allowing the baby to be adopted BY gay people.
Cite?
Wait, you can stop pain by hiding your heart? Where do you hide it? Under the bed? Is it really possible to hide anything from yourself? I mean, if you are the one that hides your own heart, don’t you kind of by definition know where it is? I assume Dr. Jarvik is all for this, right, since with your own heart under the bed you’re going to need an artificial one to keep you alive.
This is a great advance in mental health, kanicbird. Think of all the people who are suffering from grief, depression, etc… All they have to do is hide their own heart and bingo! no more pain.
Should straights be allowed to adopt gay babies?
Should gays be allowed to adopt straight babies?
The mind boggles
More bad situations have occured when the heart overrides the head. Just ask anyone with an abusive partner or a stalker.
Agree. Because if you can’t pray out the gay, it means God made a mistake.
As others have mentioned, female fetuses are already aborted at a higher rate than male fetuses in some countries. Probably by people who shouldn’t be around little girls, just as they shouldn’t be around homosexual children.
Came in here to mention that movie.
That would be a decision between the bio-parents (or guardian) and the couple. In general terms I believe that both genders are needed and one can never substitute for another as they contribute different attributes to a child so a m-f couple would be in general preferable.
Just going on a line of thought, a f-f couple might be the next in order of preference as one female may take on the full maternal role, which IMHO is critically important in early life. A single f may not have the time required to nurture a baby, though there is a greater possibility of the addition of a male in marriage for the father role later in life. A m-m couple would be the least preferable IMHO (of the 4 possibilities mentioned), as the father role, though very important for normal development, is not as critical as the maternal one at the early stages IMHO.
That is not the heart, that is compensating for pain of the heart by inflicting it on others. You are confusing Love which is what the heart desires and power/lust which is a way of getting temporary relief from that pain.
Wouldn’t a polygamous grouping be overall the best though? That way LOTS of children can get the critically important maternal role early on, while the male can then wait until they are old enough to play catch with, or teach how to smoke, or something.
Maybe 6 or so wives to the husband would work best.
I didn’t see that as a possible answer on the multiple choice question I was asked.
I thought it was a good idea for a movie, myself, but it wasn’t nearly brave enough.
It’d be awesome!
To respond to the OP, I don’t believe it would be a hate crime because we don’t abort people…we abort embryos and fetuses. Many people will abort simply because it carries the gay gene, but many won’t care. At any rate, the hate crimes won’t start until the cells reach personhood.
Consider the question expanded. What’s your view?
Nope, that would be a ‘person’s right’, not a ‘woman’s right’. Unless you are suggesting that some person or group has seriously suggested that only women should be allowed to prostitute themselves or use drugs. In which case, Cite?
Also, you may not be aware that the phrase ‘a woman’s right to choose’ is nowadays used more or less exclusively to mean an individual right to choices regarding reproduction/reproductive health, including abortion.
Since I dont believe the fetus should have any rights, then I have no problems with people aborting gay fetuses. I always tell myself that whatever rights or freedoms I espouse, be prepared to have it backfire. I will not renounce my stand simply because suddenly a perfectly reasonable application of my beliefs results in a conclusion that is undesirable. All women should have the option of abortion, period.
Well, the term can only possibly make sense when dealing with a scenario where a man and a woman together are both involved with the decision - it doesn’t mean “women have an individual right that men in an equivalent situation don’t have”, it means “in this decision where both a man and woman might reasonably have a say, the man’s potential right is dismissed.”
Not ideal but a poly-marriage seems like it would have all the needed elements, ideally
one woman would take the maternal role, one man the paternal and the others would act as extended family.