Is this Buddhist going on spirituality or worldly info? If worldly he is no different then many on this board, if spiritual a nudge or two of the Word of God may help clarify the issue a bit, perhaps not (note he may or may not realize it is the Word of God).
Part of it perhaps is to show there is another way, one does not have to subscribe to worldly thinking, that there is something more, part may be that some people secretly believe differently then the current world view but has been beet down and afraid to mention it, me doing so may enable them to break free. Whatever the reason the Lord knows and He will work it for the good.
Actually this could not be further from the truth. I accepted it as most do at first, stories, myths and the like that have some teachings. But it is God Himself that proved His Word is exactly the Word of God.
Not necessarily; the “Holy Spirit”* might have told her it was true.
The “Holy Spirit” being either the loudest, probably satanic spirit that was in the area at the time (if you’re into that sort of thing), or a bit of fuzzy warmth served up by the subconscious. Either way, very reliable.
Ah, OK, I get it. Divinely revealed knowledge trumps physical observation. I suspect nearly everybody can respect your following the dictates of your conscience. Please don’t feel too badly if you don’t convince many people. Most folks I know haven’t seen anything to convince them of some mystical force.
IMHO–there would be a record number of abandoned babies, with pro-lifers birthing the kids, in accordance with their beliefs, and then dumping them, in accordance with their prejudices.
Forcing eugenic termination of pregnancy on women carrying fetuses of a particular ethnic/racial/etc. group could be consided genocidal. Permitting or subsidizing voluntary abortion of such fetuses is not.
Yes, publicly advocating the abortion of fetuses with the hypothesized “gay gene” would doubtless have some negative consequences for gay people as a group (contribute to perceptions of them as “undesirable” or “subhuman”, etc.). But it would not be the same thing as inflicting physical harm on any actual persons.
Honestly I rather think that if a parent is interested in aborting a fetus because it’s going to be gay, that’s probably a better option than them having the kid. I wouldn’t want to be that child growing up, anyway.
Yeah, wouldn’t it be best for homophobes to miss a breeding cycle? If they terminate this pregnancy, we can hope the woman’s bioclock will go off before she can start another one. After all, just having the gay gene (if such a thing exists) doesn’t gaurantee anything anyway, and it’s best if such people limit the number of children they can warp.
Genocide relates to the killing of a person which currently does not include the unborn.
Eugenics is not just a likely scenario it is the future of our species. Abnormalities such as claw hands and Spina bifida will be fixed early in the pregnancy. If there is a “gay” gene it will likely be wiped out as a secondary result of correcting other genes.
I’m gay, and mostly pro-choice: I believe that foetuses that are realistically viable (around 24 weeks now - happily in line with current UK laws) should not be aborted. I strongly doubt that homosexuality will ever be proven to be completely genetic or, at least, tied in to a specific number of genes - it will never be like down’s syndrome, which is easy to detect, though, even then, it’s not a definite and can only be tested for at around 20 weeks. Therefore, I suspect that any test that could detect homosexuality could only happen way after viability. I’d be against ‘abortion for fear of teh gay’ on those grounds.
If such a test were available earlier in pregnancy, then I’d think it were sad that the parent/s chose to abort just because the potential child were gay, but I’d say that they have the right to make that choice. If the case were in the US, where the laws apparently say that abortions are all the same legally up until birth (someone correct me if I’m wrong, please), then I’d say it shouldn’t be the case that changes that law.
??? Why? In your view, would other gene-linked minority traits such as left-handedness also be wiped out in this way, or would it only impact the “gay gene”?
You’re wrong. The US Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to abort a pregnancy for any reason in the early stages of pregnancy.
However, in the later stages, the right to life of the viable fetus is considered to trump the woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional for state law to ban late-term abortions (with exceptions where qualified medical opinion states that continuing the pregnancy would put the woman’s life or health at risk).
AFAIK, late-term abortion is banned (excepting cases where the abovementioned life-or-health risk is involved) everywhere in the United States.
But that’s what makes the many Gay friends that I have known special (I was in fine dining.). They are particularly rugged, practically spiritual, and blazing, slightly flawed Diamonds… in many ways blessed, because they can see beyond the bullshit of that pain. They might have some scars, but most of them make it. It is sad that many hate another for no other reason besides a slight difference.
I’m not a geneticist but from what I’ve read genes are not specific to a singular trait. As the gene pool is cleaned up you will probably see homosexuality, pedophilia, left handedness, ADD, Bipolar syndrome and a host of other minority traits disappear.
In the 1980s, there was a band called “You’ve Got Fetus On Your Breath.” Once you’ve got that band name stuck in your head, “Aborting Gay Fetuses” has a lesser ring, somehow.