And yours may be the exception or the opposite of what happens to many young women faced with the same choice, but the family fails to rally behind them.
In the end - while it may be ‘your grandson’ - its her choice - and ideally, you would have supported EITHER choice, as that is what she (your daughter) needed.
I just needed it put to me in a different way and this made what they’re saying clear to me. I glossed over the term ‘likelihood’; the prenatal screening I am aware of only looks at clinically relevant outcomes and the pattern from the genetic results would normally be diagnostic. In other words a far better predictor than the scenario you describe. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other avenues to obtain what I guess would be a profile for all sorts of lower likelihood clinically irrelevant genetic variants such as those (if ever discovered) for homosexuality or political affiliation.
As long as there is nothing stopping people from aborting fetuses that have a low odds of homosexuality then I guess I don’t have to like it but don’t believe it has to be prohibited.
Your response probably removed one of the largest underlying reasons for abortion and infanticide throughout history and across cultures.
How about if homosexuality could be “fixed” medically? Does “My body, my choice” extend to altering the fetus to the mother’s desires, or is the genetic code like a Congressional bill, she can only sign or veto it?
Why is it ok for the law to prevent you from throwing your newborn under a bus? You could say that if I don’t like dead babies I should avoid throwing my babies under busses and let you worry about yours cause you like flat babies and it’s your choice.
There’s that bait-and-switch again. Got an example that doesn’t involve a legally recognized human being?
Okay, so we all agree that if a baby exits a woman’s body alive, then that baby is a legal human being and may not be killed, even if the birth was unintended.
Yep. No one here has suggested infanticide.
The word you didn’t use is “birth.”
That’s why they passed the Born Alive Act.
Opps
I certainly think the case for a genetic basis for homosexuality is a heck of a lot more reasonable than a genetic basis for being a Republican.
If by “GOP bashing” you mean “holding Republican politicians and prominent media representatives accountable for things they say and do”, then I shall indeed go about that.
Look, I am aware there are many individual members of the Republican party who are pro-choice and many others who, while pro-life, have a much more nuanced understanding of the social, legal and emotional complexities of unwanted pregnancies and abortion. You appear to be one of the latter, and I applaud you for that.
The problem is that those people aren’t the Republicans getting elected to office. They’re not the ones appearing endlessly on television or radio claiming that women are sluts for wanting their insurance policies to cover birth control pills - which are also used to treat serious medical conditions - the same way those policies cover Viagra. They’re not the ones drafting and passing laws designed to restrict what has been determined by the Supreme Court (albeit not on the strongest grounds IMHO) to be a fundamental right. They’re not the ones repeating already-debunked lies in presidential debates about Planned Parenthood’s activities. And they’re certainly not the ones trying to qualify what “rape” is.
So while you personally may have an entirely reasonable and considerate approach to the issue, you are a tiny minority within today’s Republican party. So please don’t feign outrage just because I’m holding the “party of personal responsibility” personally responsible.
I just wanted to note that this is the first I’ve heard this particular phrasing (although “fell pregnant” is more familiar).
She went full term and had the baby. I don’t know you London geezers know nothing :smack:
Unless/until baby grows up and commits a crime punishable by execution.
Would be happy to discuss it: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19178395#post19178395
You mean “fixed” like in making sure the fetus is gay or lesbian or maybe even bisexual?
I think my last sentence covered that. I do not personally like attempts to manipulate the phenotype of a person to match the parents’ tastes (I suspect most of my distaste for anybody attempting to alter the fetus to deal with nonmedical issues is based in my belief that I could never afford to do it myself.), but I also do not believe the government should interfere with such decisions.
Several people I have spoken to have not found out their daughter had an abortion to several years later, they felt that if they had known they could have offered support and there is the underlying feeling of loss for the grand child that was taken from them. It must also be remembered that some woman will suffer physiological trauma that can effect them for years to come. Abortion is not the one stop shop to cure your problem
Is it still legal to abort strawmen in utero?
What about gays having babies. My sister the lesbian raised eight daughters, and she and her legal wife have now taken in the granddaughter of her late partner and her twin babies. The mother was really messed up and the babies would have ended up in foster care. Instead, the mother is trying to get her act together, and the babies are being raised in a loving home.
But, no, gay parenting is child abuse.
The majority of anti-abortion protestors I talk to agree with adoption, but only to the right (married, straight Christian) couples.
I’ve never seen statistics, and would enjoy knowing: would the typical conservative prefer a baby be adopted by gay parents, or thrown onto public dependency and the state/county child protective services? Which is, to their mind, the lesser of two evils: gay parents, or state support of unwanted children at taxpayer expense?
I’m going to take it for granted that they would prefer adoption, even by gay parents, to abortion, if it came about that those were the only two choices.
I have absolutely no objection to gay parents adopting.