I do not see it as an unfair question. If you accept at least some pro-choice arguments, it would lead to society totally giving up on any control on abortion. In that scenario, at least some people would certainly use abortion for sex or sexual-preference selection.
It is not really “if” someone wants to abort a gay fetus. It is a matter of “when.”
Heck, we could assume it’s happening now - a woman who has the delusion that any male child of hers will be gay (because her brothers are gay and her husband turned out to be bi) selectively aborts any male fetus for that reason alone.
I don’t see any reason this hypothetical, even if true, should change my pro-choice stance. I guess it’s a fair question… so is “What is two plus two?” And one can give a calm unwavering answer to both.
Qin…
What if there was a test that could tell if a foetus would become a Paedophile? (No fighting the hypothetical), genetically only way the kid could find arousal would be by molesting younger children, no cure, no treatment.
What would you do?
Does a woman have to provide her most recent tax returns or show a paper proving she’s on employment insurance or welfare to qualify? How poor is poor enough? And I’m not being sarcastic here, I really would like to know where you draw the line and why.
What if we could wipe out diabetes, social awkwardness or some other condition dreaded by parents? Ought we to chlorinate the gene pool in the interests of the Greater Good? Why?
That could be the criteria. It might also come from the woman herself, that is she considers she cant really provide for the baby now. And that would be good enough for her to have an abortion (I believe there is often a little talk session between a doctor and a candidate for abortion in most countries, prior to the abortion).
I really dont think there are that many women that go for abortions on a whim, even in countries where you can get one easily. But the whole “he might be gay”, “he might not look like an Aryan” reasons are in whim territory for me, and I think it is an abuse of the right for abortion.
That said, I dont think I would vote against a candidate with a platform for even broader abortion rights, but I would certainly vote against one that plans on restricting it.
:D:D:D Classic.
I can only slightly agree with this. If a man tried to block an abortion for reasons like Bryan’s quip above and was not successful, I don’t think he should have to pay for anything regarding kid either.
Problem is, I’m male, and besides the nine months, I’ll never know HOW much physical, mental stress there is to it, sorry to say I’m pretty happy about that.
Yes, agreed, but aren’t we saying that a reason, no matter how nuts, doesn’t really matter? I think reason for an abortion matters case by case and it’s really hard to blanket it.
This was already asked and answered:
When I was 13 years old, I also knew all the answers. 
Would OP think it condescending if I wish him success in growing out of this phase?
Uh-huh.. so she says “I can’t provide for this baby now.” Is that enough or does she have to elaborate?
I’m just trying to boil it down, here.
I’m sure that would be terrible for some reason, but I don’t know what that reason is. (Some cases of diabetes are inherited, but most aren’t, so I doubt you’re going to get rid of it that way.) Killing off individuals and groups is awful. Wiping out a genetic disease isn’t, and we draw a distinction between a person’s identity and a disease.
Yes, that could be sufficient. Of course, it all depends on the society where this happens, and how tense the abortion debate is.
If you want to reply “but in the end any woman could say this, even if not really true. And so, you’re just agreeing to completely open abortion access, but need to find a moral cover to be comfortable with it”, well, maybe you’d be right.
This is why the debate on abortion in countries without religious BS muddling the waters is interesting, there is no absolute moral compass on this. I just dont believe putting and end to a fetus is akin to having breast implants. And there should be boundaries.
To be blunt, though, a great many women who find themselves pregnant don’t want to be, and this is not an artifact of modern decadence, it’s been happening for tens of thousands of years. Sure, we could slap on some lip-service to mollify those with moral objections, but why are we bothering?
Honestly, he’s right. Just like a woman’s right to her body tends to trump homosexual rights for pro-choicers, the right to life tends to trump the desire to get rid of homosexuals for prolifers. Murdering people for being homosexuals happens, but it far more often doesn’t happen. And, to these people, abortion is murder.
I am 99% certain that the mirror image pro-life Dope would have answered that question exactly the same way as this one. It really is 2+2=4.
(If I could find a board to try an experiment on, and I was already a member, I’d do it. The best I can do is Yahoo! Answers.
For the same reason antibiotics were invented; it’s better to be healthy than sick. While the danger of people choosing to eliminate things that aren’t diseases is a real one, eliminating actual diseases would of course be a good thing.
Nonsense. Do recall the “The only moral abortion is my abortion” phenomenon; they don’t mind getting an abortion for themselves. They clearly don’t actually mean that nonsense about regarding abortion as murder; that’s just an excuse for their persecution of women. They’d come up with some justification for aborting homosexual fetuses, I guarantee it. Some nonsense about how they are saving the “baby” from a life of sin that will send him to Hell, and are heroically taking the guilt upon themselves in an act of noble self sacrifice, perhaps.
It’s kind of like free speech – either you support it or you don’t.
If you start saying free speech is all well and good, but we can’t allow nazi revisionism, or flag burning, or hate speech, or whatever, well then that isn’t really free speech, is it?
Yes.
I don’t see any moral implications in what she chooses to do with her own body. There is no “father,” and it does no harm to her family.
Huh?
Fathers often bolt but not all of them do. Some might care about this.
How does that sound in German?
You might have a point, but I think you would agree this brings us to the edge of a slippery slope.
:rolleyes: Ah, yes, the standard nonsense about how any concern over genetic disease is the equivalent of Nazi genocide. Nor for that matter do I believe that anyone genetically engineered to be better off than a normal person is going to automatically start speaking with a faked German accent and try to take over the world.
No, I don’t.