Pro-Choicers: Abortion For Child's Sexuality

Perhaps that is true on the planet Vulcan, but here on earth we are human, and we do have emotions, and we do have feelings even about a fetus that we hope will be a baby and be our child. Most men, if they want children, would be emotionally upset if their wife decided, unilaterally, to get an abortion.

Maybe you wouldn’t, but I don’t know how many times you need to be told that you seem to have a different world view than most people. So let’s just say that you’re unique and not generalize your emotional outlook (or lack thereof) to the rest of the human race.

That is not to say I think the man should have veto power over any abortion. But it sure could affect the way he feels about his wife.

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement - Florynce Kennedy

In the infamous Baby M case, the NJ Superior Court weighed the donation of sperm, payment of money, and anticipation of a baby vs. pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding. Which one do you think gives a greater attachment to a child?

That’s a cute bumper sticker, but hardly a meaningful argument in a debate.

Not sure to whom you are addressing this, or how it fits into any of the arguments being made.

No, if men could get pregnant, they would be women.

Or get you executed. Society isn’t very compassionate towards men.

I’m not real big on letting “the will of society” override a woman’s choice either, but almost all pro-choicers do put limits on abortion when it comes to how late in pregnancy we allow elective abortions to occur. And I think both you and I are in that category.

But as for issues such as sex selection and the like, I don’t see where “the will of society” should enter the abortion discussion. I see a slope there, and it’s pretty slippery.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not real big on letting “the will of society” override a woman’s choice either, but almost all pro-choicers do put limits on abortion when it comes to how late in pregnancy we allow elective abortions to occur. And I think both you and I are in that category.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I agree…but I’d say that the woman made her choice in the first trimester. Unless something comes up medically (a threat to the mothers life, for instance) she has to abide by the choice she made at that point.

That’s really the more difficult question that the OP’s.

Agreed.

-XT

NM

You stole my bit.

It’s not my fault you never sweep your place for surveillance equipment, your computer for spyware, or your medulla oblongata for nanites.

If we (hypothetically) can identify a gay gene, can (hypothetically) be a dominant gene guaranteeing homosexuality and we (hypothetically) put limits on aborting for this very reason, we have definitely opened the door for some legal mayhem, no?

Say a very conservative fundamentalist woman is pregnant and finds out about the fetus having this gene. She later decides to have an abortion but claims it’s for different reasons (financial, inconvenient, emotional distress, whatever). I’d imagine that if a husband/boyfriend still wanted this baby, gay or not, he’d try for an injunction. Then here comes the parade of “experts” for both sides drawing crowds, controversy, rights groups, religious groups-- all holy hell.

For possibilities like this one, I see no reason for a woman to state any reason for the abortion, and no limits of reason should be made on abortion.

You’re still a shit head for considering abortion solely based on the hypothetical gay gene, but the woman’s personal needs are just that. Personal.

I should hope so. If ejaculation took nine months we’d all be walking around with catheters and buckets.

I’ve only read the first page, so I apologize if this has been brought up, but how early can this be detected? Two weeks in? No problem. 8 months in? I’m against it. (That leaves a lot of middle ground, doesn’t it?)

But this would be a factor for me.

Yes, let them abort for any reason they choose, it’s their bodies.

No, it creeps me out. It may involve killing someone. We ought not to do such a thing without good reason and much reflection.

He should be raised to be told constantly that pedophilia is wrong. Similarly some people have murderous thoughts but he doesn’t have to act on it.

Most Evangelicals and fundamentalists try to convince homosexuals that their behaviour is wrong and even if it is genetic they can control their thoughts and acts.

A lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists also disown their children and thrown them out of their homes when they find out they can’t pray or beat the gay out of their kids. I have very, very little doubt that most of these people would suddenly find an exception to their stance on abortion, if they found out that their kid was genetically inclined to homosexuality.

Murder (and regardless of what you think, that’s what they think)=/= disowning.

Plenty of parents have murdered their gay children.

Sometimes people do things they’re constantly told not to do.

I think some people here are probably overestimating how many pro-life parents would abort a potentially gay child. But it would definitely happen. If you know people, you know they’re very good at making exceptions to their own rules when it suits them.