Butters 0
Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteYes. In a perfect world a mother would care about the well being of their child (above their own well being) starting at conception.
Now should that be enforced by law or merely encouraged?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
The research involves using hormones to change the orientation of sexually active rams that are known to be homosexual. If the issue were to ever come up with humans, I hope it would be addressed the same way, i.e. adults would be allowed to change their own orientation as they see fit. I'd really rather not walk down the path of "designer babies", debilitating defects aside.
Blues,
Dave
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteThe research involves using hormones to change the orientation of sexually active rams that are known to be homosexual. If the issue were to ever come up with humans, I hope it would be addressed the same way, i.e. adults would be allowed to change their own orientation as they see fit. I'd really rather not walk down the path of "designer babies", debilitating defects aside.
I agree. My personal preference would be that as a society we do not design custom babies.My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Royd 0
Why would anyone in their right mind intentionally lessen the chance of the continuation of a family line?QuoteWhat do you think of parents manipulating their kids' hormornes not so they become straight but so they're guaranteed to become gay?
Extenuating curcumstances aside, it would be like having your children fixed so that they couldn't reproduce.
Butters 0
QuoteQuoteYes. In a perfect world a mother would care about the well being of their child (above their own well being) starting at conception.
Now should that be enforced by law or merely encouraged?
No, that should not be enforced by law. However, the right for a person to have a child should have somes restriction (similar to adoption).
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
Richards 0
QuoteNo, that should not be enforced by law.
Can I take that to mean that the woman in my example should not have been held in a drug treatment facility? I am curious because this was a huge issue up here in canada at the time.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Royd 0
In reality, yes. From the feminist point of veiw, it isn't a human being until after it is sqalling in the doctor's arms.QuoteAnyway my question to you was based on this. If a woman chooses to keep a baby does she bear any moral responsibility to not do things to her body that would (negatively) affect the childs well being?
Why take any extra pains that stand in the way of convieneince, in order to increase the chance of a healthy child.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
billvon 3,119
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Why would anyone in their right mind intentionally lessen the
>chance of the continuation of a family line?
It used to be true that gay women had no chance to reproduce at all. That's no longer true. A family of gay women could both reproduce (artificial insemination) and ensure that their children were the same orientation they were.
>chance of the continuation of a family line?
It used to be true that gay women had no chance to reproduce at all. That's no longer true. A family of gay women could both reproduce (artificial insemination) and ensure that their children were the same orientation they were.
Butters 0
QuoteQuoteNo, that should not be enforced by law.
Can I take that to mean that the woman in my example should not have been held in a drug treatment facility? I am curious because this was a huge issue up here in canada at the time.
No. You can take that to mean that laws should not be created and enforced that protect the well being of an unborn child over the well being of the mother. Laws should be created and enforced that prevent people from conceiving (mandatory birth control). Stop the problem at the source.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
champu 1
QuoteAbortion on demand coupled with sex forecasting, for example, has resulted in a virtual gendercide amongst some cultural communities, but feminists will not back down from their monolithic political stance.
How then can those who support a woman's unconditional right to kill her own healthy female fetus logically balk at a benign intervention that will optimize the chances of a living child having the sexual orientation preferred by the parents?
...out comes the author's misunderstanding of the pro-choice viewpoint.
Richards 0
QuoteQuote***Abortion on demand coupled with sex forecasting, for example, has resulted in a virtual gendercide amongst some cultural communities, but feminists will not back down from their monolithic political stance.
How then can those who support a woman's unconditional right to kill her own healthy female fetus logically balk at a benign intervention that will optimize the chances of a living child having the sexual orientation preferred by the parents?
...out comes the author's misunderstanding of the pro-choice viewpoint.
Can you please elaborate/clarify.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Richards 0
QuoteLaws should be created and enforced that prevent people from conceiving (mandatory birth control). Stop the problem at the source.
Humungous can of worms.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Butters 0
QuoteQuoteLaws should be created and enforced that prevent people from conceiving (mandatory birth control). Stop the problem at the source.
Humungous can of worms.
So is allowing people to have children who are incapable of supporting children.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
Richards 0
QuoteHumungous can of worms.
So is allowing people to have children who are incapable of supporting children.
Oh don't get me wrong. I do see your point, I just don't know if I would have the balls to openly promote such an idea.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
rehmwa 2
Easiest way to avoid either conflict is to just hang out with interns and avoid the whole 'sex' thing. At least based on one definition.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteI've got no opinion in the matter but hey! This oughta stir things up:
What do you think of parents manipulating their kids' hormornes not so they become straight but so they're guaranteed to become gay?
I don't see a difference.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteEasiest way to avoid either conflict is to just hang out with interns and avoid the whole 'sex' thing. At least based on one definition.
Give that man a cigar. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
rehmwa 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteEasiest way to avoid either conflict is to just hang out with interns and avoid the whole 'sex' thing. At least based on one definition.
"Thar she blows, captain"
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
labrys 0
QuoteI am reluctant to touch this one with a 10 foot pole as anyone who sides with the feminists will be accused of being a homophobe, and anyone who sides with the gay rights groups will be accused of wanting to control womens bodies (particularly here in SC where everything is polarized).
It doesn't have to be that black and white. It wouldn't be impossible to support both the gay and pro-choice approach. Being pro-choice doesn't mean that you have to encourage abortion, does it? Good pro-choice groups make an effort to present alternatives to abortion.
I don't think that the hormone therapy sounds like a good idea and I'd be interested in making sure that the possible ill effects were clear to the mother and that the decision was made given all the information, but I could ultimately support the decision being the mother's, I guess.
I hate the idea, but it's not an impossible situation for pro-choice homosexuals.
Edit to add: I was just thinking about the ultra right religous types who think that any unborn child is a gift from God and should not be interferred with in any way. Given the opportunity to make sure they don't have gay children might present the same dilemma to them.
Of course, they think that homosexuality all 100% choice so they don't need hormone treatments, do they?
Owned by Remi #?
This is like an ethical occluded front. Expect strong winds.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
labrys 0
Quoteethical occluded front
Heh. I don't think so, at least from the perspective of the original post. I think there are many interesting angles.
It might benefit homosexuals in general in the long run. Once you prove that hormone therapy makes fewer people gay then you pretty much have to accept that homosexuality is inate and not a choice. Once you've accepted the trait as inate you start losing your excuses to deny people their rights because their "lifestyle" is a "choice"
Not everyone would choose the therapy.
Owned by Remi #?
Richards 0
QuoteIt doesn't have to be that black and white. It wouldn't be impossible to support both the gay and pro-choice approach. Being pro-choice doesn't mean that you have to encourage abortion, does it? Good pro-choice groups make an effort to present alternatives to abortion.
I agree with you but all too often people will try to polarize these issues.
QuoteI don't think that the hormone therapy sounds like a good idea and I'd be interested in making sure that the possible ill effects were clear to the mother and that the decision was made given all the information, but I could ultimately support the decision being the mother's, I guess.
I hate the idea, but it's not an impossible situation for pro-choice homosexuals.
Edit to add: I was just thinking about the ultra right religous types who think that any unborn child is a gift from God and should not be interferred with in any way. Given the opportunity to make sure they don't have gay children might present the same dilemma to them.
Of course, they think that homosexuality all 100% choice so they don't need hormone treatments, do they?
It is going to be fought at extremes unfortunately. I do not like this idea one bit but I concede that it is ultimately not my call. You have posed an interesting question with respect to religious groups though. I do not know what to say about that but I am interested in some of the other views on that.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
champu 1
QuoteQuote...out comes the author's misunderstanding of the pro-choice viewpoint.
Can you please elaborate/clarify.
The "choice" in pro-choice is the decision of the woman regarding whether or not having this child is the right thing to do. That's what I support, and I support it in spite of its misuses by those who would terminate a pregnancy only to try again, hoping for trait X or characteristic Y (pun intended.) I support this because I feel the right to choose is more important than how it may be abused.
To suggest that I would automatically also support this hormonal alteration of an unborn child's sexual preferences, or even that such support would be related to being pro-choice strikes me as both capricious and absurd.
Yes. In a perfect world a mother would care about the well being of their child (above their own well being) starting at conception. However, this is not a perfect world.
Do people deserve to have their rights even if they abuse them (and consequently abuse the rights of others)?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites