|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
maeve
|
|
response 88 of 404:
| 
Oct 20 10:38 UTC 1998 |
Aren't aborted fetuses generally not progressed enough to be considered
bodies? I was under the impression that they were generally not
recognizable. But I could be wrong. And if someone could give a strictly
medical answer to this one, it would be most helpful.
|
md
|
|
response 89 of 404:
|
Oct 20 10:47 UTC 1998 |
If we eventually discover a gay "gene," would it be okay for a
woman to abort a pregnancy because she'd found out the child
had the "gay" gene?
|
md
|
|
response 90 of 404:
|
Oct 20 11:09 UTC 1998 |
[I ask because I believe the day is coming, if it isn't already
here, when various groups will be demanding that "politically
incorrect" abortions be made illegal again. That is, it'll be
legal to abort a healthy white heterosexual male fetus for any
reason you like, but it'll be illegal to abort a fetus solely
because it has Down Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis, or because the
father was black and the woman is a racist, or because the baby
has the "gay" gene and the parents are militant homophobes. If
this sounds far-fetched to you, all I can say is: You heard it
here first.]
|
brighn
|
|
response 91 of 404:
|
Oct 20 14:16 UTC 1998 |
But I didn't hear it here first, Michael.
It's illegal in at least one country to abort a fetus on the basis of gender,
because people were doing exactly that (one of the Asian countries, I believe,
where females aren't valued as much as males, so mothers would want to clear
the reproductive system of that nasty female fetus to make room for a
wonderful male one).
The general term for this is eugenics: Deliberately manipulating the genetic
make-up of the child pre-natally, and discarding "mistakes."
I agree that it's a touchy issue. I understand, further, that mothers *are*
given the option to abort in some birth defect cases... I'm not sure if it's
just the fairly obvious ones (Siamese twins, for instance), or how advanced
the testing is.
This is precisely the argument I've made against arguing so hard taht sexual
orientation is entirely genetic. You suggest that liberal groups will demand
that "non-PC" abortions (or eugenic abortions) be made illegal; I fear
precisely the opposite, that the religious right, normally opposed to
abortion, will freely recommend abortion when a "bad" gene is found... the
gay gene, the alcoholic gene, the bleeding heart liberal gene.
I think that there is a significant risk of both things happening... extremist
"bleeding heart" liberals suing expectant mothers to keep them from aborting
an undesirable fetus, and extremist "religious right" conservatives
encouraging expectant mothers to abort it. And I don't see a clear way for
the law to handle it, other than to step in and say, "All right, then, NOBODY
gets an abortion," which (for me) isn't a desirable result at all.
As to the other question> We start as one cell. We come out as infants.
Depending on the contexts, it's theoretically possible to abort anytime during
the pregnancy. The vast majority of abortions occur during the first
trimester, and most (if not all) states have laws prohibiting third trimester,
and sometimes second trimester, abortions, frequently excepting cases where
the mother's life is at risk, or the baby is going to die anyway. So, yes,
most aborted fetuses are barely recognizable as human, if at all. A very few
are very recognizable as human.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 404:
|
Oct 20 14:56 UTC 1998 |
I don't understand what "recognizability" has to do with it. That seems
much too subjective a criterion when dealing with biology and choices.
Whether it "looks" human or not, the right to terminate a pregnancy should
exist for at least long enough for a woman to make a decision on whether
or not she wishes to produce a person.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 93 of 404:
|
Oct 20 15:40 UTC 1998 |
re #86: "What actually IS the agenda of the ACLU?"
Perhaps they don't like the idea of aborted fetuses being turned into
a political gimmick.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 404:
|
Oct 20 16:06 UTC 1998 |
The "agenda" of the ACLU is to preserve the rights of the people under
the Bill of Rights.
|
md
|
|
response 95 of 404:
|
Oct 20 16:08 UTC 1998 |
In my opinion, if you're going to support abortion at the woman's
choice, then that's what you have to support, even if the woman's
actual motives are repugnant to you. Suppose a woman chooses
to have an abortion solely because the child, if it had been born,
would have been the heir to a fortune that will all go to her if the
child is not born? As despicable as that sounds, you must give the
woman that choice if you want to be pro-choice.
|
brighn
|
|
response 96 of 404:
|
Oct 20 16:12 UTC 1998 |
LEt's say there were 50 fetuses found (just for the sake of argument).
Let's say that of those, 49 of the mothers were completely indifferent to the
fate of the fetus. As far as they were concerned, it was just a mass of
pre-human tissue that was threatening their career, their happiness, or
whatever.
Let's say that just one of the mothers was staunchly athiest (for example),
and was in general indifferent to the disposal of the fetus, but did in fact
consider it to have been a living being, and as such was ardently opposed to
it being buried in a Christian ceremony. She would, quite literally, prefer
that it just be dumped anonymously somewhere than be buried and given to the
Arms of the Lord, since that demeaned her beliefs, etc.
This is a deliberately simp-listic and frank example. The ACLU's agenda is
to protect the civil liberties of that one mother.
You can, after all, believe the fetus is *alive* without viewing it as a
*viable human* with the same rights as someone who's been born. Recall, for
instance, that it isn't technically a citizen of the United States (to be a
citizen, you have to live here for a number of years, or be born here, or be
born to American citizens).
|
drew
|
|
response 97 of 404:
|
Oct 20 20:03 UTC 1998 |
Right. Amendment 14 specifies *birth* - not conception - in the U.S. as a
qualification for citizenship.
Contrary to brighn, however, I can't imaging most Christian churches favoring
abortion even in the case of a 'gay' gene, which I would think that they
continue to deny anyway even in the face of hard scientific evidence. Even
if they accept the presence of such a gene, I think the recommendation would
instead be to have the child and force "treatments" upon it something to the
effect of institutionalization or cloistering.
|
senna
|
|
response 98 of 404:
|
Oct 20 23:56 UTC 1998 |
Most churches would never favor such an action. Or anything else of that
sort.
And my role in this sort of position will continue to be factual correction
and nothing else :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 99 of 404:
|
Oct 21 01:33 UTC 1998 |
If I said "most Christian churches," I misspoke. I can't believe I said that,
and don't believe I did.
I think there may be a small number of fringe ultra-conservative churches that
would sanction and even encourage aborted "gay" babies.
*Most* Christian churches currently hold that stance that homosexuality is
a sin, but so are a lot of other things, and Jesus loves people despite their
sins, because everyone is a sinner.
You can actually get confirmation of that last claim on our very own beloved
www.godhatesfags.com, where Rev. Phelps rants at the Christian churches who
dare to teach that Jesus loves everyone, and represents himself as being in
the tiny minority of right-thinking people who are willing to preach fire and
brimstone.
|
i
|
|
response 100 of 404:
|
Oct 21 02:18 UTC 1998 |
Ah, yes - the people who *know* that 99.9999% of humanity *will* burn in
Hell forever and can barely contain they joy at the prospect....
|
klg
|
|
response 101 of 404:
|
Oct 21 02:21 UTC 1998 |
"The "agenda" of the ACLU is to preserve the rights of the people under
the Bill of Rights," for example by enabling the mentally ill to live
squalidly on the streets rather than allowing society to care for
them in a humane manner.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 102 of 404:
|
Oct 21 05:19 UTC 1998 |
Hardly - that is Engler's agenda for the mentally ill. GIven that Engler
has forced many mentally ill people to live on the streets, however, the
ACLU works to prevent them being harassed by the police or otherwise
having them deprived of their civil rights. Do you think homeless people
should be *denied* rights provided by the Bill of Rights? Certainly,
people with mental disabilities should be protected from a denial of
their rights. So - what example of the practices of the ACLU with respect
to mentally ill living on the streets would you like to describe?
|
md
|
|
response 103 of 404:
|
Oct 21 10:40 UTC 1998 |
Heh. That used to be something the *ACLU* was blamed for.
Right before I moved to NYC, the influence of civil libertarians
like Tomas Szasz was responsible for releasing hundreds of
mental patients onto the streets of the city. The argument,
which I happen to agree with, was that you violate the rights
of a patient when you forcibly hospitalize (=incarcerate) him
or her for an indefinite period of time when no crime has
been committed. The result, unfortunately, was what were
called "bag ladies" at the time and "homeless people" now.
New Yorkers of the period (mid-'70s) have many "amusing"
stories about people like the man who used to put a picture
of himself on the wall outside Grand Central and then kneel
down on the sidewalk and pray to it. As immediately became
evident, releasing the unjustly incarcerated prisoners was
only half the solution, and no one wanted to pay for the
other half. It is incredible to me that we're *still* trying
to figure it out 25 years later. The ACLU are at least
trying. They were right then, and they're right now, imho.
|
md
|
|
response 104 of 404:
|
Oct 21 10:46 UTC 1998 |
[Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear a single pro-choice person
say that, yes, it should be legal for a homophobic woman to
abort a pregnancy solely because the fetus has the "gay" gene,
and it should be legal for a rich yuppie couple to abort a
pregnancy solely because the fetus is female and they already
have two girls, and it should be legal for a racist woman to
abort a pregnancy solely because the father is black. I will
take the plunge and say that I think all three abortions should
be legal.]
|
scott
|
|
response 105 of 404:
|
Oct 21 10:57 UTC 1998 |
I doubt any (well, OK, in America we specialize in odd extremes, so incredibly
few) fringe right wing churches would support or tolerate aborting "gay gene"
fetuses. I suspect that such organizations will say that "God is testing"
such children, and if they successfully resist the urge to *be* gay, they
stand a better chance of getting into Heaven.
|
mary
|
|
response 106 of 404:
|
Oct 21 11:04 UTC 1998 |
I too think such abortions should be legal, Michael.
|
brighn
|
|
response 107 of 404:
|
Oct 21 14:03 UTC 1998 |
#105> If you'd asked me seveal years ago, Scott, I'd've probably doubted that
any fringe Christian group would picket funerals of gay people, too. There's
always one whacko out there somewhere, which is what you allow for in your
parenthetical.
#104> As abhorrent as I would find such abortions personally, I would rather
that a mother abort a fetus she knows she won't be able to unconditionally
love, than to give birth to it, if that's her choice.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 108 of 404:
|
Oct 21 14:59 UTC 1998 |
I also think that abortions prior to some time limit for action should
be legal regardless of the motive.
|
drew
|
|
response 109 of 404:
|
Oct 21 19:16 UTC 1998 |
Re #104, 106, 107, and 108:
That makes five of us.
|
mta
|
|
response 110 of 404:
|
Oct 21 19:41 UTC 1998 |
I think one of your examples comes pretty close to being a no-brainer,
Michael.
How would a racist woman come to be carrying a black child? It seems unlikely
that she had any choice in the matter -- so we're talking rape here. Even
many people who favor very strong limits on abortion would agree that a
pregnancy resulting from rape falls outside the "abortion as birth control"
parameters.
Then again, although I would think them incredibly sad, I would support
keeping the abortions in your example legal for the sames reasons others have
stated.
|
senna
|
|
response 111 of 404:
|
Oct 21 20:02 UTC 1998 |
Yeah, #100, I hear they also revel in famine and starvation and homelessness
and racism and genocide.
|
faile
|
|
response 112 of 404:
|
Oct 21 22:39 UTC 1998 |
I don't think I could ever have an abortion. I don't know... I've never been
pregnant, let alone pregnant in a situation where that's the last thing I
want. But if I got pregnant at this point in my life, I'd be hard pressed
to keep the baby. But my personal issues aren't the point. I don't think
the governement has the right to legislate morality.
Of course, there are 2 counter-arguments to that: #1 is what about teh
rights of the unborn child? #2 What I call the fall back religious-right
argument: We're right and everyone else is wrong, and we know what's best for
them.
So I guess that I'm the next person to stand up and say that I supose
I support abrotions being legal, even in the case we've been discussing.
As for the Shepherd case, I'm of the mind that you don't strip someone naked
and tie him to something because you want to steal his money. You do it
because you want to make a point. You do it because you are sick and twisted.
(Sorry, that's the kind of thing that goes on my list of things "normal,
healthy people just don't do.") Picketting his funeral, if done in a
non-violent manner, is unfortunately, legal, just tasteless and crude.
The only real use that "hate crime" legislation would have would be stiffer
sentences for those acts which are already illegal if hate can be proved as
a motive.
A cartoon appeared in the student newspaper here at Vanderbilt that summed
up a view on this pretty well. Two anti-gay picketters are stading there,
with signs and such, and a voice comes out of the sky and it (supposed to be
god) says, "Well, actually, I don't really like hateful, close-minded,
ignorant murders."
|