Gay Babies

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _EAllusion »

It's possible to argue that abortion itself isn't morally impermissible, but that targeting specific classes of fetus is. In order to thread that needle, you'd have to argue that the moral fault in aborting a gay fetus or female fetus or mentally disabled fetus isn't because that fetus has inherent value unto itself, but because of other considerations.

In the case of targeting abortions at females, I think there's probably a good case that widespread adoption of this has harmful sociological effects as gender ratios get out of wack. Someone might want to similarly argue widespread adoption of aborting all non-heterosexual fetuses causes society to lose something of value that should not be lost. That's a harder case to make, but I could see it being fleshed out.

Someone might also want to argue that attempting to eliminate a particular trait in the population itself functions as an attack of persons who possess that trait, and that is itself harmful. Aborting gay fetuses because they are gay is wrong because it inherently devalues the lives of gay people, in other words. I'm not going to get on board with this argument, but I can tell you that's the intuitive thought that causes people to feel squeamish about anti-gay eugenics via abortion.

Sub is trying to leverage that intuition into calling pro-choice people who would be uncomfortable with anti-gay eugenics hypocrites. His desire to troll and the fact that he's stupid just prevents him from being able to articulate anything resembling a real argument to that effect.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _subgenius »

EAllusion wrote:It's possible to argue that abortion itself isn't morally impermissible, but that targeting specific classes of fetus is. In order to thread that needle, you'd have to argue that the moral fault in aborting a gay fetus or female fetus or mentally disabled fetus isn't because that fetus has inherent value unto itself, but because of other considerations.

In the case of targeting abortions at females, I think there's probably a good case that widespread adoption of this has harmful sociological effects as gender ratios get out of wack. Someone might want to similarly argue widespread adoption of aborting all non-heterosexual fetuses causes society to lose something of value that should not be lost. That's a harder case to make, but I could see it being fleshed out.

Someone might also want to argue that attempting to eliminate a particular trait in the population itself functions as an attack of persons who possess that trait, and that is itself harmful. Aborting gay fetuses because they are gay is wrong because it inherently devalues the lives of gay people, in other words. I'm not going to get on board with this argument, but I can tell you that's the intuitive thought that causes people to feel squeamish about anti-gay eugenics via abortion.

Sub is trying to leverage that intuition into calling pro-choice people who would be uncomfortable with anti-gay eugenics hypocrites. His desire to troll and the fact that he's stupid just prevents him from being able to articulate anything resembling a real argument to that effect.


your superfluous, inflated, and verbose analyses are becoming predictable....does every composition have to be a buttress for whatever emotional reaction you have with your first glance?

my premise is founded on the current practice of amniocentesis and the obvious moral implication by the current "choices" people make in a society that considers "motive" to be implicit to criminal and non-criminal activity....implicit to "good" and "bad" morality.
My charge for "hypocrisy" is a rather juvenile and inept intellectual conclusion for the "motive" behind the OP (thanks for that by the way, spot on with the premise). I have no interest in calling anyone a hypocrite for hypocrisy sake...rather, as noted before...its likely that people on either side of this topic have ever considered such circumstances when they have formed their current opinion and is of interest to observe if/how this circumstance would impact that opinion.

notwithstanding your self-contradictory drivel about how targeted abortions are surely worse than arbitrary abortions...as if the non-disclosure of why an abortion is being performed would somehow negate the absurd arguments you provide for "has harmful sociological effects".
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _Res Ipsa »

It's almost as if Subby doesn't read the post he's responding to...
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _Chap »

Res Ipsa wrote:It's almost as if Subby doesn't read the post he's responding to...


Gosh, could it be true?

(scrolls back through thread ... then another thread ... then another ... )

Yup, That indeed seems to be the case.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _Gunnar »

Like his hero, Trump, subby seems virtually incapable of learning anything new or even conceding that he needs to. Of course, that is entirely consistent with his being a Troll. I think he rarely has any serious intent to actually contribute anything substantive to the discussion.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _subgenius »

Gunnar wrote:Like his hero, Trump, subby seems virtually incapable of learning anything new or even conceding that he needs to. Of course, that is entirely consistent with his being a Troll. I think he rarely has any serious intent to actually contribute anything substantive to the discussion.

as is so often exhibited by your own posts that seldom offer anything other than personal insults and attacks on those whom you deem to hold a lesser position than your own.
But please, for example, feel free to point out the contrary on this thread.

See, your ignorance fails to recognize that you have only posted one post on this thread, wherein you only tossed an insult about a poster and felt that introducing your regurgitated view of Trump was necessary....dude, you are the troll here and you're too self-involved to realize it - Go spank it on your own thread
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _Chap »

Gunnar wrote:Like his hero, Trump, subby seems virtually incapable of learning anything new or even conceding that he needs to. Of course, that is entirely consistent with his being a Troll. I think he rarely has any serious intent to actually contribute anything substantive to the discussion.


I think his main intent is to discourage participation by those whose views he regards as wickedness. He does this mainly by distraction and abuse.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _Gunnar »

Chap wrote:
Gunnar wrote:Like his hero, Trump, subby seems virtually incapable of learning anything new or even conceding that he needs to. Of course, that is entirely consistent with his being a Troll. I think he rarely has any serious intent to actually contribute anything substantive to the discussion.


I think his main intent is to discourage participation by those whose views he regards as wickedness. He does this mainly by distraction and abuse.

That is in itself consistent with his being a troll, is it not?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _honorentheos »

subgenius wrote:its likely that people on either side of this topic have ever considered such circumstances when they have formed their current opinion and is of interest to observe if/how this circumstance would impact that opinion.

If we're just after opinions, mine is that the reason a woman choses to have an abortion within the constraints of the law are hers, and hers alone.

There is an interesting revelation in how you presented this that I think shows a form of conservative thinking. That being, it includes a conservative defined "protected class" fetus to try and define the choice of the hypothetical woman in a way that mirrors the conservative opposition to abortion and thus create what a conservative might see as a dilemma for someone who is pro-choice. But to buy into the dilemma's conditions would be flawed. Whether or not a fetus has the potential to develop into a human baby, gay or otherwise, isn't the defining issue that grants or removes from a woman the right to have an abortion up to a certain point in the development process. During the period of development she has the legal option to have an abortion, it's not a baby - gay or otherwise. It's potential to become such is above that of the sperm subby may leave in the tissues by his computer but not that much more, and not legally defined as such that adding the distinction it has the potential to be both a baby and gay matters.

It's a false dilemma subby. No one should even buy into the game let alone play it with you.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Gay Babies

Post by _EAllusion »

To be clear, "the sociological harm" of a out of wack sex-ratio caused by aborting female fetuses is that this means there will be more competition between men for female relationships and thus more single men. This probably contributes to intangible harm like increased loneliness, but there's evidence that this state of affairs leads to increased criminal activity and a tendency for societies to be more war-like*. So, the argument goes, if you abort a female fetus because it is female knowing others are doing the same, you are contributing to these ill-effects and that's wrong.

I'm not saying this is a persuasive case, but is an argument people accept that both allows for the moral acceptability of abortions while opposing aborting for specific reasons.
Post Reply