I would gladly pay $$$ to be able to ask this.
—
Hi Hillary, Barack and John,
If a genetic predisposition to homosexuality were proved and could be identified in utero, would you favor a ban on abortions to protect the unborn in this category?
Follow up questions:
If yes, then why not extend these protections to the unborn who are being aborted due to being female, or because they are in the way of careers or economic goals, or are just plain “unwanted?”
If no, then are you homophobic? Why should the GLBT lobby support you? It seems that the Republicans value their lives more than the Democrats.
—
Oh, the schadenfruede of watching them squirm over that! I explored this as well in A hypothetical dilemma.
You can use the same example with gender-selection abortions, most of which are done to unborn females. That one is also handy when pro-legalized-abortionists try to paint you as anti-women for opposing abortion.
Filed under: Politics, Pro-life reasoning, Sexuality | Tagged: abortion, democrats, Politics, Pro-life
wow. good point Neil! im gonna use that lol
I think they well arrange it ahead of time so that they DON’T get asked these kinds of questions.
Great idea Neil! If such questions were asked of them, it would expose their moral relativism big time!
Let’s copy and paste those questions on some well-known liberal Democrat blogs! It would drive them all rabidly crazy! heh heh
Why only ask the question of Democrats? Not sure I get that point.
And you don’t even need to go into the homosexual aspect of the question at all…
Seems over the top to me.
Mark,
Please note that I wrote liberal Democrats. I do not know of any who are pro-life. Do you?
Perhaps this article will further explain the dilemma presented here by Neil’s post.
“I would gladly pay $$$ to be able to ask this.”
Can I make a donation to that!? LOL ooooo How I wold LOVE to see them squirm on that one…
Christinewjc,
Oh the rabid craziness that would insue (if it didn’t get deleted out of fear)! Do it! LOL
I know it’s tongue in cheek and would be great to see them squirm. However, a part of me thinks why not ask them! It is a great question. And they know that their answer will look bad… to everyone.
Or… email it to Rush!
Expect a lot of double talk, side stepping, and equivocating in any answer that they supply.
I think it’s a fair question as opposed to some of the things brought up recently. If anyone saw the recent democratic debate you will notice that the most “un-called for” question was asked of Obama. Besides, I’m on the mailing (via email) list of the democratic party…I’d have no problem asking such a question. But, I wouldn’t expect a reply judging from past experiences.
great point neil!
I work with a person in India and he just had a baby. Before the baby was born, during one of our one-on-ones, I asked him if he knew what he was having: he said
“No. We can’t know this here in India. There’s a law that says so.”
Since in Hinduism males are better than females, female babies are usually not wanted before, or after the birth.
I should qualify this by saying that: in order to be one with Brahma – you must begin by being a male – from the highest caste.
I should add that:
I’m sure there are millions of “Hinduism Practitioners” who are loving parents.
Yet, a law had to be passed to protect the babies there.
A similar question was put to me on a post I made wherein I stated, “If you want to get me fired up just bring up homosexuality or abortion. They are both issues I am very passionate about.
The questioner asked, “If I knew in advance that a pre-born child was going to be born a homosexual would it be ok then to abort the child?”
My answer was this: Since Homosexuality is not genetic and is a choice, there would be no way of knowing the child would be a homosexual, so the question is moot, however, if their was a way to know in advance that the child would eventually choose to nbe homosexual, the answer is no. I would not abort the child. Even if the child chooses to be homosexual later, he can still choose to return to heterosexuality.
Abortion is always wrong. Homosexuality is always wrong, too, but it is not genetic. It is a choice.
Squirm? Please! I can answer this question!
The answer is no! The reason: all people are equal under the law. We believe homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals (straights) and that just as straight babies can be aborted, so can gay babies!
Next question!
My email: a_z1_9scores@lycos.com. I am a pro-choice Christian, so email me if you want to discuss why God disagrees with me and I will respond with why God does.
Hi Chris,
Nothing personal, but I don’t have time for email debates. Feel free to post here why you think God is pro-abortion.
I don’t even need to use the Bible to show how grossly you are in error, but I will say that I find “pro-choice Christian” to be an oxymoron. At best you are saved and confused (very confused). Jesus is the author of life and said we should not murder. He said to protect the weak.
It is interesting that you concede the humanity of the unborn but still defend a mother’s right to have them destroyed.
It is a scientific fact that the unborn are human beings.
It is immoral to kill innocent human beings.
Abortion kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is immoral.
Everyone should hold that view, whether Christian or not.
Okay, then, I didn’t actually know if anyone was still watching this topic or if we can post our opinions down here. I really don’t prefer to debate through private email, either, but I thought you could only post once.
First, I never conceded the humanity of the unborn, although I do believe the unborn is technically human, just like a strand f your hair is technically human (unless you are an alien). However, I must apologize. I am pro-choice, but I’m not sure if God cares one way or another about abortion. Reason why: God never said anything about abortion.
When this is said, I usually get the response, “Thou shalt not murder.” Exactly. And what is murder? Murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder). It is a subset of killing, which is pretty much anytime you end someone’s life. Technically, our troops are killers and even God is a killer. But was it illegal? And was it with malice aforethought? No to both questions. God is the law, so he can’t illegally kill a person and God loves us too much to feel malice towards us. Our troops are not over in Iraq just to shoot up terrorists. They are there to defend our country. It’s not illegal and most, if not all, of our troops don’t even know anyone in the Middle East to feel malice towards. Therefore, it doesn’t fit the definition of killing and these two groups are groups that are revered as heroes, not criminals. We can also say that about abortion (maybe not the hero part). Technically, abortion is not illegal, and we can both agree that mothers don’t feel malice towards their unborn children. Most of them do it because they don’t want their children to suffer for a mistake they made. Does that sound malicious to you?
Now, for the human part. Are fetuses human? No doubt they are human beings, but are they persons? Sounds like I’m mincing words, here, but I’m not. The debate is not whether a human being is being killed but whether a person is being killed. To explain this to you, I have to cite definitions of both. In order to be a being, all you have to do is exist (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/being). Therefore, everything is a being. A rock is a being. A tree is a being. By definition, a fetus is a being. To be human, you just have to be of, be relating to, or have characteristic of humans (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human). No doubt a fetus has that because it has human DNA.
Therefore, it can be considered a human being. But wait! So can many other things, such as a strand of your hair. It has human DNA and it exists. Therefore, it can be considered a human being. However, hair doesn’t have human rights. We can cut our hair, drown it in moose or grease, burn it with curlers, comb it, and even set it on fire (I wouldn’t suggest that last one unless it has been cut off your head first!). It sounded odd at first, but I have demonstrated that just because you are a human being doesn’t automatically grant you human rights. So how is a person different from a human being? Simple. A person is is a physically-independent human being.
Physical independence is what gives human beings rights. I say physical independence because it is the only kind of independence you need to have rights. One might try to argue that technically, everyone is dependent on someone or something. A person might be dependent on a job to pay bills. A child might be dependent on its mother to survive. However, that’s social dependence, and it is different. How? In the most obvious way. Suppose that guy gets fired from his job. What can he do? He can find another job and get paid. It might be more or it might be less or it might be the same. The point is, he can find a new job that’ll do the same service for him. Suppose the mother wants to go on vacation and doesn’t want to take along the child. Then, the mother can leave the child with a babysitter. The babysitter can keep the child alive just as well as the mother, technically. It might not be the same as the mother to the child, but that has nothing to do with this argument. Point is, that’s social dependence. The fetus is totally dependent on the mother to survive. However, suppose wants to go on vacation and doesn’t want to take along the fetus (sounds a bit farfetched, I know, but it’s hypothetical). This time, the mother is not able to hand off the fetus to a babysitter or anyone else, for that matter, to keep it alive while she’s gone. The fetus will die. One might also ask about partial-birth abortion and whether or not I think it’s ethical. I do not. It s killing a physically independent human being, even though that human being is still in the womb. The reason why partial birth abortion is different is the method in killing the fetus, which is actually no longer a fetus but a baby now. In partial birth abortion, the baby is pushed partway out of the birth canal, then stabbed in the head. Obviously, if it has to be stabbed, then it can sustain itself outside of the womb and therefore is physically independent and has human rights.
However, I also mentioned that God doesn’t care one way or another about abortion and there is one main reason why: he didn’t include it in the Bible. One might argue that the Jews regarded children as a blessing from God and wouldn’t dare abort, even without a law, which is true, but how many Jews were homosexual? Not many, if any (hey, that rhymes!), but it was all around them. Abortion has been around for ages, although not as advanced as today. If there weren’t many, if any, Jewish gays walking around town, why would there be a law against it? Because God’s laws were written for all Bible believers. Another thing that pops up is that God has no laws against pedophilia, but that would be considered a sin. You’re right. It would be. However, Jewish boys have bar mitzvahs at age 13 and girls have bat mitzvahs at age 12 (http://www.jewfaq.org/barmitz.htm). They would be of legal age to marry. The Bible clearly condemns sexual relations outside of marriage, so if one were to have sex with a minor, they would be breaking the sex-out-of-marriage law. Second, does God believe that fetuses have the same rights as humans? The closest law i can find is this one:
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe,” (Exodus 21:22-25, ESV).
Now, let’s pull out a key phrase in this text:
“…hit a pregnant woman,so that her children come out, but there is no harm…”
That means God doesn’t think that there was any harm when she had her miscarriage, as he said “there is no harm”. He did not say, “There is no FURTHER harm,” but even if he did, it still doesn’t help you since the punishment for the miscarriage is simply, “the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Now, let’s move to the second part, which reads, “But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” This does two thing: 1 is that it disproves the notion that God values the born as he does the unborn and 2 is that it even insinuates that God doesn’t believe that the baby is alive, because he says, “A life for a life,” yet the baby was miscarried in both instances, but in both instances a life wasn’t given for a life. Money is to be given for the miscarried life, not another life.
This only show some of my reasoning why I can be a pro-choice Christian, which actually isn’t an oxymoron. What should be an oxymoron is violent, unforgiving Christian, but unfortunately, you have many violent, unforgiving Christians in this country.
Thanks for checking and for coming back. You can post all you like, provided you stay on topic, don’t make personal attacks and other basic guidelines. So far, so good.
This is foundational, so please read it carefully: Go read secular embryology textbooks and you’ll find that a unique human being is formed at conception. This is basic science. You don’t need the Bible to prove that point.
Therefore, to destroy the unborn is to destroy an innocent human being. That is called murder, and the Bible says do not murder. That is really all the secular or Biblical reasoning you need.
To say that God doesn’t care about abortion is to concede that one doesn’t know a lot about God. The Bible may not specifically mention abortion but it is quite clear on the concept of life. Also, that is an argument from silence and a logical fallacy – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/what-jesus-didnt-say/ .
Noting that abortion is legal today just begs the question, because our discussion is about whether it is moral and should be legal.
Some mothers may feel malice towards their children. Some may not. It is murder either way.
The “I don’t want them to suffer” view is another bad line of reasoning. If her toddler is “suffering” can she kill her? Of course not. The only question is whether the unborn is also a human being. She is.
Conflating a human hair with the unborn is specious reasoning and really tips your hand.
A fetus is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human fetus, human baby, human teen, etc. It has the same nature and inherent worth. Most states have laws protecting the unborn and consider it murder to kill them — unless mommy is paying a stranger to do the killing. The criminals don’t get to say the unborn wasn’t a person yet.
The personhood angle is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one, yet it fails as well. Using that reasoning one could justify infanticide.
You are really straining here. The size, level of development, environment and dependency of the unborn are all irrelevant to whether she has worth or not. You say that “physical independence is what gives human beings rights” but that is just made up. Who says that? Handicapped people don’t have physical independence.
That is a mistranslation. I really hope you will read this link which examines that passage in detail – http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1523_Exodus_212225_and_Abortion/%22 . It is a great example of how to do more research to make the right interpretation on difficult passages.
In short, that is not about miscarriage.
Jesus is the author of life (Acts 3:15). The unborn are alive. If they weren’t, abortion wouldn’t be necessary. It is wrong to destroy innocent life.
Please go view some pictures and videos of abortions and then explain to me how that isn’t violent – http://www.abort73.com/ . We’re talking about crushed skulls, limbs ripped off, etc., and without anesthetic. If abortion isn’t violent, nothing is violent.
Thanks for visiting and expressing your views. I hope you’ll check out those links and reconsider your positions.
I highly recommend this book by Randy Alcorn – Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions – http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Life-Answers-Pro-Choice-Arguments-Expanded/dp/1576737519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227303045&sr=8-1