He is their son and was raised by real, loving parents. The only thing that is pretend and imaginary is your concern for these precious little lives. I don't know you, but I know that your level of concern is far below that of lesbian liberals. Its just a discussion, but its not too late for you to make a difference.
Your point seems to be a husband and a husband or a wife and a wife is identical to a husband and a wife. We'll just have to disagree there.
We are just going to disagree that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Go on and live your life.
Thats not the topic and you are arguing with a claim no one made. The topic is abortion and the only relevant issue is "Wanted" vs "unwanted" If a pregnancy is unwanted, there is nothing you or the government can do about it. You can persuade her to give birth and adopt, but that would require someone "Wanting" the child. These children you claimed to care about are still "unwanted" by you, which makes you part of the problem. Claiming to be a boy doesn't make one a boy. Claiming to care about these precious little lives, does not mean that you actually care. Im not attacking you; I just wish there was one person willing to discuss solutions to the "unwanted" issue.
Not my point at all. I don't even know how you'd even get that point. My point is, gay people are fully capable of having children. In fact, many have had children, continue to have children. Being gay is not being infertile.
Pretty insensible point. Anyone can "have" children, I suppose. Bank robbers, pedophiles, a man could live with a giraffe and claim to have children. You seem to shirk the idea that a man falls in love with a women, they get married, plan a family, and have children. Have you ever heard of that concept?? It has happened you know. Hard for some to believe but I suppose it is pretty astoniishing in the perverse world we live in.
Where are you coming from? Who has ever said Men and Women don't marry and plan a family and have children? I have done that. It is your claim gay people can't have children. You've been shown how wrong that is. All this other stuff you keep bringing up is completely pointless.
There are extremists who imagine that the microscopic, mindless entity that comes into existence at the moment of conception is an instant person. It is their right to imagine that, and they are free to preach their notion to others, but they cannot force their notion upon everyone else by State edict.
It is your point they have children the same way as heterosexual couples that marry do? No, it's not the same though you deny it. As I said, from your perspective a man could have a giraffe as a soulmate and they could have children. You entertain the perverse.
It seems like you're saying the traditional marriage is the only reasonable way to raise children. I would say that other factors are going to matter more for good parenting and how kids turn out.
Scientifically speaking that's when a human life starts Meh depends. If these people become a majority they can elect people that will limit abortion.
I would say there is a rule....but there are exceptions. Adoption is great and often badly needed. A Mom and a Dad are best suited to raise those kids. A male and a female each have something to offer in a unique way. It is that way by design.
Most folks realize that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is not a person just because it has the potential of becoming one. That majority would never allow extremists to arrogate the coercive power of the State to force their notion upon everyone else.
Most people also understand that that's the beginning a human life. I wouldn't think it's extremist to say that it's at least somewhat valuable. but if it helps you to say everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist then by all means don't let me stop you.
To a mother hoping to have a child maybe. But to itself as an entity, it's not even an entity yet because it has no mind. Something with no mind has no interests and no existence in a morally meaningful way.
Those who imagine that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is a person are extremists, the instant of conception being the most extreme point of gestation, birth being the other antipodal extreme. Those who demand that the State seize control of wombs at the instant of conception and those who insist the State should refrain from exercising any authority until delivery are both, by definition "extreme." The vast majority of folks recognize that a person develops during gestation, and that societal responsibility reflects that process. Thus, the overwhelming support for respecting the woman's right to control her pregnancy, making such personal decisions with the advice and counsel of her medical and spiritual advisers and loved ones, rather that have politicians and bureaucrats imposing womb control. Some seek to have advanced western democracies revert to the state control that is prevalent in African, South America, and Middle Eastern cultures where personal freedoms are not as respected. That is unlikely. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal/
I accept you concession and will now say you have run out of anything pertinent to say on the topic. Ad homs and complete fabrication of what you seem to think about others shows you've run out of material. It's been explained to you by me and others. Several times. It just can't sink into your brain for some reason. Your version of reality is what seem perverse.
You had said that it's not extremist to value the fertilized egg as the beginning of a human life. At that point, it is a mindless ball of cells with instructions for making a new human being with considerable support from the mother's body that we can't yet replicate. Usually the instructions are unique, but even if it wasn't unique and it was a clone or an identical twin it wouldn't matter morally. To a woman trying to conceive, this potential new life might be priceless, but in the same way that her right hand or eyes are priceless - important for her interests in what she wants out of life. Until that ball of cells becomes a fetus with its own mind, capable of consciousness (20 weeks minimum, but probably later), it has no moral relevance beyond the mother's interests. Once a mind exists, this is a new being, a human being, with its own moral value independent of the mother's desires. This translates into me supporting unrestricted abortion before 20 weeks with no qualms at all.
I specifically gave you my point. So no further need for you to try and tell me specifically what my point is. Is the reference to a giraffe something deep inside your mine?
so people that don't exist outside of your own mind. I don't think anyone thinks it's a person it's just the beginning of one. so again nobody outside of your own demented Boogeyman. So you can only list these extremists that don't really exist. Essentially you're Done Quixote and you're tilting at windmills.
well morality being subjective you can justify or condemn anything. I must ask according to what morality? You can morally condemned or justify just about anything, morality is subjective. So according to who's morality? Why even mention morality?
These same people who want to force others to have a child don’t give a rats @55 about the child once it’s born. Some morals...ha
