David Harsanyi asks it.
Excerpt:
Excerpt:
If abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, a matter of “reproductive health” rather than life and death, why are pro-choicers so touchy about the subject of sex-selecting abortions? If life doesn’t begin until a baby can feel pain or it can survive on its own (or whatever arbitrary, unscientific designation we’ve come up with), why is using abortion to determine sex any more detestable than using abortion for convenience sake? Does the intent change the reality of the act?
...Planned Parenthood says they oppose sex-selection abortions. Everyone says they do. A 2006 Zogby poll found that 86 percent of Americans thought sex-selection abortions should be illegal. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank — while arguing that outlawing sex-selective abortion would turn Asian-American voters from Republicans — says it is a premise “with which just about everybody agrees: a woman shouldn’t abort a fetus simply because she wants to have a boy rather than a girl.”
But why?
What seems to offend many pro-choice advocates is that gendercide is typically aimed at baby girls — predominantly in Asia. Is it a problem in the United States? In some communities, yes. But in a wealthy nation, it seems to me that selective abortions wouldn’t skew much higher for one gender or the other, making it, well, just simple infanticide. Selecting sex is just another outgrowth of “choice,” is it not? What I want my family to look like is none of your business, right? It’s not like we’re aborting anything with consciousness or awareness, so what’s the problem?
The real difficulty with the topic — already straining under the weight of euphemisms — is that it presents a massive logical and ethical dilemma. It forces pro-choice advocates to admit that abortion, in certain circumstances at least, is wrong. Why? I still haven’t found an answer.
Why is is ethical to abort a girl with Down's syndrome because she has Down's syndrome, but not ethical to abort her because she is a girl?
Why is it ethical to abort a girl because she interferes with her mother's desire for an education or for financial solvency or for social advancement, but not ethical to abort her because she interferes with her mother's desire for a boy?
Why is it ethical to abort a girl because she interferes with her mother's desire for an education or for financial solvency or for social advancement, but not ethical to abort her because she interferes with her mother's desire for a boy?
Why is it unethical to abort a child because she's a girl, but ethical to abort her because she is merely unwanted?
Why is "unwanted", unlike "a girl", a reason to kill a human being?
Why is "unwanted", unlike "a girl", a reason to kill a human being?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought PP defended the practice of gendercide.
ReplyDelete"Every child a wanted child," they say.
If a daughter will be unwanted, then clearly killing her makes sense. Right, "Pro-choicers"?
TRISH
TRISH,
ReplyDeleteYou're just mean. And you hate women.
That was a joke, in case you couldn't tell.
Little John
It's clever posturing, Mike, if only by half. That bill in Congress isn't going anywhere. Even its author Trent Franks acknowledges that it has fewer chances of passing than a snowball in hell.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteI confess. I'm addicted to your blog because it fascinates me how someone who is obviously intelligent (and they don't hand out medical degrees on the back of breakfast cereal packets) can write such stupid things.
All couples are entitled to have healthy wanted children. A healthy female child is obviously a healthy child. So couples aren't entitled to abort a healthy female fetus if a child is desired. Sometimes the needs of society trump that of the individual. Allowing sex selective abortions, usually females unfortunately, sets up conditions for trouble in coming decades with a disproportionate number of unhappy males unable to find partners.
Trish,
A fetus isn't a person, even if it has gender. A dog isn't a thing. A dog has gender too. But a dog isn't a person.
I don't think that 'leftists' (whatever they are) think the way you state. If you mean 'liberals', then you mean those who tend to score highly in Openness in the 5 dimension OCEAN personalities (ie being open to new ideas, capable of seeing nuances, willing to view the world in shades of grey instead of black and white). Liberals tend to appreciate different viewpoints and often adopt a utilitarian approach to problems.
Conservatives tend to score low on Openness (cue Michael, to claim now that I'm claiming that conservatives are 'closed-minded', as he did in a previous thread, and fabricated a quote. I'm not claiming that at all).
Liberals disagree with sex selective abortions for utilitarian grounds.
Michael,
DeleteNot immoral, but not to be supported or allowed by society.
I put it in a similar category to drink-driving or driving while sleep impaired.
The important word is 'similar'. I regard driving while intoxicated to be more reprehensible than sex selective abortion.
@bach:
DeleteYour answer is incoherent.
Welcome back.
Michael,
DeleteAnd your comment is stupid, as usual.
An answer isn't incoherent just because it's not the answer you want.
I regard abortion to be a continuum; sex selective abortion, elective abortion, abortion because the fetus is deformed (such as trisomy 21), abortion to save the life of the mother (such as eclampsia).
As a result, I think that sex selective abortion is to be strongly discouraged, with financial penalties. Elective abortion is to be discouraged (it does have its risks), but is necessary as a backup. Abortion for fetal abnormality is quite acceptable, if the couple (mainly the mother) agrees. Abortion to save the life of the mother should be strongly recommended, but if a legally competent mother refuses then that's the end of the matter. If a mother is unable to give consent (for example, eclampsia), then someone else should be required to give consent.
You'd put them in the same order too, but you think that abortion to save the mother's life should NEVER be allowed, so all the others are never plus.
You continue to prove that conservatives aren't capable of, or at least dislike, making nuances. It's not a criticism of conservatives. Sometimes it's useful to see everything in black and white. Neville Chamberlain was the classical liberal, trying to see Hitler's point of view. Winston Churchill was the classical conservative, immediately judging Hitler to be evil and to be opposed.
You're not right in this case, though.
The analogy is with drinking. There's a continuum too; drinking alcohol, driving after drinking a small amount of alcohol resulting in a legal BAL, driving after drinking to the point of being impaired and a danger to other road users.
Some will disagree with drinking at all. Others with driving after drinking even a minimal amount. Some people might even accept a low illegal blood alcohol as being acceptable.
bachfiend is back, so wabbit hunting we go!
ReplyDelete:-)
"Does the intent change the reality of the act?"
ReplyDeleteProclus wrote extensively on this subject. Aristotle touched on it. As did Aquinas, Augustine, and Anscombe. Queries on the permisibility of abortion for ectopic pregnancies put to the Holy Office since the early 20th century have been clear on this*. The resounding answer is yes.
A man who kills with intent to kill is guilty of murder. A man who kills with intent to defend his life is guilty of nothing.
Perhaps another example. To use enhanced interrogation techniques with the intent of instilling fear is reprehensible. To use them with the intent of getting information is, in the eyes of some, merely regrettable.
There is diverse literature on the subject. I suppose Mr. Harsanyi does not subscribe to deontological or virtue ethics.
-L
*Prior to 1900, within the Holy Roman Catholic Church, it appears that the principle of double-effect could not be used as justification for an abortion for any reason.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete'Family planning' infers women have the right to choose (no input from dad is required, remember) what type of family they want and when they want it. If a woman wants a boy first (or a girl first, for that matter) why is it somehow taboo?
ReplyDeleteThis is the question that haunts the 'debate' about killing human unborn. How is it any different than killing a female unborn human because it is currently inconvenient than killing a male unborn if currently inconvenient?
It is not - excepting in the mind of the conditioned pseudo feminists that promoted the eugenics agenda from day one.
Only they feel betrayed or contradicted. The rest of us have been against killing ALL human unborn since day one. For us, this paradox is an obvious effect of the evil nature of the movement to legally kill human beings.
The obvious truth is that this industry is not based on 'choice' or 'planning'.
It is clearly a population control measure by madmen who see humanity (especially certain races) as a blight on the earth, and women are the 'carriers' of the 'disease' of humanity. Reduce the women, reduce the potential problem.
I think Bach is right despite himself! The point he raises bares a lie that has been put forward for half a century.
Abortion is NOT about women's rights - it is about culling the population and designing a 'sustainable' utopian society.
Less women, more men, more homosexuality and less offspring = humans and more resources for the elect.
Of course it fails miserably and backfires, as do all such evil and utterly selfish concepts.
It cannot help but do so.
The paradox of the 'women's reproductive right' to abortion is clear when we see the very technology that women (and men) have been using to kill off undesired or inconvenient children being used to kill generations of women before birth. It kills -before birth- the very people it is supposed to liberate.
Apparently they are being killed for their own good?
The right of women to kill their babies has now morphed into a momentum to kill unborn female offspring. This is ALWAYS how it was supposed to be. This is clearly one of the methods of the modern eugenics movement, and is the prime driving force of the abortion industry: To KILL and reduce human beings in order to better the lot of the 'elect' few.
The story of evil is as old as the hills and this is but a modern chapter.
Excellent post, Dr Egnor.
Bach,
ReplyDeleteA human embryo/foetus cannot become a dog. Your comparison is akin to saying you cannot be defined as human because an insect can also be male.
The foetus can only EVER be human. Dogs do not grow in women's wombs, and there is no selection going on to prevent women from having puppies. A human mother may only conceive and give birth to a human baby.
From these simply and obvious FACTS we can discern the foetus that is sexually selected for abortion is a HUMAN one.
As for the dogs...
Dogs may be legally 'put down' if 'unwanted' or infirm and no home or treatment is available, but you will be hard pressed to find a vet that would preform an abortion for your pedigree pooch or that would euthanize a litter of puppies for NOTHING other than your convenience.
The reality is that there are animal adoption agencies and people looking to buy and own puppies everywhere. Just like children.
Consider to kill a litter of puppies would be considered 'inhumane' treatment and unethical to the vet. Nor can you legally 'choose' to do so yourself. It is illegal to drown puppies or kittens in most parts of the civilized world, just as it is illegal to abuse any dog - let alone a pregnant bitch.
But with humans it is okay?
The comparison between animal and human that you make, Bach, is almost entirely unworkable. There is however one concept we could borrow.
If you love your dog and do not want her to become pregnant from rutting like the animal she is, then you have her fixed. She cannot help being a dog, and her instincts to mate are not affected by reason, financial considerations, or notions of 'family planning' - she will rut when she gets the urge.
If you love her and do not want to constantly deal with puppies, the dangers of labour, and animal adoptions you get her sterilized.
Perhaps THAT is the real choice here?
If a woman wants to mate with the frequency and forethought of a beast, perhaps she should get her tubes tied instead of killing her 'unplanned' offspring in the name of 'planning' or convenience?
If not, the theoretical woman should not mate with great frequency and when she does she should take great care to NOT become pregnant. She is, after all, NOT A DOG.
This could be the real 'choice' at hand.
CrusadeRex,
DeleteNice try. Doesn't work. My comment was in reply to TRISH.
'Before you can be a boy or a girl, you have to be a person. Things don't have gender. Isn't that obvious?'
She was trying to use 'logic' to 'prove' that a fetus is a person, but she didn't put it in the logical order.
It should have been;
Things don't have gender.
A fetus has gender.
Therefore a fetus is a person, which doesn't follow, logically. The conclusion should have been, a fetus is not a 'thing', which is logically correct.
I used 'dog' to show her logic was flawed.
A thing doesn't have gender.
A dog has gender.
'Therefore' a dog is a person (doesn't follow from the initial premise).
OK?
crus: If a woman wants to mate with the frequency and forethought of a beast, perhaps she should get her tubes tied instead of killing her 'unplanned' offspring in the name of 'planning' or convenience?
ReplyDeleteFalse dichotomy, crus. A woman can also use other methods of contraception.
And a human embryo has a potential for developing into a human, but it is not a human.
"a human embryo has a potential for developing into a human, but it is not a human."
DeleteIf that weren't so sick, it would be funny. Obviously a human embryo is a human. It is an individual homo sapiens. If it is not, what is it? Just a clump of cells? If so, then the clump of cells magically transforms into a human being at some point, all by itself.
You need to learn some biology, oleg. A human life begins at conception. Period. There is no scientific debate. Nothing in biology makes sense if this is denied.
Do you really believe that clumps of cells magically transform into human beings at 20 weeks of gestation?
The question here is whether human beings at the embryo/fetus stage have a right to life. You're afraid to face up to the real question, so you dehumanize human beings in the womb.
Egnor: Obviously a human embryo is a human. It is an individual homo sapiens. If it is not, what is it?
DeleteIt's a human embryo. Don't tell me you don't understand that there is a difference. It has no ability to feel and think.
You need to learn some biology, oleg. A human life begins at conception. Period. There is no scientific debate. Nothing in biology makes sense if this is denied.
That's actually not a biological question. It's a question of ethics.
Do you really believe that clumps of cells magically transform into human beings at 20 weeks of gestation?
And in 100 years it's guaranteed to be dead. So it's a dead man. There's your logic.
The question here is whether human beings at the embryo/fetus stage have a right to life. You're afraid to face up to the real question, so you dehumanize human beings in the womb.
The question is whether it is ethical to abort an embryo. A significant fraction of embryos (up to a half) are aborted spontaneously and no one bats the eye.
Michael,
DeleteAnother one of your stupid comments.
I know the meaning of words is not one of your strong points, but ...
A fertilized human ovum is human (adjective, it has the human genome).
A fertilized human ovum IS 'NT a human (noun, a fertised human ovum isn't a human being, isn't a person, legally)
And it is a matter of scientific debate as to when personhood starts.
An analogy would be asking you whether you think that a person is magically transformed into an adult at the age of 21 (or whatever your age of majority is). It's a legal definition, not a scientific one. For males, it would be better to set the age of majority to 25, because there's evidence that their brains don't mature till that age, with frontal lobe self-restraint, if ever.
Leftists really do think this way.
ReplyDeleteOnly in your fevered, deluded, imagination. Your rants aren't even coherent anymore.
Oleg,
ReplyDeleteFrom my original comment:
"f not, the theoretical woman should not mate with great frequency and when she does she should take great care to NOT become pregnant."
This would include methods of birth control and timing. These methods, of course, are fallible - so the woman would still have to control her urges to some extent. Limiting WHO she mates with would also be another step in the right direction. This way if the contraception fails, the timing is off there is no need for an abortion.
A human embryo is called a 'human embryo' because it is human. It would be called a 'universal embryo' or simply 'embryo' if it was not human. A human embryo, once conceived can ONLY follow the stages of development of a human life. It exists and therefore is in being. A human stage of life that exists (and not imagined) is called a 'human being'.
Anyway, Oleg, we both know that what we are talking about here is a human foetus, not an embryo. The aborted baby is generally much further along it's way than the embryonic stage.
So all that is besides the point.
Anon,
"Why do you think all fetuses are human beings?"
If they are a human foetus and exist within our corporeal reality and are alive - then they are a 'human being'in it's very early stages of development. See above.
"Aquinas didn't think some fetuses were humans beings."
I am unaware or cannot recall of what Aquinas opinion on the early stages of human physiology was. He was incorrect about many things in my view, but at least he often asked the right questions.
"Was Aquinas unethical?"
No, merely mistaken and if that is if your assertion proves correct.
If a woman wants to get rid of a non-sentient clump of cells growing inside her, that's her business. You disagree - that's fine. Don't get rid of your own clump of cells.
ReplyDeleteBut that's a very different ethical question than the one concerning sex-specific abortion.
To abort sex-specifically can have the nasty consequence that we end up with a very biased sex ratio in the adult population. And that sucks because many people will be unable to find an opposite-sex partner, which is what the vast majority of people want. That will make many people unhappy and that's bad. Look at China, where girls get kidnapped. So it seems to me a good idea to forbid abortion by people who want to have children but just don't like the sex of their current embryo. All other attempts to bias the sex ratio should be forbidden as well, like harvesting sperm with Y a chromosome and using those for IVF.
"Don't get rid of your own clump of cells."
DeleteOne of those clumps calls me Dada and the other one is a university student and Sargent in the Militia and holds several belts in various martial arts.
The older one those could get rid of another sentient clump of cells with one arm tied behind his back while reciting Homer.
But this single line you have written speaks volumes. You think anyone (ONE not THING) that is not 'sentient' by your extremely subjective and materialist standards does not deserve the classification of 'human'. They can simply be 'got rid of'.
"But that's a very different ethical question than the one concerning sex-specific abortion."
Only to you pro abortion types.
Killing a male foetus or female foetus is still killing a human being. Selecting which sex to kill is just the same as deciding based on financial or other 'planning' criteria.
"To abort sex-specifically can have the nasty consequence that we end up with a very biased sex ratio in the adult population."
This would be important if we were talking about sheep or pigs... but we are NOT. This is not matter of ecology but of morality. The side effect of the immorality (ie evil) is not the cause.
"And that sucks because many people will be unable to find an opposite-sex partner, which is what the vast majority of people want. "
So? Promote homosexuality as a 'lifestyle choice' and they will get off. That is your concern, isn't it? I mean you seem to think that getting off is the priority in the sex act - so just 're-educate' them and they will be 'happy'.
"That will make many people unhappy and that's bad."
Yes being unhappy is bad. Killing to stay happy is good.... whatever.
'Look at China, where girls get kidnapped."
Women get kidnapped. Girls are left to die in orphanages and most are never born.
"So it seems to me a good idea to forbid abortion by people who want to have children but just don't like the sex of their current embryo. "
And they will simply use another excuse. "I am not ready for this, I have changed my mind!" will be their excuse and the selections will continue.
"All other attempts to bias the sex ratio should be forbidden as well, like harvesting sperm with Y a chromosome and using those for IVF."
Again, this is an impotent measure. People PAY for IVF. They would simply travel to an area that allows them to choose what they are paying for.
One of those clumps calls me Dada and the other one is a university student and Sargent in the Militia and holds several belts in various martial arts.
DeleteThat's great. Congratulations. I'm glad to hear your children make you proud. So do my own children, but they are still very young.
But this single line you have written speaks volumes. You think anyone (ONE not THING) that is not 'sentient' by your extremely subjective and materialist standards does not deserve the classification of 'human'. They can simply be 'got rid of'.
We just have to agree to disagree here. You consider an embryo as a human being, but I don't. I understand your point of view, but I don't share your view that embryos have a soul. I don't think any amount of debating will change that.
"And that sucks because many people will be unable to find an opposite-sex partner, which is what the vast majority of people want. "
So? Promote homosexuality as a 'lifestyle choice' and they will get off. That is your concern, isn't it? I mean you seem to think that getting off is the priority in the sex act - so just 're-educate' them and they will be 'happy'.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It's an accident of birth that happens to a small minority of people. The fact remains that a biased sex ratio makes more people unhappy and that is something we can easily avoid by outlawing attempts to skew the sex ratio, by whatever means.
And please, don't pretend to know what my priorities are in engaging in sex. I'll respect your privacy as well.
Again, this is an impotent measure. People PAY for IVF. They would simply travel to an area that allows them to choose what they are paying for.
Yes they could. But that's true for all laws that differ between countries. Is that a good reason to not adjust the laws in your own country? I don't think so.
troy:
DeleteWould killing boys in the womb to even the ratio be an ethical solution to gender imbalance?
Would killing boys in the womb to even the ratio be an ethical solution to gender imbalance?
DeleteNo. At least not against the will of the mothers.
As it is, more boys than girl get born, but this imbalance is "corrected" by the higher mortality of boys, so by the age of 18 the balance is pretty even.
how about with the will of the mothers?
DeleteAnswer the question, damnit.
Michael,
DeleteAnother one of your incredibly stupid comments.
No one is going to voluntarily submit to a sex selective abortion to cull male fetuses, to address future gender imbalances produced by sex selective abortions of female fetuses.
No one is that altruistic. The only way of achieving that aim would be to force some women to have sex selective abortions of males, against their will. And no one would think that that's acceptable, ever.
It's easier to just discourage sex selective abortion. And the easiest way would be not to have obstetric ultrasound technicians reveal the sex of the fetus.
Egnor is a good example of the debilitating effects of religious belief, although he probably had a screw loose in the first place to become a catholic.
Delete"And the easiest way would be not to have obstetric ultrasound technicians reveal the sex of the fetus."
DeleteI agree.
Could you ask Planned Parenthood if they agree too?
Troy,
Delete"You consider an embryo as a human being, but I don't. I understand your point of view, but I don't share your view that embryos have a soul."
Do you believe in the soul? If so when do you think it incarnates? If not, what's your point?
For if you do not NOBODY has a soul and there is no difference between an embryo - or a foetus as in the case of an aborted baby and a fully grown adult.
My argument, however, is not based on the soul. It is based on physiology and logic. A HUMAN embryo is a stage in the life cycle of a human being. That is just the facts. No amount of linguistic legerdemain or dodging will avoid it.
A spermatozoa is not, an ovum is not - an embryo IS. That is the point at which the life cycle is started and the Human comes into BEING.
"Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It's an accident of birth that happens to a small minority of people."
Accident of birth? Do you mean genetic defect? If so, would you agree to the screening for such a defect to allow parents to abort a potentially homosexual baby? Considering the horrible bigotry and victimization a homosexual is bound to experience could this not be considered the same sort of 'kindness' we afford to Down's syndrome children?
But all that is besides the point. A homosexual may or may not have the urges to attempt to mate with their own sex inborn, but they CHOOSE to satiate them by engaging and CHOOSE to live that way.
All the homosexuals I know see it as a choice, not a defect. Many see a Trojan horse when they hear the 'born gay' argument. I tend to agree with that.
"The fact remains that a biased sex ratio makes more people unhappy and that is something we can easily avoid by outlawing attempts to skew the sex ratio, by whatever means."
The only sure fire way to do that is eliminate the killing of all unborn. Let nature take it's course and baby girls and boys will be born as intended.
"And please, don't pretend to know what my priorities are in engaging in sex. I'll respect your privacy as well."
I did not pretend. You inferred. Sex is not a biological function to make people 'happy', it is for the purposes of reproduction. The pleasure involved in the act is derivative and best felt by people in loving relations. If you have kids, you know that. But pleasure is irrelevant once it begins to carry a moral cost in blood.
I respect your privacy and make no assertions or judgements about how or with whom you personally choose to lie with, Troy. I merely rebuke the logic that is the basis of your stance. I apologize if my comments came off as personal. That was not my intention.
"Is that a good reason to not adjust the laws in your own country? I don't think so."
I agree the law should be changed, but not in such a half measured way. ALL abortion except the most extreme cases should be at the VERY least a private affair that is NOT subsidized by the taxes of the majority of folks. Let the women who choose exercise their rights with their own cheque books. Perhaps a price tag would be incentive enough for them to be more careful about the who and how often factors? If not, I wont be billed for their bloody tastes.
I would, of course, prefer a BAN on all abortions excepting the most extreme cases where the mother's life is at risk. It seems that position is gaining great momentum here, as people look into abortion for the first time (due to the selection issue) and see the images, read the horror stories, and see the horrible social costs of this abominable practice.
Besides the obvious answer that sex selective abortion has the potential to harm society by increasing the number of men who can’t readily find lovers and mates, sex selective abortion is also distasteful because it reveals the extreme gender bias of those that would seek them. Just about everyone in this country would, at the vary least, give lip service to the notion of gender equality, and many people feel passionately that gender equality is something worth fighting for. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that a person can be both pro-choice, but against an act that so blatantly displays gender bias.
ReplyDeleteThere, I’m an abortion supporter and I answered the question. It was simple really. David Harsanyi, like so many on the right, is just an agenda driven hack whose mind has been addled by religion.
-KW
"sex selective abortion has the potential to harm society by increasing the number of men".
DeleteGood. If you take this practical approach you should also agree with this: in a country where there is negative growth ratio of the population the abortion should be forbidden. Do you agree with this?
"sex selective abortion is also distasteful because it reveals the extreme gender bias of those that would seek them"...
DeleteThis is interesting because you are saying that it is possible to distinguish between the motivations of abortion.
KW, who is allowed to decide what is distasteful and what is not?
Domics,
DeleteYou haven't given KW's comment in full. He stated that sex selective abortions increase the number of men who can't find partners.
But anyway. If the government of a country decides that it needs a higher birth rate, because its population is declining or aging too much for example, then it should encourage couples to have more children by giving financial incentives (as child support), rather than banning abortion.
But care should be taken. Hitler did both; banned abortion and gave financial incentives for women who had more children (but only for those he considered were 'racially pure').
All to have cannon fodder for the war he'd been planning for years before he came to power.
@Rex:"But all that is besides the point. A homosexual may or may not have the urges to attempt to mate with their own sex inborn, but they CHOOSE to satiate them by engaging and CHOOSE to live that way."
ReplyDeleteSo if people CHOOSE to do what would come naturally to THEM, if it doesnt conform to the majority, then they shouldnt have the same rights or should be chastised? Homosexuality has been around much longer than we may even know. I find it hard to fathom that it isnt genetic to some degree. And I think the reason so many religious people hate gays is because they cant fathom that their god 'created' someone like that.
"All the homosexuals I know see it as a choice, not a defect. Many see a Trojan horse when they hear the 'born gay' argument. I tend to agree with that."
ALL the homosexuals that you know, eh? You've had the conversation with them all...interesting. Well, I'll tell you something, my brother is gay. And we've had the conversation many, many times. In fact our whole family has. You see, he knew it even as a young child. Granted he didnt truly understand it all, but he had a big brother who talked about girls and dated them and all that it entailed. And NONE of that stuff provoked any passion or desire within him.
Straight people just dont truly get that. When you have a desire and passion, and love, but its for the same gender as you, a lot goes on inside your head. And for some religious types who want to eradicate you or tell you simply 'oh just dont ACT on all that gay junk' thats basically saying dont live your life, dont be who you are. Because they find it icky..
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"he knew it even as a young child."
DeleteI think that homosexuality is established in early childhood. But are you talking about a elder or younger brother?
Troy,
Delete"ALL the homosexuals that you know, eh?"
Yes. I know and have known quite a few. I even count some as my friends, colleagues, and even co-religionists.
"You've had the conversation with them all...interesting."
I think so. Pretty sure of it. It is a hot button issue for many of them. They all see the genetic defect argument as one that is politically loaded.
"And I think the reason so many religious people hate gays is because they cant fathom that their god 'created' someone like that."
Strange. In my religion God created everything and everyone... even Satan himself. That includes ALL people; gays too.
I would suggest anyone who calls themselves a Christian and thinks the devil made gays or they are somehow evolved or whatever, is a lost soul. God made us all and we are ALL sinners.
'Well, I'll tell you something, my brother is gay. And we've had the conversation many, many times. In fact our whole family has. You see, he knew it even as a young child. "
As is my cousin, with whom we are very close (we attended years of school together).
We also had such talks, and he also was victimized for being a 'sissy' as a child - long before he had any urges. I know this well, as I was often his lone defender. Between those bullying him and the gangs of immigrant kids, that is how I learned to fight.
He attends my Church frequently.
"Straight people just dont truly get that. "
Do you? Your straight, right? I am and I do. But is still a choice.
"And for some religious types who want to eradicate you or tell you simply 'oh just dont ACT on all that gay junk' thats basically saying dont live your life, dont be who you are. "
Nonsense. You obviously have a very limited understanding of the concept of sin. Sin is nowhere near as simplistic as being 'icky'. It is quite often the 'easy road', actually. Much of it is extremely hedonistic. We ALL sin. I freely admit I am a sinner. The matter is not whether we sin, but whether we repent of our sin and admit our failures.
"Because they find it icky.."
Do you mean they find the homosexual actions revolting? Many people do.
Religion is no prerequisite for this. The most anti-gay person I know (non Muslim) is an almost total materialist and a complete and utter transhumanist.
His rants on the subject are often based on the defect argument and has often complained that my 'pussy' religious beliefs are blinding me to the 'disgusting' nature of the act.
'Pervert' and 'deviant' are quite often how he describes them. In fact he likens the homosexual urge to those of a person compelled to eat excrement or plastic. A kind of inherited madness. He also blames the genes, but sees that defect in a very different light than you, Troy. He sees the need to 'breed them out'. I say live and let live.
We are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin.
He does not believe in sin or God, rather believes they are evolutionary failures.
***@Mulder - not Troy.
DeletePS I love my cousin too.
He's my younger brother. And as young child i mean not a toddler but grade school.
ReplyDeleteI guess i feel so strongly about this issue because its a family member, and i have discussed it at length over the years with him. Which i think is different than talking about it with some 'friend' or coworker or worse yet, someone whom you outrank.
COWORKERS? Worse yet? God help me!
DeleteDo you have ANY idea what type of bond is made between men that fight along side each other?
We owe each other our lives, LITERALLY and several times over. I LOVE my brothers in arms - and the man you make reference to is one of my dearest and most experienced brothers.
Never mind the fact you did not wait to hear my response as to the OTHER gay people I know, including my cousin that I grew up with.
You're not the only one with strong feelings, Mulder.
But you have certainly upset me with the COWORKER bullshit. I am not some brass coated desk jockey asshole. I am career.
I rose through the ranks and WON my commission.
The education I have, I paid for.
I have seen more than one war, and more than one tour of the latest. That man is my brother forged in SIX YEARS of war. It was I who promoted him and put him forward for the commission he now holds.
What we talk about, we talk about with the truth of men who have faced DEATH and KILLING together.
I would lay down my life for him in a heartbeat. COWORKER? Fuck me...
How I wish I had read this before I responded to the last comment.
This conversation is over.
Whoa whoa whoa...Rex - Let me clarify. Although you may not bother to continue this conversation. When i said coworkers, i wasnt speaking about you directly. Thats why i added 'outrank.'
ReplyDeleteOK, you schooled me on the closeness of military brethren. I figured a lower-ranking person doesnt share such personal information with their C/O. Especially with all the DADT talk these days. I'm sorry if i offended.
My dad served aboard the USS Ticonderoga during WWII. But, he was never one to have long conversations about it. Just snippets. Maybe it's just that generation...so no, i dont know that bond, or many details.
I hope you're not looking for an argument. I dont know your life story, man. Dont assume I do.
As far as the rest of your reply:
Is there a 'gay gene'? I doubt it. But it makes sense that homosexuality is a genetic mutation.
'Icky': I used that term because as you said, many people find what they do gross. So what? There are PLENTY of things straight people do that many find gross as well. I am straight BTW. Married, 2 kids. I get that gay people desire to be with members of the same sex. To fight that, or to fake it will no doubt leave the person miserable. Another case in point: someone VERY close to me was married to a man for 10 years, and had two kids, until he came out of the closet. Very disturbing for all parties. But he couldnt live the lie anymore. The pressure of being in an Irish catholic male-dominated household most likely was the cause.
Which leads to: Sin. It is strictly a religious concept. How can something be a sin to a person if they dont belong to the same religion? Dont you think that was put into the bible because it went well with 'be fruitful and multiply?' I sure do. Perhaps that why catholics also see masturbation as a grave sin, or mortal sin...nothing resulting in a child.
And your 'transhumanist' friend sounds like a closet case.