Well, since pro life groups don’t advocate abortion, I think your first point is moot.

And while I am not actively involved in pro life groups, I do know that most churches that advocate pro life positions are on record as being opposed to manipulation of embryos in order to create designer babies.

Or if I were a woman, or black, or whatever. But just as those particular thoughts holds no terror for me, why should I be terrified of the fact that I would be an entirely different person if I were straight?

If this is the case, then why haven’t pro-life activists been out there actively saying they won’t abort gay babies, nor will they use hormones to try to genetically twist and manipulate babies? Shouldn’t pro-life gays demand this from pro-life groups?

Weak argument.

Pro-life groups do not want to abort babies, period. That speaks more than enough to the former.

As to the latter, why should they? If you can make something straight, you could make it gay as well. Somehow, I don’t think they’re going to care.

Of course, Carl, you’re desperately trying to explain why gay leftists like yourself who support unlimited abortion of straight babies would try to ban anything that might make gay babies straight. It amuses us that you think children in utero are nothing but medical waste — but if they’re gay, they suddenly have “rights”.

You would be an entirely different person if you were straight. Being gay is not an “aesthetic”. It influences every part of our lives. I don’t buy for a second that homosexuality somehow causes malaria or sickle cell and that wiping out gays would cause this to improve.

-If a baby has no right to live, then how can it have a right to be gay? And this is where the marriage of gay groups to abortion groups leads to a major contradiction. -

If this is the case, then why haven’t pro-life activists been out there actively saying they won’t abort gay babies, nor will they use hormones to try to genetically twist and manipulate babies? Shouldn’t pro-life gays demand this from pro-life groups?

I loath, loath, loath this idiotic argument.

Abortion is more than just a women’s issue.

Good think I am a woman then, so do I get to have an opinion, since I can get pregnant and have done so? Just checking.

I admit that I am very much pro life/anti-abortion whatever you want to label me. But at least I am consistent, I don’t think treating babies in utero to prevent homosexuality is ethical either, and wouldn’t mind seeing it banned just in case. I loath the concept of creating “designer” babies, made to order. I hate the idea that baby girls in India and China and probably in the US to some degree get aborted, because their parents want boys. I really get squicked by the idea that babies with real or perceived disabilities are aborted in the womb-and I have a disabled child I wouldn’t wish out of my life or trade for the world.

And honestly, I think men have just as much a stake in this kind of issue, and have a right to a voice, even if they can’t get pregnant, and even if they are gay, and are unable to conceive a child in the traditional way. I don’t think anyone’s voice should be shut out, simply because they can’t get pregnant. A lot of anti war people never servedin the military, does that mean they shouldn’t get an opinion on war?

As for what curing gay babies has to do with abortion, think about it, if the “gay” position is that a woman has an incontrovertable right to kill her baby in the womb-simply because said baby isn’t convienient, because it is her body, and the baby has no right to life, then it is pretty much out of the question that said baby would have a right to gayness, and that said mother couldn’t get hormone treatments to prevent said baby from being gay.

If a baby has no right to live, then how can it have a right to be gay? And this is where the marriage of gay groups to abortion groups leads to a major contradiction.

I would have no problem if my mother had done this and I had not been born gay. “gayness” is not my defining characteristic.

It could be that homosexuality is just a side-effect of some more important characteristic (like sickle-cell anemia and malaria resistance). If we choose to select-out the more important characteristic for aesthetic reasons, that’s our fault and too bad for us.

So, while I favor knowing how to do this sort of thing and I’m not against people choosing to do it, I would not, myself.

And as for your grasping at straws in legislation, let me point out something to you; the House passed both the bills you mention with large support from Republicans and large opposition from Democrats. Furthermore, Brownback’s bill, which you mention, was indeed tabled; however, do you remember which party controlled the Senate in 2001 – 2002?

So, ndtovent, since you claim that Democrats are against cloning, why did so many of them vote AGAINST a bill to ban it — and why did the Democratic-controlled Senate table a bill that would have completed the process?

I think it’s because V the K is right; if leftists are so bereft of restraint that they can justify abortion, or harvesting embryos in utero for stem cells, it shouldn’t surprise us that they have no qualms about cloning human beings for their own uses.

“In the House of Representatives, the two primary competing bills were HR 2505 and HR 2172. Bill 2505, “The Human Cloning Prohibition Action of 2001″ was introduced by Representative David Weldon (R-FL). It called for permanent bans on both the creation of clonal embryos and their use to produce a fully formed human clone. Bill 2172, the “Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001″ was introduced by Representative James Greenwood (R-PA). This bill called for a 10-year moratorium on producing cloned human beings followed by an automatic “sunset.” It also required that anyone intending to produce cloned human embryos for research purposes inform the federal government, and promise not to use them to produce fully formed human clones.

On July 31, the House of Representative passed the Weldon bill by a vote of 265 to 162. Voting for the Weldon bill were 200 of 221 House Republicans, joined by 63 of 210 House Democrats, plus two Independents. Democrats who voted for the Weldon bill came almost entirely from conservative southern and western districts, or from northern and eastern blue-collar districts. However, 12 liberal House Democrats, 8 of whom had 100% pro-choice voting records, did vote for the Weldon Bill. Four of these Democrats were African-American, one was Hispanic-American and two were Asian-American.

In April 2001 conservative Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced a companion bill to the Weldon bill (S. 790). In 2002, the legislation was tabled and a vote was never taken.”

1. Cloning embryos – Good (see Missouri)
2. Harvesting of embryonic stem cells for research purposes – Good
3. Partial Birth Abortion of babies at any time before delivery for any reason – Good
4. Killing off persons in a persistent vegetative state – Good

In short, nothing in liberal ethics would forbid someone from cloning an embryo, growing it to whatever stage in pregnancy, aborting or inflicting brain damage on it in utero to put it into a persistent vegetative state, then harvesting its organs. All that’s needed now is a little refinement of existing science, and some celebrity with a disease who can woo over enough voters to make sure this all stays legal, maybe with the help of a few rich bio-technology companies.

Truth and Science March on!
Good bye morals based on superstition!
Hooray for rationalism!

That’s a lie. The Missouri Amendment passed in 2006 (with overwhelming liberal support) not only legalizes cloning, but enshrines it in the state’s Constitution.

Now, all we need to get full-fledged organ farms is for Michael J Fox or some other celeb to go on TV and tell a sob story about how he can be cured, if we would just set up Federally-funded organ farms. Because liberals form their political opinions based entirely on “compassion” for people they see portrayed sympathetically on TV.

The other scientist who is quoted in this story, Michael Bailey, isn’t involved in the study. He has a history of supporting eugenics for gays, saying straight parents have every right to abort gay babies. He also had to resign from his university’s psych panel a few years ago because of his ethics problems.

The story is a lot of hype over just about nothing. It’s nothing but shock value and trash, and you are basically pushing what PETA wants by talking about this. I think they’re the main people behind this story making the London Times.

Personally, I don’t think it would have made one whit of difference in our lives.

But I can’t imagine how you and your fellow leftists would survive if you didn’t have your sexual orientation to blame for all your problems.

I guess the question to be asking is why you’re so terrified of being heterosexual.

*rolls eyes*

In regards to the Sunday Times article which is the source of all these wild conspiracy theories, I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article is filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.

Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:

A wolf in gay sheep’s clothing: Corruption at the London Times
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/4/134158/4348

My personal opinion is that it’s ok to perform the procedure on livestock for breeding purposes, but not on humans. Simple as that.

Science has exeperimented with various methods to induce breeding in livestock for many years now. That’s old news. We already have laws/ ethics practices in place in the U.S. to prevent human cloning, as they do in most other developed countries. I’m sure that if any scientist even thinks of using this treatment in humans, there will be a public outcry, followed by strict laws enacted against it in the U.S. and in most other developed countries (thanks to the efforts of us LIBBERRALLLSS — it sure as hell wouldn’t be protested by any of you koolaid drinking, gop worshippers). Even if by some fluke, this procedure were to be developed for humans, I’m sure it would pose a great deal more risk for the life of the human fetus in practice than that of an animal, and that very few, if any, parents would opt for it. Many more people in this day and age already know their genetic predisposition for a myriad of debilitating, hereditary diseases, yet they still decide to have children (some more than one), so why would a treatment for this one genetic mutation affect the decision of most parents? Even if the treatment does evolve and someday becomes available to the public, it will be quite a few years in the future. I think that by that time, we’ll have gained a much broader/higher level of acceptance in society. Homosexuality won’t be that much of an issue. Even if it is still a hotbed issue then, I don’t think that the treatment would be available to EVery parent who wants it, or even to anywhere near the majority. Like in vitro procedures today, I’m sure it will be very expensive and risky.

Of course, you I’m sure you wrongwingers wouldn’t care if our sexual orientation was eliminated in pregnancy, since all of you wish you had been born as neocon hetero’s anyway.

Btw, happy new year!

Where it does, Dave, is that gay leftists have unequivocally opposed any attempt to grant the baby any rights whatsoever; according to them, it’s the mother’s body, and she can do whatever she wants, including kill the baby.

Now, though, they’re saying that she has no right to treat or affect the baby in any way if it’s gay — because the baby has the right to exist and be gay.

And you actually hit on the reason Martina and her fellow leftists are fighting this; they know full well that, if given the choice, most parents won’t take the ‘mo. If there are fewer ‘mos, that decreases the potential pool that they can convert into leftist gay zombies, and the fewer the leftist gay zombies, the weaker they are politically and the less money they make.