Their own body? That’s right Ian, whether it’s a female or male child, they should have the right to life and protection of their life when the birthmother’s life is not in danger from the birth. You should support the right of the child to control the future of its own body… and since the birthfather contributes at least 1/2 of the gene pool to the future newborn, maybe we Dads should have at least veto power over the self-interest of abortionists.

Since the future newborn can’t speak, the state can act in loco parentis for him/her and stop abortions except in the case of endangerment. At the very least, no abortion until the birthfather has a chance to weigh in on his half of creation.

Unfortunately, Ian, abortions are the result of NOT controlling one’s own body — of having sex in the first place, or of having unprotected sex.

What I find incredibly ironic is that leftist gays will roundly condemn those gay men who choose to have unprotected sex, call them irresponsible, and blast anyone who points out that, in reality, it IS their choice — but, when it comes to WOMEN choosing to have unprotected sex, sit back and babble about how no one should interfere, no one should complain, they have the right to “control their own body”.

There is a reason that the group most likely to have an abortion — black females 18 – 23 — is a major component of the group for which HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death — blacks older than age 23.

The day we are able to procreate is the day we can dictate whether or not we support abortions.

Who’s supporting abortions? If I were a woman, I wouldn’t have one. But I have every right to support someone’s right to control their own body.

Some viruses never die.

Regards,
Peter H.

-That’s why leftist Democrats and gays illegally-

So were any of them charged, or put in jail? Otherwise it must not have been all that illegal.

Please tell me how a gay man can father a child he does not want. Also, please show me how two lesbians who undergo costly in-vitro fertilization will decide that all that money they spent to get one (or both) of them pregnant was a waste, so they jointly decide to abort.

The day we are able to procreate is the day we can dictate whether or not we support abortions.

Prove me wrong.

Regards,
Peter H.

Mhm. That’s why leftist Democrats and gays illegally tried to prevent the Massachusetts Legislature from voting on a constitutional amendment raised by the voters through a perfectly-legal process.

If conservatives were that authoritarian, it would have been impossible to remove them from office. But as the Democrats of Massachusetts prove, they have no qualms whatsoever about disenfranchising the public and refusing to answer to their will — and they insist that the Constitution gives them the power to strip voters of rights and to ignore any petition or request by said voters.

Govt, as representing broad societal interests, has every right to regulate your sexual practices in dozens of ways. Just because you don’t like that, doesn’t vitiate society’s interests.

Well, it’s always been pretty clear that you and many others who comment here not to mention the vast majority of today’s “conservatives” are of the authoritarian variety. I’m reading John Dean’s book that details just what it is that makes people like you tick. It’s quite interesting. Thankfully, the American people have wakened up to the threat authoritarian conservatism represents. The gains by the Dems in 2006 are just the start of the rollback of all the crooks, warmongers, neocons, and others of that ilk who have infested our government.

The GayLeft has carried the water for the radical Democrat feminists because most of those slags are lesbians… and the ones that aren’t, are fag hags. Get real. The GayLeft “trades” politically with radical feminists because they are a similarly oppressed minority political interest that the GayLeft can identify with as fellow victims of mainstream persecution.

Govt, as representing broad societal interests, has every right to regulate your sexual practices in dozens of ways. Just because you don’t like that, doesn’t vitiate society’s interests. Libertarian, my ass.

Pardon me, but I fail to see the distinction, nor do I see why so-called “eugenics” are any more morally deplorable than abortion.

Ian as GayLeftBorgType

My position on abortion is libertarian and it entirely consistent with my belief that government should not be in the business of regulating who my sex partners are nor should it discriminate against me based on the gender of the person I might wish to marry.

That from the Master Race kid.

Not sure where that came from. Perhaps just a classic case of projection.

Of course he doesn’t.

That’s the beauty of the Borg… march in step, follow the orders of our Brave New Leaders, don’t think for yourself, and carry the Democrat Party’s water pail when ordered.

That from the Master Race kid.

-I think you miss the point. -

No, I got that point. The problem is that this is a serious issue and choosing not to move beyond the equivalent of, “ha ha on gay liberals who work with abortion groups” is a mistake.

I think you miss the point. This post isn’t so much about hormone treatments in gay sheep, and in future children, but more about where the “mom has the right to kill baby in the womb for any reason” arguments we hear from the likes of NARAL-who gay groups are often in bed with.

If the argument is mom has the right to kill baby for any reason, because it is her body and her right to decide, then pretty much you can’t make a “it is wrong for a mother to treat her infant in the womb to prevent homosexuality or have an abortion, because said baby is predicted to be homosexual” argument.

If a baby has no right to life, it can’t have a right to be gay.

As for fundamentalists and prenatal testing for various birth defects, in general they take a pass on this, and while I won’t swear to it, I am pretty sure Catholic hospitals and doctors associated directly with them do not offer or do the prenatal testing involved.

To me, there isn’t a lot of difference between switching fetal hormones before birth, or sucking the whole unborn baby out with a vacuum.

I have to agree with this.

#12 I agree with you with regard to what causes homosexuality. I suspect if involves far more than anyone would like to think. I figure if they still haven’t figured out what causes autism, it is going to take a while to figure out why people are gay.