Something I have a hard time understanding are anti-choice gay people

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

I find it ironic that those of us that do not want society legislating what we do with our bodies would not condemn that same act when it is directed toward a woman's body.

I also find it a bit curious that many claim it is for religious reasons when those very same religions condemn gay people for being gay.

[Dookus]

1. Yup

thankfully I've met very few such people, but they exist, and they baffle the hell out of me, too.

I guess the generous interpretation is that they simply haven't thought through the consequences of what they believe.

[donco6]

2. I don't understand anti-choice people, period.

The alternative seems to be to force a woman to carry an unwanted baby to term for 9 months. How do you do that, exactly?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Personally I think the slippery slope is that a government that can

force a woman to have a baby can also justify forcing a woman to have an abortion since they can justify FORCING a woman...but that's just me.

[RoBear]

10. Exactly.

I have a couple of anti-abortion friends, and I explain it just that way--a government with the power to forbid an abortion is a government with the power to force one on you. Glad to see someone is thinking along the same lines. This might be our best argument. After all, look at China and its (alleged?) abortion policy.

[dsc]

12. Then govenments should have no powers at all

Any power that a government has can be turned around. The power to ban murder contains the power to order it. The power to regulate gun ownership contains the power to require it. By your standard, we should have no laws at all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. habeus corpus only matters when you don't want sodomy outlawed, eh?

[dsc]

30. habeus corpus has nothing to do with this issue

or at least is tangential at best. His and your arguement was that if you give the government the power to ban z than it has the power to require z which is indeed a true statement. But then you go on to say that in the case of abortion, that means the government shouldn't be given the power to ban it. I merely pointed out that the same reasoning applies to any item the government may have the power to ban.

Unless I am mistaken habeus corpus has to do with arrest powers which would be enforcement but of all laws not just abortion ones.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. The two are related via privacy laws...you are the one who stretched it

[Warpy]

6. The alternative is worse, actually

and consists of paying an exorbitant amount of money to somebody whose medical training was obtained at the meat counter of the local supermarket.

Antiabortion laws don't stop abortions. They only stop safe abortions.

Antiabortion laws kill women.

[Devlzown]

4. My boyfriend's one of them.

Needless to say, we don't discuss abortion in our house. He was raised by fundies, though, and he considers himself a Christian ( I'm an Agnostic, I guess) so I give him a pass on that issue. Besides, he's not political about it -- no protesting at clinics or anything like that. I think his feelings about abortion arise more from the fact that he genuinely loves people. He just fails to see how outlawing abortion could hurt a lot of people.

[alvis]

5. I understand completely

They want a woman to carry a fetus to term, so they can give it proper health care, and education. Ah, I think I'm mistaken.

[dsc]

7. Are you conversent in every religious doctrine known to planet earth?

If you are that is amazing. You have no idea what religious or non religious reasons drive gay or for that matter any other pro lifers. For the record, there are several, reasonable interpretations of the Bible that wouldn't ban homosexuality but would ban abortion. But since this is evidently directed at me, let me be clear about what my standard for governmental action is. If there is an identifiable, actual victim (such as an innocent fetus) then the government has every right to step in. If there isn't, then it doesn't. There are lots of things that go against my religion that I don't think should be against the law. To name a few, none of which I indulge in myself, smoking, drinking to excess, prostitution, and unnecessary (ie recreational) drug use. In every listed case there are no victims aside from the users or providers of the service in question. Thus I feel the government has no business banning them. Yet, any reasonable interpretation of the Bible would discourage their use.

On edit, I am assuming in the above examples that all participants are willing adults.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Directed at you? Now who is being less than truthful?

Please put me on ignore since you can only manage to direct hysteria at me. For the record you think I think about you more than I do...which is not at all.

[dsc]

13. Now who is being pro choice?

Unless an administrator tells me to put you on ignore I don't think your demands mean anything.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. I made a request.

But as long as you are on this thread, the poppycock in your post is exactly what I would point to. Funny, if anyone told YOU what you legally could and could not do with your body, you would be outrages, but you (someone who claims to have an education in math and science) would use a flawed scientific reasoning to justify your opinion on the matter (i.e. the poor innocent fetus routine)

Finally, and back to our conversation yesterday, it never CEASES to amaze me that you can justify bigotry directed towards women and bigotry directed towards african americans in the form of your thread yesterday wherein you say we should all pay attention to a racist...but let that racist make a homophobic statement you will be all over that poster like white on rice.

[dsc]

20. No you gave an order

If you had asked me I would have said yes. There is a massive difference between "please put me on ignore." And "put me on ignore." Since you now claim to be asking I will acceed to your request. But I should note that you certainly didn't put me on ignore. And by the way, I seem to remember you going ballistic when I talked about your work when criticising you. I seem to recall you at the time stating you would never to that to anyone (even though you had done it to me before). Now you do it again to me. Unlike you I won't cuss you out for it but I will ask you to never bring up my job or education again. You will note that I didn't do that to you since you went ballistic.

On edit I misread your first post. Unlike you I admit to having done so. I didn't see the please the first time. I will put you on ignore. I am sorry I misread your post. I will also leave my misreading up so that if you respond your response will make sense.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. NO NO NO YOU LIED YOU LIED YOU LIED

not really...just wanted you to see how hysterical it looks to accuse people of lying and not bother to address the point they were making.

[dsc]

29. Unlike you I corrected the record and apologized without any prompting

which makes a lot of difference. I still haven't gotten a real apology from you in that other thread despite several requests.

[arwalden]

17. Yeah, Silly!

What were you thinking? :silly: Don't you know that it all depends on which "reasonable" interpretation of the Bible one selects? It seems that there's a bible for every occasion. And just like a well-stocked Hallmark Card store, there's a verse to justify everything and still another verse to condemn everything. :eyes:

[dsc]

22. One can look at it that way

Or one can look at what Jesus said and the rest of the Gospels which is what I choose to do. It is pretty clear that the Bible states that John the Baptist and Jesus knew each other in the womb.

[arwalden]

23. Oh Brother.

:eyes:

[Dookus]

34. It's also pretty clear

that the Old Testament did not consider the killing of a fetus equal to the killing of a living person. Pick and choose, pick and choose...

[Liberal Veteran]

37. Isn't cafeteria style religion great?

Hundreds of various denominations all interpreting the same book and every single one of them believes they are the only one's who have the interpretation right.

[dsc]

40. Please state where I said anything like

"my interpretation is the only right one." I say no such thing.

[Liberal Veteran]

41. Don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.

I just made a general comment on religion. It's the reason I consider myself agnostic and think that organized religion is quite possibly a mistake in and of itself. Certainly Jesus didn't build the organized religion that Paul laid out in his epistles. I suspect that's the reason the early clergy adopted the epistles of Paul as canon: They laid the foundation for an authoritarian, paternalistic, centralized and organized church.

Certainly if that had been the intent of Jesus, he could done it in his lifetime, not through a magical vision on the road to Damascus.

[China_cat]

14. Do you think that if a genetic

marker was ever found for being gay that the christian fanatics in this country wouldn't be insisting on testing and mandatory abortion of such a fetus?

[dsc]

15. It won't be just Christian fanatics

While things are getting better and better in regards to societal attitudes toward gays, I would be willing to bet that a fairly substantial percentage of parents would abort a gay fetus. There was a play about this around a decade ago, and the polls accompanying its release showed around 50/50 between yes and no. Assuming we cut that in half that is still 25% being aborted.

[China_cat]

28. I'm not talking about abortion

by choice. I'm talking about the american taliban FORCING women to test for the genetic marker for homosexuality and then making abortion mandatory for those who test positive.

I can't support abortion when it is -solely- for making sure that you get the 'right' gender/eye color/whatever other cosmetic feature can be tested for.

I know that's a choice, too, but it still strikes me as just worse than wrong.

[xmas74]

46. I would consider an abortion in certain cases...

but I would never abort a fetus because of sexual orientation. There is something that just seems wrong but I can think of a few people in my neck of the woods who would abort for that same reason (they also would have aborted their daughters if they could have convinced their wives of it-I heard them talking about it. And they are very much the "upright" fundie citizens that whine about abortion all the time).

[jonnyblitz]

8. gay people are some of the most reactionary people I have

been around. they embrace doctrines and beliefs that condemn them.

[arwalden]

9. Sanctimonious Hypocritical Cherry Picking.

You see... it all depends on whose ox it is that's getting gored.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. It's evident on this thread already

We cherrypick which verses don't mean homosexuality is forbidden in order to justify tyranny on women.

[arwalden]

25. Sometimes I Wonder...

... if people don't realize what they're doing. Or if they DO realize it and just don't care.

[Misunderestimator]

35. Oh they realize...

[sundog]

21. Mostly men or women?

I would have a hard enough time understanding an anti-choice gay man, but an even harder time understanding an anti-choice woman.

Most religion will be used to reinforce the role of the patriarch. Throughout history, religion has primarily served as a form of social control. Sadly, the primary method of instilling morality is through fear. Fear is some seriously powerful medicine & has too often been abused.

The question is - where does faith end & need for acceptance begin? Often religion strives to fill in that gap, while both consciously & subconsciously promoting an agenda for the state.

Constantinian Christianity has always been a right arm of the state. Most current religions are descendants of that brand of religion.

Anything other than a patriarchal society does not serve the state. The main method of maintaining that patriarchal power is through female body control.

I think that certain brands of Christianity may promote "acceptance," yet still serve to further a larger agenda. In a sense, these religions may be unconscious of that agenda, and serve merely as pawn. Of course there is a defensiveness of followers which sadly manages to disable discussions regarding religious progress.

I am also curious if in current mainstream religion, anti-choice issues take precedent over anti-gay issues. I'm sure there is some sort of philosophical hierarchy to that agenda. The most direct route of maintaining male-female dominance in current society is womb control, so I wonder if that is #1 on "the list."

There is always an inexorable knot of fear, control & religion. There is always the potential for manipulation when something bridges that gap between faith & need for acceptance.

Anyway, I think I got off track somewhere, and I'm sure this has all been said before... I'll just say it sucks & leave it at that.

[dsc]

24. If you are truely interested in a lesbian pro lifers reasoning

You can ask Cecilia Brown. She is the current head of plagal which stands for pro life alliance of gays and lesbians.

http://www.plagal.org/geninfo.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. LOL the site you were given endorses junk science

From Plagal site:

We have sponsored fora on abortion and breast cancer -- anticipating more general public recognition of the highly probable link -- and preventing HIV infection in the children of HIV+ mothers. We have participated in the annual January 22nd March for Life since 1991, local Pride events in DC, Philadelphia, and Boston, the 1993 March on Washington for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, and a number of demonstrations and counterdemonstrations. We have surprised, confounded, confronted, and enraged both pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

http://www.plagal.org/geninfo.html

And let's just examine Celia's hypocrisy. SHE HAD AN ABORTION and regrets it so NO WOMAN should have an abortion...isn't THAT FUCKING TYPICAL! (Schlafly anyone?)

I had an abortion and have regretted that deeply. It has taken me a long time to heal. I also have a wonderful daughter that I cannot imagine living without. The GLBT community has bisexuals, both men and women, who may find themselves in crisis, lesbians who have been raped, teenage members of the GLBT community who may be experimenting with their sexuality and become pregnant or become fathers.

http://www.plagal.org/op-ed/19mar02response.html

[sundog]

31. also note -

<There are over 900 individuals on the mailing list, of whom about one third are women>

This answers my original question... so quite clearly it is a male dominated group. A female has been chosen as a token figurehead to placate objection.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. If anything it proves my point

There is a subset of gay males who would be outraged if they were told what to do with their bodies that are more than happy to oppress women.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. Pro-choice all the way!!!

I agree with you, it mystifies me how a gay person, who has been victimized by religious dogma, would turn around and do it to another group!! When I see a person who is anti-choice based on REAL science, then I might give it a look, but any one that is anti-choice because of religion, needs to shut the fuck up! You have no right to use your religion to legislate morality any more than right-wingers have the right to use religion to forbid gays and lesbians equal rights!!! Keep government out of religion and KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT!

[dsc]

39. actually 1/3 women is a pretty good percentage

I admit to not knowing numbers but I bet the percentages for other LGBT political groups are not all that far off.

On edit, I find it interesting that you don't think that woman actually earned her position. Somehow I bet if I had said a similar thing I would be being eaten alive by you and some others in this thread. But it is perfectly OK for you to insult this woman, who you know nothing of, as being a token.

[sundog]

42. Where did I state that she didn't earn her position?

But yes, I do tend to think she may be used as a token... The same way I believe Condi Rice & Alberto Gonzales are tokens. There are always clear strategies for the positioning of political posts.

I don't believe all 501(c)(3)'s are above reproach. Some are clearly doing good things. Others, however, can be quite shady. There are always people pulling strings behind the person on center stage. The identification & motivations of those puppet masters are not always clear.

In a previous post, I made some comments about historical trends for religion to serve as an extension of the state. Feel free to read them with an open mind can read if you get the time.

But to the main point, my key question was regarding the ratio of men to women. The organization that you referred me to gave an answer: 2 to 1. That's all. Thanks for the link.

[dsc]

45. right here

A female has been chosen as a token figurehead to placate objection.

You used the word chosen (which means she didn't earn the position but was chosen as a figure head). Rice is clearly unqualified for her job, Gonzales may well be technically qualified but his torture musing render him unfit too.

[sundog]

47. token:

to·ken Audio pronunciation of "token" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tkn)
n.
1. Something serving as an indication, proof, or expression of something else; a sign
2. Something that signifies or evidences authority, validity, or identity: The scepter is a token of regal status.
3. A distinguishing feature or characteristic.
4. One that represents a group, as an employee whose presence is used to deflect from the employer criticism or accusations of discrimination.
5. A keepsake or souvenir.
6. A piece of stamped metal used as a substitute for currency: subway tokens.


fig·ure·head Audio pronunciation of "figurehead" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fgyr-hd)
n.
1: a person used as a cover for some questionable activity
2: figure on the bow of some sailing vessels

Neither of these words implies a lack of qualification or something that is not earned. Anyway, this conversation is getting stale.

If you wish to read & discuss my original post on the subject, feel free:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=6753&mesg_id=6777&page=

Thanks again for the link to the male/female ratio, it answered one of my questions.

[noamnety]

48. LOL - nice hypocrisy

Pro-choice for me
No-choice for you

Cecilia should make bumper stickers.

[Brian_Expat]

38. I am pro-choice. . .

However, there are some pro-life arguments that trouble me.

For instance, what if the "gay gene" is discovered, and women start aborting gay foetuses en masse after a $50 test that determines the foetus is likely to be gay or lesbian? Would abortion on demand be something the gay community could really get behind then?

I think that anyone who is perfectly comfortable with the abortion debate, no matter where they are, is fooling themselves or not thinking of the complex web of moral, legal, ethical and other issues involved.

[Dookus]

43. I don't want the government

deciding what are the "good reasons" and the "bad reasons" for abortion. No matter what, if you outlaw it, you'll have a case where the government has to force a woman to give birth against her will.

[Misunderestimator]

50. i think we have enough religious right people taking care of thinking

about "the complex web of moral, legal, ethical and other issues involved"... so much so that I don't think it is necessary to hand away my rights to my own body.

Nice inflammatory question, btw "Would abortion on demand be something the gay community could really get behind then?" LOL... "Abortion on Demand"... sounds like a freeper billboard to me.

Could you explain what you mean by someone who is "perfectly comfortable with the abortion debate?" I've never met a person like that... On second thought, I've met plenty of anti-choice people like that, who seem to be "perfectly comfortable" with their own adamant position despite the complex web of moral, legal, ethical and civil rights issues involved. Interesting that I've never met a pro-choice advocate who is "perfectly comfortable" in this debate.

[mitchtv]

44. Chiming in. Yes to choice

NO to anti choice= We are all pro life. Gay people who support criminalizing abortion,need to grow up," It's my life and I'll do what I want-" Same holds true for weed
As big a crime as abortion is giving birth to unwanted children.

[davidinalameda]

49. one argument for anti-choice gay people

let's say that being gay is proven without a doubt to be genetic--as with a lot of genetic conditions, doctors can test for it

what's to prevent women from having an abortion if their fetus carries the gay gene

the TV movie The Twilight of the Golds dealt with this topic

and to tell you the truth, I do find it disturbing that someone would have an abortion based on genetic characteristics of the fetus.

[Misunderestimator]

51. That is NOT a gay issue... it is an issue for EVERYONE...

If we get to the point that genes can be isolated in this manner, and that people make choices about abortions based on what is found in their fetus' genes, we will have a MUCH bigger debate than just whether or not they would choose to abort a gay-gened fetus.

It's an alarmist argument against abortion, which tries to swing focus away from a woman's right to her body, by generating panic among different groups who may feel threatened by such genetic decision making.

I can't think of a better example of a strawman.

[davidinalameda]

52. women have abortions already based on genetic factors

like the gender of the fetus

it's not unheard of in some countries like China and India

[Misunderestimator]

53. Like I said, though... it's not a gay issue.... it's a bigger issue

than just whether the potential exists for a woman to abort a gay fetus... and we aren't talking about China or India. My point here is not that such selective abortions couldn't become a problem in this country, but that it is not a "gay" problem, therefore, bringing it up as an argument against abortion on a thread about gays who are anti-choice, is simply a scare tactic, and is not germain to this thread.

[iverglas]

55. thanks for that

The reasons why a woman has an abortion are her own, and none of anyone's business unless there is a better reason for it to be someone else's business.

The practice of using abortion for sex-selection may indeed be someone else's business in some circumstances. The over-representation of males in current generations in China, for instance, may indeed threaten the stability of not just China, but the world.

There is also the question of whether a woman's choice to abort a female fetus is a genuine choice, given the relative lack of power that is the lot of most women in the world. A woman whose preference would be not to abort a female fetus might find herself unable to withstand family/social pressure to do so, particularly given how a refusal might leave her without the social and economic supports she needs in order to survive.

But that simply reinforces that point that it is her decision to make and not the public's at large. She is the one who will have to live with the consequences of the decision, not us. The way to empower her, so that she can make genuine choices in her own interests, is not to prohibit her from making certain choices, but to provide her with the resources in order to act on any choice. (So it's no good nattering about how aborting female fetuses should be rare :evilgrin: )

Not, that is, unless the consequences of large numbers of such decisions really can be reasonably foreseen to be seriously harmful to society at large, in which case the issue must be discussed openly and honestly and according to agreed criteria.

A pro-choice woman I knew around the net some time ago, a pediatric neurologist actually, and almost reluctantly pro-choice, had been born with a cleft palate. A minor and easily remedied birth defect, to most people's minds these days. But she minced no words: if, when she was pregnant, she had learned that the fetus would be born with that defect, she would have terminated the pregnancy. She simply could not intentionally inflict the pain and misery she had suffered as a result of it on a child.

Some deaf parents would be happy to discover that a fetus would be born deaf, since they feel part of a "deaf culture" that they want to see survive and thrive. Some deaf parents would undoubtedly feel just the opposite: they would not want to inflict what they had suffered, as a result of being deaf, on a child. And I don't doubt that there are gay men and lesbians who would fall into both camps, as well; I don't think that it would be only heterosexual women (perhaps pressured by heterosexual men) who would make or favour the choice in question, whether for "good" or "bad" reasons.

Some individual decisions about what are usually characterized as "personal" and "private" matters really can have an effect on a society as a whole. And sometimes the decisions result more from the devaluing and powerlessness of the people making the decisions than from an informed choice among a range of equally do-able choices. And sometimes they result from pure nastiness.

But we just may not pick and choose which people will be entitled to exercise a right based on their reasons for doing so, when the outcome affects them so hugely and intimately as the choice to have or not have a child, unless we have some really sound and superior justification for interfering.

[ibegurpard]

54. I don't understand it either

For me it's not about what I think about abortion, because frankly I don't think about it much at all. It's about the government stepping in and imposing policy in an area where they have no business doing so.