Right to privacy? Not any more.

Professur said:
And you blindly spout on, ignoring that fact that you'll not likely find unbigoted gay parents.
Click to expand...

Let's amend that to I'd take gay parents over someone who would like to prevent people from being parents simply because of race, religion, or sexual orientation any day.
 
spike said:
Let's amend that to I'd take gay parents over someone who would like to prevent people from being parents simply because of race, religion, or sexual orientation any day.
Click to expand...

In realy think that if people think that gay parent are bad parents they really need to shut up and go after the people who don' feed there children, or who abuse them.
 
spike said:
Let's amend that to I'd take gay parents over someone who would like to prevent people from being parents simply because of race, religion, or sexual orientation any day.
Click to expand...

When two gay men or wimmen manage to have a child without resorting to medical attention or bisexuality ... I`ll be right there to welcome them as parents. Until then, not happening. That's not bias ... that's evolution. For the record, I'm not (as Bish can attest) a fan of medically assisted pregnancy for anyone, gay, straight, bovine, etc. If you couldn't manage to carry a child to term on your own, how can you possibly think that that's a genetic winner for the future?

GrandCaravanSE said:
In realy think that if people think that gay parent are bad parents they really need to shut up and go after the people who don' feed there children, or who abuse them.
Click to expand...

Two things. First off, I didn't say anything about gays being good, bad, or anything else. Second, I'm first in line to tear anyone (regardless of creed, colour, sexuality or gender) a new asshole for child abuse. When you get around to having a point as opposed to spouting retoric, lemme know.
 
Professur said:
When two gay men or wimmen manage to have a child without resorting to medical attention or bisexuality ... I`ll be right there to welcome them as parents. Until then, not happening. That's not bias ... that's evolution. For the record, I'm not (as Bish can attest) a fan of medically assisted pregnancy for anyone, gay, straight, bovine, etc. If you couldn't manage to carry a child to term on your own, how can you possibly think that that's a genetic winner for the future?
Click to expand...

Well that's bullshit. If you're against people adopting needy kids or helping out people that are having a little problem getting pregnant then I don't know how to help you.

For the record medically assisted pregnancies do get carried to term.

I would be more inclined to question the genetics and suitability of any parents that have such views. Being able to knock up some chick really has NOTHING to do with producing superior kids.
 
For the record - the couple that I mentioned - the lady who carried the child got pregnant the old fashioned way...from her ex-husband (who was her hubby at the time). How the relationship ended is a private matter, but her relationship with her wife started when the child was less than a year old.

**
On another note, I'll echo Spike in his statement re: Adoption being an excellent option for non-fertile couples (gay, straight or other)...and even for some single people (Although that's FAR more difficult to get around).

Prof said:
When two gay men or wimmen manage to have a child without resorting to medical attention or bisexuality
Click to expand...
That only leaves rape or the turkey-baster option...kinda limiting, eh.
 
They idea of limiting who can have children by who's likely to produce "genetic winners" is a dark road. Why limit the restriction to those who can't have kids without medical assistance?

Should we keep anyone with genetic defects from having kids? Maybe we should sterilize those with Anemia, heart conditions, or color blindness?
 
My personal ranking of what's best for the child, assuming normal caring people, would be:

1) Hetero couple - best of both worlds
2) Homo couple - still have two people working together and supporting each other in a difficult job
3) Single parent - At least there is someone to bond with

And in a far distant fourth place: Foster homes

I would never deny a child a home when one is available.
 
spike said:
They idea of limiting who can have children by who's likely to produce "genetic winners" is a dark road. Why limit the restriction to those who can't have kids without medical assistance?

Should we keep anyone with genetic defects from having kids? Maybe we should sterilize those with Anemia, heart conditions, or color blindness?
Click to expand...

Wasn't that long ago that such was the case. Retarded children, handicaps, et al were serilized to 'prevent them getting children that they couldn't raise'.

My arguments on this are well documented here, and would take an amount of time I'm unwilling to spend retyping. The major point of it all is ... GREED.
 
Frodo said:
My personal ranking of what's best for the child, assuming normal caring people, would be:

1) Hetero couple - best of both worlds
2) Homo couple - still have two people working together and supporting each other in a difficult job
3) Single parent - At least there is someone to bond with

And in a far distant fourth place: Foster homes

I would never deny a child a home when one is available.
Click to expand...
wELL SAID.
 
Professur said:
Wasn't that long ago that such was the case. Retarded children, handicaps, et al were serilized to 'prevent them getting children that they couldn't raise'.
Click to expand...

Which would have nothing to do with the conversation since people with Anemia, heart conditions, and color blindness can raise kids just fine. Also people who need medical assistance to get pregnant are perfectly capable of raising children.

In fact, I would think someone who's enlisted medical assistance to have kids to have better odds of being a good parent than a "surprise, we're pregnant" couple.

My arguments on this are well documented here, and would take an amount of time I'm unwilling to spend retyping. The major point of it all is ... GREED.
Click to expand...

I'd be glad to take a look if you link to it, I would imagine it didn't work in those threads either though.

The major point is to have kids and a family. I'm not sure if you did that out of some greed related reason yourself but I wouldn't project that onto others.
 
While I'd love to provide links, it's strewn through 10 years of posts, and frankly, the audience isn't worth the effort.

As for my comment not having anything to do with the conversation, I don't recall any of your medical conditions ever inhibiting pregnancy, so I'd ask you to follow your own directives.

In fact, I would think someone who's enlisted medical assistance to have kids to have better odds of being a good parent than a "surprise, we're pregnant" couple.
Click to expand...

I'd rather all kids were well planned too, but sadly ... intelligence has long since been outbred from the species.
 
Professur said:
As for my comment not having anything to do with the conversation, I don't recall any of your medical conditions ever inhibiting pregnancy, so I'd ask you to follow your own directives.
Click to expand...

Ok, I would, except my comments have everything to do with the conversation.

Your argument was that people who needed medical assistance to get pregnant were likely to pass on less desirable genes and should be prevented from having children. In that case I'm asking how that would be different than preventing people with genetic conditions like anemia, heart conditions, color blindness , etc from having children.

Ignoring the fact for now that sterility can likely be caused by non-genetic reasons.

I'd rather all kids were well planned too, but sadly ... intelligence has long since been outbred from the species.
Click to expand...

I would think that more pregnancies are actually planned now then they were say a couple hundred years ago.
 
spike said:
Ok, I would, except my comments have everything to do with the conversation.

Your argument was that people who needed medical assistance to get pregnant were likely to pass on less desirable genes and should be prevented from having children. In that case I'm asking how that would be different than preventing people with genetic conditions like anemia, heart conditions, color blindness , etc from having children.
Click to expand...

When did I say prevent? I said don't assist.


do try to keep up.
 
People who can't have kids without medical assistance would effectively prevented from having kids in your scenario.

Don't try to mince words to avoid the point. It's pretty transparent.

Your argument so far has been based on genetics and your feeling that assisting people that can't have children is unlikely to produce "genetic winners". That in itself could be shown to be a pretty inaccurate assumption.

But if we go with it for now it would have to mean that you would also be against people with other genetic flaws like anemia, heart conditions, and color blindness having children.

So would you mind addressing the point or are you going to start the avoid the issue, make excuses, and back away game?
 
I'm requesting a thread-split. The conv has gone in a completely different direction than the topic at hand.
 
Professur said:
Wasn't that long ago that such was the case. Retarded children, handicaps, et al were serilized to 'prevent them getting children that they couldn't raise'.
Click to expand...
Eugenics and it's cousins - selective sterilization to make the human breed better.

The 'couldn't raise properly' excuse was and is a PC way of putting it.
 
spike said:
People who can't have kids without medical assistance would effectively prevented from having kids in your scenario.

Don't try to mince words to avoid the point. It's pretty transparent.

The fact that your argument so far has been based on genetics and your feeling that assisting people that can't have children is unlikely to produce "genetic winners". That in itself could be shown to be a pretty inaccurate assumption.

But if we go with it for now it would have to mean that you would also be against people with other genetic flaws like anemia, heart conditions, and color blindness having children.

So would you mind addressing the point or are you going to start the avoid the issue, make excuses, and back away game?
Click to expand...

*yawn*

I did address the point. Obviously, it was too subtle for you. Probably right up there with the idea that you don't have to be a homophobe to not consider homos great parenting material. Making excuses? Avoid the issue? Hardly. I made my point. You didn't grasp the concept. Hardly new teritory, is it? Back away? No. Leaving all together. I've better things to waste my spare time on than trying to explain colour to a blind man.


And Bish ... OTC. Do pay attention.
 
if we go with it for now it would have to mean that you would also be against people with other genetic flaws like anemia, heart conditions, and color blindness having children.
Click to expand...

While I have addressed your point. Above is the point you have completely failed to address. Your genetic argument has run completely into a dead end. This is not from a failure to comprehend it, it's from your utter failure to support the logic behind it

Because that leaves you fairly well backed into a corner you make excuses, insults, and run away.

This is typical of some other members here but I would normally expect more from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top