25 Aug 11
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI can't help but wonder, if Homosexuality is genetic, and if a test is developed to detect it, will the same eagerness to test be there?
There are more than that one reason to take the test. The fact that you either can't think of it or I suspect haven't even tried to think of it is telling.
Bringing up a child with Down's syndrome is a significant amount more effort and resources than a child without. It's possible that parents might want to simply prepare for that fact and to know what to expect.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPlease! All legal and moral standards result from an understanding of words. Lawyers are wordsmiths. A semantic issue?
No it doesn't - calling something "human" or not is a semantic issue and therefore cannot possibly have any relevance for deciding moral issues.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignTo call an unborn fetus a human being is to muddy the waters, intentionally, as to arouse an emotional response from observers, and contributors to this debate.
Please! All legal and moral standards result from an understanding of words. Lawyers are wordsmiths. A semantic issue?
To use certain words, especially ones which already implicitly aid one side of the argument, is to play with semantics- whodey doesn't seem interested in debating the merits of abortion, or even in debating the existence of moral absolutes, rather he seems determined to continue with his routine of misrepresentations and appeals to emotion.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignI'd be ok with the test, but the eagerness to test would not be there since homosexuality isn't a disease that causes normal parents the kind of extra education and effort that a child with down's syndrome would require.
I can't help but wonder, if Homosexuality is genetic, and if a test is developed to detect it, will the same eagerness to test be there?
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by generalissimoWhodey uses words which support his positions, and you try to make his word usage out of bounds. Well that's debating, but to say words or semantics aren't important is pure folly. We communicate only with words.
To call an unborn fetus a human being is to muddy the waters, intentionally, as to arouse an emotional response from observers, and contributors to this debate.
To use certain words, especially ones which already implicitly aid one side of the argument, is to play with semantics- whodey doesn't seem interested in debating the merits of abortion, or ...[text shortened]... he seems determined to continue with his routine of misrepresentations and appeals to emotion.
All the debating here is to arouse emotional as well as thoughtful responses.
26 Aug 11
Originally posted by whodeyI couldn't have the test if I wanted since I'm not a woman 😛
Let me ask you something, would you have the test? If so, would you abort? If not, why not?
I would have no problem with my wife having the test and whether we would abort would depend on a few factors.
In the end it really would be her decision.
26 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignWell, it is out of bounds because while it may buttress his rhetoric it is still inaccurate- a fetus is not a human being any more than an egg is a chicken.
Whodey uses words which support his positions, and you try to make his word usage out of bounds. Well that's debating, but to say words or semantics aren't important is pure folly. We communicate only with words.
All the debating here is to arouse emotional as well as thoughtful responses.
While words are obviously important, playing with semantics while avoiding any truly meaningful terminology is detrimental to any debate.
Whodey's arguments, if I may be generous enough to even call his mindless outbursts that, on the other hand manage only to arouse emotional responses.
26 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBeing against abortion, I would oppose any testing that is done merely to screen for abortions. Any tests that could facilitate a better outcome for the unborn would be OK with me.
whodey, do you oppose any and all prenatal screenings? After all the results of any of them could be used as a reason (or a partial reason) for an abortion.
However, this thread is about the state giving free prenatal testing for Downs. Last time I checked there is no medical intervention for Downs, therefore, it is merely an abortion screen in my opinion. However, there have been others here that seem to think people are doing the screening in order to "prepare" for their oncoming problem child.
26 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoActually general, I asked you specifically to debate the merits of abortion. Specifically, I asked if you thought it would be a better world if we could screen the unborn for potential disease and disorders. Would the world be a better place?
To call an unborn fetus a human being is to muddy the waters, intentionally, as to arouse an emotional response from observers, and contributors to this debate.
To use certain words, especially ones which already implicitly aid one side of the argument, is to play with semantics- whodey doesn't seem interested in debating the merits of abortion, or ...[text shortened]... he seems determined to continue with his routine of misrepresentations and appeals to emotion.
What say you?