Science told: hands off gay sheep!

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



PVS
this is so xmen3

Soleran
Thats hilarious, the anit-gay patch.

I thought the nicotene patch had it's glory!

Either way it's interesting.

Robtard
"Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams"... Damn, sheep are seriously gay, then again, is 10% of the human pop. homosexual?

I find it funny that this in a sense, will unit both the Gay and Religious communities as they will both see it as an attack.

PVS
yeah, its bad news for everyone.

Soleran
The cure for aids just took a back seat!

grey fox
Originally posted by Soleran
The cure for aids just took a back seat!

Nah the government will see it as a from of AIDS prevention.

In their minds No Gays = No Aids ,

Of course knowing the various governments they'll equate this idea onto African Americans and well....

Let's just say the world would become a helluva lot whiter whether you want it to or not

FeceMan
Originally posted by PVS
this is so xmen3
Yeah, except homosexuals don't have superpowers they use to attack people.

grey fox
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, except homosexuals don't have superpowers they use to attack people.

Debatable , the occasional campness they go into certainly feels like an attack on my patience and tolerance.

PVS
...not yet fear

but i heard at stormfront that they're working on a giant gay emmiter cannon which will infect all who oppose teh ghey agenda and turn then into teh gheys. wait, thats the first xmen...

grey fox
Originally posted by PVS
...not yet fear

but i heard at stormfront that they're working on a giant gay emmiter cannon which will infect all who oppose teh ghey agenda and turn then into teh gheys. wait, thats the first xmen...

What about the secret facility where they kidnap the geys and make them kill every gay on the planet. Oh snap that was X-2.

Shite.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
yeah, its bad news for everyone.

Another funny note, I wonder how many pro-choice (abortion) people will be appalled at this. It's the mothers choice if she wants to kill her fetus, but it isn't her choice if she wants to potentially alter it's make-up... Pure lunacy.

Robtard
Originally posted by grey fox
Nah the government will see it as a from of AIDS prevention.

In their minds No Gays = No Aids ,

Of course knowing the various governments they'll equate this idea onto African Americans and well....

Let's just say the world would become a helluva lot whiter whether you want it to or not

Be careful, you're sounding like FistOFTheNorth with the "government hates blacks" angle.

Soleran
Soon having a child will be like bugerking where you get it made to order your way, awesomeness.

grey fox
Originally posted by Robtard
Be careful, you're sounding like FistOFTheNorth with the "government hates blacks" angle.

Aha , my secret is revealed ...

I am Fistofthenorth *Tears at face revealing.....Nothing*

...or maybe not

Shakyamunison
Hmmm If you can cure homosexuality, then it must not be a choice.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, except homosexuals don't have superpowers they use to attack people.

Rub it in why don't you?

Originally posted by Robtard
I find it funny that this in a sense, will unit both the Gay and Religious communities as they will both see it as an attack.

I seriously doubt that.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I seriously doubt that.

I think some parts of either will see it as one.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Sanctuary
I think some parts of either will see it as one.

How do you figure?

Sanctuary
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
How do you figure?

Talked to a gay guy who did find it offensive.

And some religious people usually take something as attack.

BackFire
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah, except homosexuals don't have superpowers they use to attack people.

You poor, ignorant soul.

Strangelove
A sad day there is when people think that can cure people of who they are.

What's next? A cure for people who enjoy caviar? A cure for people who like a TV show? A cure for people with freckles?

A sad day indeed no

Soleran
Originally posted by Strangelove
A sad day there is when people think that can cure people of who they are.

What's next? A cure for people who enjoy caviar? A cure for people who like a TV show? A cure for people with freckles?

A sad day indeed no


Well one could say a disease they are born with (cycstic fibrosis) is who they are yet we look for cures.

It's all a matter of perspective really.

Sanctuary
I think research should not be limited. That is might be bad for "gay equal rights" movements is possible. But I don't think the possibility to research should be limited. And if such a change programme would exist I think it should not be banned. I don't think there is a justification for that.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Soleran
Well one could say a disease they are born with (cycstic fibrosis) is who they are yet we look for cures.

It's all a matter of perspective really. no, it's not about perspective. Cystic fibrosis is a malignant disease that destroys the body from the inside and causes early death.

Obviously not part of who a person is

Soleran
Originally posted by Strangelove
no, it's not about perspective. Cystic fibrosis is a malignant disease that destroys the body from the inside and causes early death.

Obviously not part of who a person is


Uh huh, it's all about perspective.

What about those folks that think being gay is a disease huh? Yeah hope you're hungry because I just brought you some food for thought.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Sanctuary
Talked to a gay guy who did find it offensive.

And some religious people usually take something as attack.

Well, it is offensive. Science thinks that human beings that are gay are as easily manipulated as a sheep, on top of the fact that they need to be cured at all

As for the overly religious, I can't see them having ANY issue with this. In fact, I see most of them praising the procedure. If they found out their kid was going to be gay they'd eat their own clenched fist to "fix" it.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, it is offensive. Science thinks that human beings that are gay are as easily manipulated as a sheep, on top of the fact that they need to be cured at all

As for the overly religious, I can't see them having ANY issue with this. In fact, I see most of them praising the procedure. If they found out their kid was going to be gay they'd eat their own clenched fist to "fix" it.

I am not sure whether science thinks that. The authors of that text might. And people that read it.

But it does spoil their gay people chose to be gay theories. Oh, right, doublethink.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Soleran
Uh huh, it's all about perspective.

What about those folks that think being gay is a disease huh? Yeah hope you're hungry because I just brought you some food for thought. folks who think homosexuality is a disease are obviously batshit crazy. It doesn't have any adverse affects on the body.

And who looks at a debilitating disease like cystic fibrosis, and thinks 'Well that's just swell!'

Soleran
Originally posted by Strangelove
folks who think homosexuality is a disease are obviously batshit crazy. It doesn't have any adverse affects on the body.

And who looks at a debilitating disease like cystic fibrosis, and thinks 'Well that's just swell!'



It's just the beginning lets not even begin to think otherwise.

Go go scientific research!

PVS
Originally posted by Sanctuary
I think research should not be limited. That is might be bad for "gay equal rights" movements is possible. But I don't think the possibility to research should be limited. And if such a change programme would exist I think it should not be banned. I don't think there is a justification for that.

the problem is that its harmless to simply be a homosexual and many millions of people, of sound mind and aware consention, enjoy being what they were born to be and are proud of who they are, and most importantly: dont want to be "cured".

the next step in this logical slippery slope would be to make other superficial changes. altering one's being at birth for nothing more than for the convenience/vanity/selfishness of the parents is a clear abomination.

this is human engineering. i can only think of a couple of greater threats to mankind than that. i think they are correct and that the only logical course of action would be to drop it like a hot brick and run.

doesnt all this information kill the idea that homosexuallity is necessarily chosen/taught? makes me wish they would unban whob so i could laugh in his face.

BackFire
You don't want to laugh in his face, you want to do something much more grotesque in his face....and I want to watch.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by PVS
the problem is that its harmless to simply be a homosexual and many millions of people, of sound mind and aware consention, enjoy being what they were born to be and are proud of who they are, and most importantly: dont want to be "cured".

the next step in this logical slippery slope would be to make other superficial changes. altering one's being at birth for nothing more than for the convenience/vanity/selfishness of the parents is a clear abomination.

this is human engineering. i can only think of a couple of greater threats to mankind than that. i think they are correct and that the only logical course of action would be to drop it like a hot brick and run.

doesnt all this information kill the idea that homosexuallity is necessarily chosen/taught? makes me wish they would unban whob so i could laugh in his face.

I don't follow you quite.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Soleran
Originally posted by Sanctuary
I don't follow you quite.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?


He just subliminally told you to go watch:


GATTACA

Sanctuary
Originally posted by Soleran
He just subliminally told you to go watch:


GATTACA

I watched Gattaca.

I can not base my opinion on a(n excellent) movie.

Humans are still free. If one argues that abortions are okay, genetic manipulation should be as well.

Robtard
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic


I seriously doubt that.

Doubt the union or doubt seeing it as an attack?

Nellinator
This is not a cure unless they can come off the patch and still be heterosexual. Otherwise it just creates another drug user. Ultimately this could never be used unless the person wanted to change.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Robtard
Doubt the union or doubt seeing it as an attack?

The union.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
This is not a cure unless they can come off the patch and still be heterosexual. Otherwise it just creates another drug user. Ultimately this could never be used unless the person wanted to change.

You had me right up until the end.

PVS
Originally posted by Sanctuary
I don't follow you quite.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

not sure

if you feel that alterations in sheep should be allowed, i strongly disagree

i think research is fine, as long as human research is also applied.
once the data is collected, it should be documented. so long as there is
proof that at least some gay people are genetically predisposed to prefer the same sex i think it should be researched. not to 'cure' anything but to better understand ourselves as a species.


...plus if that can be proven then it blows the doors off the 'god warrior' argument that its chosen and thus a sin.

Nellinator
If a person wants to change, I think it is a viable option for them. If it is having an adverse affect on the person, if it is holding them back from a desire for their own family, etc. I have nothing against it.

Robtard
Originally posted by Nellinator
This is not a cure unless they can come off the patch and still be heterosexual. Otherwise it just creates another drug user. Ultimately this could never be used unless the person wanted to change.

You missed the point of the article... In theory, science in the future could scan a fetus for the "gay trace" and then "treatment" could be administered in utero to alter the sexual disposition of the baby.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by PVS
...plus if that can be proven then it blows the doors off the 'god warrior' argument that its chosen and thus a sin.

It also invalidates the opinion below.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If a person wants to change, I think it is a viable option for them. If it is having an adverse affect on the person, if it is holding them back from a desire for their own family, etc. I have nothing against it.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by PVS
not sure

if you feel that alterations in sheep should be allowed, i strongly disagree

i think research is fine, as long as human research is also applied.
once the data is collected, it should be documented. so long as there is
proof that at least some gay people are genetically predisposed to prefer the same sex i think it should be researched. not to 'cure' anything but to better understand ourselves as a species.


...plus if that can be proven then it blows the doors off the 'god warrior' argument that its chosen and thus a sin.

So we disagree, agree, agree.

Would you like to argue about the one point we disagree?

Actually, it might not be true, I think if a possible cure is found it should be available on the free market. That would make two disagrees.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Robtard
You missed the point of the article... In theory, science in the future could scan a fetus for the "gay trace" and then "treatment" could be administered in utero to alter the sexual disposition of the baby.
Oh, I read that part and it is wrong. However, these homosexual rams that were becoming heterosexual were adults were they not? If they were this research is potentially applicable to adults as well.

PVS
the real issue is, as capt said, people are not as easily manipulated as sheep....most anyway. however the implications for something like this revolve around childhood development and basically starting to engineer the gay out of children/babies who may not have even reached the point of self awareness.

Robtard
A question I posed on the first page, why is genetic alteration in fetuses so abhorrent but abortion is not?

A woman is allowed kill her fetus, but she couldn't potentially decide it's eye color or sexual disposition?

Nellinator
I wish I knew the name of the actual scientific article so I could read it. The article brings attention to the ethical debates, not all the scientific possibilities. The media sucks for these kind of things.

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard
A question I posed on the first page, why is genetic alteration in fetuses so abhorrent but abortion is not?

A woman is allowed kill her fetus, but she couldn't potentially decide it's eye color or sexual disposition?

a dead fetus does not alter the genetic make up of new born humans. call it homocide if you wish, but point is its not a threat at the level of playing god with ourselves.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by PVS
the real issue is, as capt said, people are not as easily manipulated as sheep....most anyway. however the implications for something like this revolve around childhood development and basically starting to engineer the gay out of children/babies who may not have even reached the point of self awareness.

But we influence and manipulate all children already.

I don't understand why genetic engineering should be wrong.

Can't a man and a woman decide to do with their cells whatever they want to do?Originally posted by Robtard
A question I posed on the first page, why is genetic alteration in fetuses so abhorrent but abortion is not?

A woman is allowed kill her fetus, but she couldn't potentially decide it's eye color or sexual disposition?

I think that is another strong argument.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
a dead fetus does not alter the genetic make up of new born humans. call it homocide if you wish, but point is its not a threat at the level of playing god with ourselves.


I don't call it homicide as the definition doesn't fit, but killing a fetus that has no say or chance to speak for itself is the epitome of "playing God".

PVS
Originally posted by Sanctuary
But we influence and manipulate all children already.

I don't understand why genetic engineering should be wrong.

Can't a man and a woman decide to do with their cells whatever they want to do?

a man or woman can do whatever they wish for all i care. im talking about a child/baby/possibly fetus which is incapable of deciding whether or not it would like to be 'cured' of being a homosexual. they are essentially deciding what kind of person the child will be.

in the case of preventing fatal diseases/conditions its another issue entirely. that is just to assure that someone doesnt die in an untimely manner, as opposed to assuring that a child is tall, blond, blue eyes, not gay, etc...superficial nonesense which has already proven to be a great threat under the right supervision.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by PVS
a man or woman can do whatever they wish for all i care. im talking about a child/baby/possibly fetus which is incapable of deciding whether or not it would like to be 'cured' of being a homosexual. they are essentially deciding what kind of person the child will be.

in the case of preventing fatal diseases/conditions its another issue entirely. that is just to assure that someone doesnt die in an untimely manner, as opposed to assuring that a child is tall, blond, blue eyes, not gay, etc...superficial nonesense which has already proven to be a great threat under the right supervision.

But it will not care for it will be the person. It is not different from what we do now. Just that it is actively chosen. You give coincidence a much higher ranking and right than it needs or deserve. And a fetus is human cells. The parents can take influence already. If the mother smokes it changes the child. If she takes hormones it changes the child.

How has it been proven to be a great threat?

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Sanctuary
Can't a man and a woman decide to do with their cells whatever they want to do?

That is exactly why it stands in the way of the religous desire to illegalize abortion. So, the point I made earlier about the religous right not having any issue with this kind of procedure is that they'd do it without realizing they themselves are playing "god". The overly religious think that abortion is taking gods will and tossing it out the window. But they fail to realize that if god existed in the manner they profess he does, then there's nothing they or I could do to pervert his will....him being almighty and all...and male.

So, Nellinator thinks it has potential as long as the adult homosexual in question "wants to change." But, that's because being effected by your biologcally produced hormones were a choice.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
That is exactly why it stands in the way of the religous desire to illegalize abortion. So, the point I made earlier about the religous right not having any issue with this kind of procedure is that they'd do it without realizing they themselves are playing "god". The overly religious think that abortion is taking gods will and tossing it out the window. But they fail to realize that if god existed in the manner they profess he does, then there's nothing they or I could do to pervert his will....him being almighty and all...and male.

So, Nellinator thinks it has potential as long as the adult homosexual in question "wants to change." But, that's because being effected by your biologcally produced hormones were a choice.

Okay. I guess religious people might not have a problem with it. But they should if they go through it logically.

PVS
Originally posted by Sanctuary
But it will not care for it will be the person. It is not different from what we do now. Just that it is actively chosen. You give coincidence a much higher ranking and right than it needs or deserve. And a fetus is human cells. The parents can take influence already. If the mother smokes it changes the child. If she takes hormones it changes the child.

How has it been proven to be a great threat?

superficial and non-beneficial genetic altercations through selective breeding has been attempted throughout history from slavery up to nazi germany. its not the act itslelf, but the motive behind the act. the question is not "are they harming the child" but "how could anyone have the right to determine someone else's sexuality"

being gay poses no health risk. to interrupt and alter a childs developement because they are genetically predisposed to be a homosexual is a clear abomination.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sanctuary
Okay. I guess religious people might not have a problem with it. But they should if they go through it logically.

Religious people couldn't consciously agree with the detecting/curing homosexuality before birth as it would invalidate what they believe in. How could a fetus be gay and cured if homosexuality is a choice/sin...

But, religious people could agree with a "cure" for homosexual adults as it being a form of "redemption".

Nellinator
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, Nellinator thinks it has potential as long as the adult homosexual in question "wants to change." But, that's because being effected by your biologcally produced hormones were a choice.
And people with thyroid problems should never receive hormonal treatment? No, if someone chooses to use this treatment they should be allowed to as long as it has no adverse affects.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Robtard
Religious people couldn't consciously agree with the detecting/curing homosexuality before birth as it would invalidate what they believe in. How could a fetus be gay and cured if homosexuality is a choice/sin...

But, religious people could agree with a "cure" for homosexual adults as it being a form of "redemption".

right.

Sanctuary
Originally posted by PVS
superficial and non-beneficial genetic altercations through selective breeding has been attempted throughout history from slavery up to nazi germany. its not the act itslelf, but the motive behind the act. the question is not "are they harming the child" but "how could anyone have the right to determine someone else's sexuality"

being gay poses no health risk. to interrupt and alter a childs developement because they are genetically predisposed to be a homosexual is a clear abomination.

But the someone else doesn't exist if it is a fetus. It is just cell in a mother's body.

And it should not be done for a specific cause. It should just be available to everyone. Much like Gattaca. I mean you could purposely make gay babies as well then. Though that all is Science Fiction.

PVS
Originally posted by Sanctuary
But the someone else doesn't exist if it is a fetus. It is just cell in a mother's body.

well, lets be non-scifi for a moment here. the likely beginner would be manipulation of a childs hormones through developement. that is a very real and very close possibility.

but for the sake of discussion fine:
it is just a cell in the mother's body. however imho so long as it will become a human being with a will of its own then it is up to that human being alone what sexuality it will be...and basically who it will be. a parents role is to guide their child, not force it to be something it might not want to be on the level of their own psyche... and on the level of altering their very being in essense. i think thats abuse, isnt it?

you cant use the logic of 'my body my choice' here since there will be another human being produced which will be directly effected by your decision. like, what if someone genetically enhanced their daughter to grow huge **** because they felt it would just be easier for them to adjust to society. would that be right?

shut up backfire

Originally posted by Sanctuary
And it should not be done for a specific cause. It should just be available to everyone. Much like Gattaca. I mean you could purposely make gay babies as well then. Though that all is Science Fiction.

to purposely make gay babies is also human engineering

Sanctuary
Originally posted by PVS
well, lets be non-scifi for a moment here. the likely beginner would be manipulation of a childs hormones through developement. that is a very real and very close possibility.

but for the sake of discussion fine:
it is just a cell in the mother's body. however imho so long as it will become a human being with a will of its own then it is up to that human being alone what sexuality it will be...and basically who it will be. a parents role is to guide their child, not force it to be something it might not want to be on the level of their own psyche... and on the level of altering their very being in essense. i think thats abuse, isnt it?

you cant use the logic of 'my body my choice' here since there will be another human being produced which will be directly effected by your decision. like, what if someone genetically enhanced their daughter to grow huge **** because they felt it would just be easier for them to adjust to society. would that be right?

shut up backfire



to purposely make gay babies is also human engineering

You are right.

What should be done in your opinion? A full ban on every genetic engineering?

PVS
its odd that nobody has pointed out the hilarity of this thread and article title.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
well, lets be non-scifi for a moment here. the likely beginner would be manipulation of a child's hormones through developement. that is a very real and very close possibility.

but for the sake of discussion fine:
it is just a cell in the mother's body. however imho so long as it will become a human being with a will of its own then it is up to that human being alone what sexuality it will be...and basically who it will be. a parents role is to guide their child, not force it to be something it might not want to be on the level of their own psyche... and on the level of altering their very being in essense. i think thats abuse, isnt it?

you cant use the logic of 'my body my choice' here since there will be another human being produced which will be directly effected by your decision. like, what if someone genetically enhanced their daughter to grow huge **** because they felt it would just be easier for them to adjust to society. would that be right?

shut up backfire

While I do agree with you that genetic engineering is wrong (medical/disease reasons withstanding) and especially wrong in your "child's hormones" scenario; the fetus one still makes no sense in regards to abortion.

If a woman is allowed to what she will with her fetus since it is considered an extension of her body and not a separate living entity with it's own rights, then why should a woman not be allowed to alter it how she she's fit, considering she does it in the allotted time she would be allowed to have an abortion? If she is allowed to determine if her child lives or dies, why shouldn't she theoretically be allowed to determine how her child lives?

RedAlertv2
Originally posted by Strangelove
A sad day there is when people think that can cure people of who they are.

What's next? A cure for people who enjoy caviar? A cure for people who like a TV show? A cure for people with freckles?

A sad day indeed no The article said this isnt an attempt to "cure" homosexuality but instead is an attempt to find the cause of it.

FeceMan
Originally posted by BackFire
You poor, ignorant soul.
Well, that Arclite character was pretty gay. I couldn't tell its gender.

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard
If a woman is allowed to what she will with her fetus since it is considered an extension of her body and not a separate living entity with it's own rights, then why should a woman not be allowed to alter it how she she's fit, considering she does it in the allotted time she would be allowed to have an abortion? If she is allowed to determine if her child lives or dies, why shouldn't she theoretically be allowed to determine how her child lives?

if she kills a ball of cells, she's killing a ball of cells and nothing more.
plus to forbid it would be forcing a person to give birth which is quite sadistic since we're not primates.

if she genetically manipulates a child to her superficial likings, she is taking part in playing god. "taking part" meaning that many would follow suit.

:edit: i cant articulate at the moment the severity and importance of not allowing people to flaunt with superficial human engineering. i thought history was good enough evidence of that so im caught by surprise.

FeceMan
I vote we just hire some wizards to solve the problem.

PVS
or better yet pat robertson...did you know he talked to god a few days ago?

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
if she kills a ball of cells, she's killing a ball of cells and nothing more.
plus to forbid it would be forcing a person to give birth which is quite sadistic since we're not primates.

if she genetically manipulates a child to her superficial likings, she is taking part in playing god. "taking part" meaning that many would follow suit.

:edit: i cant articulate at the moment the severity and importance of not allowing people to flaunt with superficial human engineering. i thought history was good enough evidence of that so im caught by surprise.

I disagree and agree...

Point there is, why is she allowed to kill "a ball of cells" but not allowed to alter a "ball of cells"... Mind you, I disagree with genetic manipulation and I disagree with abortion how it stands, but logically speaking, if you allow her to "play God" and she decides if her childs lives or dies then why can't she be allowed to "play God" on how her child lives?

I completely understand the Pandora's Box of genetic manipulation.

FeceMan
Originally posted by PVS
or better yet pat robertson...did you know he talked to god a few days ago?
He doesn't have class levels.

Robtard
Originally posted by FeceMan
He doesn't have class levels.

Pat would easily translate to a 20th level Cleric of the Chaotic Evil alignment.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Robtard
Pat would easily translate to a 20th level Cleric of the Chaotic Evil alignment.
Lawful evil, not chaotic evil. Probably a worshiper of St. Cuthbert.

Anyway, if he was a level twenty cleric, he could simply beat up countries. Since he hasn't beaten up countries, he's not a level twenty cleric.

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard
I disagree and agree...

Point there is, why is she allowed to kill "a ball of cells" but not allowed to alter a "ball of cells"... Mind you, I disagree with genetic manipulation and I disagree with abortion how it stands, but logically speaking, if you allow her to "play God" and she decides if her childs lives or dies then why can't she be allowed to "play God" on how her child lives?

I completely understand the Pandora's Box of genetic manipulation.

like i said, if the fetus becomes a sentient being capable of making its own preferences, then thats what it is. whether or not it is just a ball of cells depends on whether or not it is destined to be born into consciousness or die as a ball of cells.

a sentient being who's nature has been willingly altered, and who's body chemistry was altered for purely selfish and unnecessary reasons. thats beyond superficial manipulation and well into personna manipulation. i cant see how this could be ethically justified in any way.

Robtard
Originally posted by FeceMan
Lawful evil, not chaotic evil. Probably a worshiper of St. Cuthbert.

Anyway, if he was a level twenty cleric, he could simply beat up countries. Since he hasn't beaten up countries, he's not a level twenty cleric.

I've seen Pat Robertson rant on and on, there's nothing Lawful about him.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
like i said, if the fetus becomes a sentient being capable of making its own preferences, then thats what it is. whether or not it is just a ball of cells depends on whether or not it is destined to be born into consciousness or die as a ball of cells.

a sentient being who's nature has been willingly altered, and who's body chemistry was altered for purely selfish and unnecessary reasons. thats beyond superficial manipulation and well into personna manipulation. i cant see how this could be ethically justified in any way.

And abortion/no abortion is controlling it's destiny. Control over life and death is ultimately playing God.

I completely see and agree with your assessment, but it is asinine to say "you have the right over your childs life/death but damn you if you plan on changing a few things about it."

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Robtard
I've seen Pat Robertson rant on and on, there's nothing Lawful about him.

Lawful Evil is measured calm evil. Not evil that obeys rational or governmental laws.

As for him being a cleric

Well he's probably in the trickery domain at about level two or three (level twenty and he'd be bringing back the dead and killing people by pointing at them)

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lawful Evil is measured calm evil. Not evil that obeys rational or governmental laws.

As for him being a cleric

Well he's probably in the trickery domain at about level two or three (level twenty and he'd be bringing back the dead and killing people by pointing at them)


Yea, thanks for pointing that out... Pat isn't a calm man, he's a frothy mouthed nut who thinks God speaks directly to him.

PVS
you have to get the existant or future existance of a "sentient being" part or we're at a dead end.

a ball of cells is not a sentient being. it may become one but its not. to kill a ball of cells is not to kill a sentient being....thats really as clear as i can put it.

to alter a fetus to effect a future sentient being is another matter entirely.

dont make me say "sentient being" again!

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
you have to get the existant or future existance of a "sentient being" part or we're at a dead end.

a ball of cells is not a sentient being. it may become one but its not. to kill a ball of cells is not to kill a sentient being....thats really as clear as i can put it.

to alter a fetus to effect a future sentient being is another matter entirely.

dont make me say "sentient being" again!

I due understand your point of 'it's not a human now so no harm no fowl' but the point I am making is, if that "ball of cells" is allowed to develope and become a "sentient being" who should have the right to not be altered against it's will even back when it was just a "ball of cells" then why shouldn't that "ball of cells" have the right to become a human in the first place? -"existant or future existanceof a sentient being"

And on a side not, abortions are allowed long after the fetus is a "ball of cells".

Don't make me say "ball of cells" again...

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard
I due understand your point of 'it's not a human now so no harm no fowl' but the point I am making is, if that "ball of cells" is allowed to develope and become a "sentient being" who should have the right to not be altered against it's will even back when it was just a "ball of cells" then why shouldn't that "ball of cells" have the right to become a human in the first place? -"existant or future existanceof a sentient being"

because the choice of its existance is up to the parents to make given the conundrum left in leaving it up to a nonexistant zygote.

Originally posted by Robtard
And on a side not, abortions are allowed long after the fetus is a "ball of cells".

thats an issue of law. i personally think that once the fetus gains a basic state of consciousness it should have the protections of a born person. however we go off topic

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't make me say "ball of cells" again...

sentient beings

sentient beings

sentient beings

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
because the choice of its existance is up to the parents to make given the conundrum left in leaving it up to a nonexistant zygote.



thats an issue of law. i personally think that once the fetus gains a basic state of consciousness it should have the protections of a born person. however we go off topic



sentient beings

sentient beings

sentient beings

I agree that is a difficult question made mostly of guesses. But if genetic alteration on a fetus is indeed wrong because that fetus will eventually grow up into a sentient person who should have been the one to decide if he/she wanted or didn't want such alterations, then why not using that same rational could the fetus in question have the same right in choosing it's life or death? Understand where I am coming from?

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard
I agree that is a difficult question made mostly of guesses. But if genetic alteration on a fetus is indeed wrong because that fetus will eventually grow up into a sentient person who should have been the one to decide if it wanted or didn't want such alterations, then why not using that same rational could the fetus in question have the same right in choosing it's life or death? Understand where I am coming from?

i understand what you're saying but its a flawed connection.
its NOT the same rational. the choice of existance is made by the parents exclusively. same as the choice for it to not exist. thats life. thats...nature.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
i understand what you're saying but its a flawed connection.
its NOT the same rational. the choice of existance is made by the parents exclusively. same as the choice for it to not exist. thats life. thats...nature.


How can the non-choice of eye color, body fat or even sexual orientation supersede the non-choice life/death?

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard
How can the non-choice of eye color, body fat or even sexual orientation supersede the non-choice life/death?

its not a choice between life and death. life and death are issues daling with sentient beings. it is existance and nonexistance. the choice is often made before conception.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
its not a choice between life and death. life and death are issues daling with sentient beings. it is existance and nonexistance. the choice is often made before conception.

You can't say it's wrong to alter a fetus genetically because that fetus will become a person with rights who may or may not want those alterations that where imposed on 'him' but then say it is fine to abort a fetus because that fetus which is to be aborted is 'just a fetus'.

The aborted fetus would have become a sentient being just as the genetically altered fetus... Different edges of the same sword my friend.

Adam_PoE
A woman may terminate a pregnancy, not because she has a unilateral right to do as she wishes with the fetus, or because the fetus does not have rights, but because the right to bodily integrity of the woman is more stringent than the right to life of the fetus.

Once she has conceded to the pregnancy, the fetus has a right to bodily integrity that should not be infringed upon.

Robtard
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A woman may terminate a pregnancy, not because she has a unilateral right to do as she wishes with the fetus, or because the fetus does not have rights, but because the right to bodily integrity of the woman is more stringent than the right to life of the fetus.

Once she has conceded to the pregnancy, the fetus has a right to bodily integrity that should not be infringed upon.

Not sure if that was directed at me, but I obviously would not consider a woman in the wrong for going through an abortion because her life was in danger.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A woman may terminate a pregnancy, not because she has a unilateral right to do as she wishes with the fetus, or because the fetus does not have rights, but because the right to bodily integrity of the woman is more stringent than the right to life of the fetus.

Once she has conceded to the pregnancy, the fetus has a right to bodily integrity that should not be infringed upon.

But changing the genetic setup of sperm and egg are alright then, aren't they?

Also, what about an embryo.

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard

The aborted fetus would have become a sentient being just as the genetically altered fetus... Different edges of the same sword my friend.

until you see the difference between the hypothetical "would have been this, could have been that" and the inevitable "will be", and that this choice alone is logically the parents to make as opposed to how tall it will be, its pointless to continue this

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
until you see the difference between the hypothetical "would have been this, could have been that" and the inevitable "will be", and that this choice alone is logically the parents to make as opposed to how tall it will be, its pointless to continue this

I do know the difference and it is silly to say that future potential matters in one issue but doesn't matter in another issue, if future potential matters than it is across the board.

If you stand on the grounds that a woman can go through an abortion because the fetus is hers to do whatever she will with, even the ultimate choice of choosing life or death, than the reasoning stands that she has the right to alter it as she will regardless that it will eventually become a person, she altered it before it became a person. Ultimately it is the parents choice then on how tall, how lean and how non-gay the child is if you're going to allow the woman the ultimate choice of life or death.

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard


If you stand on the grounds that a woman can go through an abortion because the fetus is hers to do whatever she will with

the fetus which will never become a person of free will, a sentient being, yes...

Originally posted by Robtard

even the ultimate choice of choosing life or death,

existance or nonexistance of a sentient human being. nobody is being killed. a person must be in order to be killed. this is where imho you are failing to comprehend. it is a parents choice whether or not to bring a person into existance. : to choose to have a child is to inevitably (barring complications) create a conscious sentient being, as opposed mistakenly creating a zygote and destroying it.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
the fetus which will never become a person of free will, a sentient being, yes...

existance or nonexistance of a sentient human being. nobody is being killed. a person must be in order to be killed. this is where imho you are failing to comprehend. it is a parents choice whether or not to bring a person into existance. : to choose to have a child is to inevitably (barring complications) create a conscious sentient being, as opposed mistakenly creating a zygote and destroying it.

If the logic is, a woman can abort her fetus because "future potential" is meaningless, meaning the fetus isn't entitled to rights until the mother allows it so (going through pregnancy, birth etc.). Then it would stand to reason that the woman is ultimately the "decider" (thanks Dubya) of everything the fetus/child/person will become; including eye color, body fat, or genital size if she wishes as long as it is done within the borders where she has full control over the fetus.

I do see your point to an extant and it's funny we debate since we have very similar views on abortion and prenatal genetic modification, but I do not see how you can draw a line and say "yes" and "no" here so cleanly.

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard
If the logic is, a woman can abort her fetus because "future potential" is meaningless, meaning the fetus isn't entitled to rights until the mother allows it so (going through pregnancy, birth etc.). Then it would stand to reason that the woman is ultimately the "decider" (thanks Dubya) of everything the fetus/child/person will become; including eye color, body fat, or genital size if she wishes as long as it is done within the borders where she has full control over the fetus.

I do see your point to an extant and it's funny we debate since we have very similar views on abortion and prenatal genetic modification, but I do not see how you can draw a line and say "yes" and "no" here so cleanly.

i drew the ethical line very clearly

you are not seeing the point because you still havent acknowledged "inevitable". forget "potential". if a fetus is destroyed it has no potential for anything. nothing is inevitable. no being is effected. never was. zip. nada.

Robtard
Originally posted by PVS
i drew the ethical line very clearly

you are not seeing the point because you still havent acknowledged "inevitable". forget "potential". if a fetus is destroyed it has no potential for anything. nothing is inevitable. no being is effected. never was. zip. nada.

And altering a fetus is not altering a person, if a fetus can be sucked away and disposed of without consequence because it is a fetus and not a person than a fetus can be altered without consequence. The fetus will (inevitably) become the person the mother choose for it to become, just as she choose to allow it to develop (live) or didn't and aborted it.

I do see your point of "It was done away with before it became a person, so no harm no foul", I just don't agree with it in regards to this. The fetus in question would be altered before it became a person, so in theory, "no harm, no foul".

-edited

PVS
Originally posted by Robtard

I do see your point of "It was done away with before it became a person. so no harm no foul", I just don't agree with it in regards to this.

ok. "no harm no foul" is not what im saying though, but i guess this is close enough to rest my point

Nellinator
Originally posted by PVS
i drew the ethical line very clearly

you are not seeing the point because you still havent acknowledged "inevitable". forget "potential". if a fetus is destroyed it has no potential for anything. nothing is inevitable. no being is effected. never was. zip. nada.
Not completely true. There are health risks associated with abortions.

Robtard
That is a limp argument... There are health risk with any operation you willfully decide to go undertake.

PVS
Originally posted by Nellinator
Not completely true. There are health risks associated with abortions.

health risks to the mother, not another being.

Originally posted by Robtard
That is a limp argument... There are health risk with any operation you willfully decide to go undertake.

Nellinator
Originally posted by PVS
health risks to the mother, not another being.
Ok, however, I thought you were referring purely to the fetus and that the mother would not be effected which would not be true. However, since that was not the case we have no argument here.

PVS
Originally posted by Nellinator
Ok, however, I thought you were referring purely to the fetus and that the mother would not be effected which would not be true. However, since that was not the case we have no argument here.

...yeah it happens

LethalFemme
Originally posted by Molly Hayes
I wouldn't flirt with 32 year old guys online anyway and that's all that seems to happen on this forum. I hoped people discussed things, looks like it's just another one of those rooms where people talk about sex all the time. So i'm going, if you're into that thats up to you.

Bye.

She left. She was my best friend here and she left.weep

Robtard
It affected you so much it carried itself over onto the "Gay Sheep" thread? That's power!

PVS
laughing out loud beat me to it

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by PVS
beat me to it

HANDS OFF!!! my gay sheep!

Robtard
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
HANDS OFF!!! my gay sheep!

Better hope you're a "bottom"... the article stated that 1 in 10 rams prefer to "mount" other rams, never said 1 in 10 prefer to be mounted.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Robtard
Better hope you're a "bottom"... the article stated that 1 in 10 rams prefer to "mount" other rams, never said 1 in 10 prefer to be mounted.

1 in 10? Buddy, I'm one in a million!

LethalFemme
Originally posted by Robtard
It affected you so much it carried itself over onto the "Gay Sheep" thread? That's power!

The thread was moved and I know how scared you guys are of the OTF.shrug

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by LethalFemme
The thread was moved and I know how scared you guys are of the OTF.shrug I was in the OTF... I feel so dirty... want to give me a sponge bath?

PVS
Originally posted by LethalFemme
The thread was moved and I know how scared you guys are of the OTF.shrug

there be dragons out there fear

Robtard
Originally posted by LethalFemme
The thread was moved and I know how scared you guys are of the OTF.shrug

You know... I tried the OTF, I just didn't get it. I can debate politics, religion, sexuality, ethics and whatnot... But throw "Kiss the person above you" or "Which vampire killer's brother would you rather have tea with" at me and I'm helpless.

LethalFemme
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I was in the OTF... I feel so dirty... want to give me a sponge bath?

Can I dirty you up after?

Originally posted by PVS
there be dragons out there fear

Nah thats just Vinny's hot breath.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by LethalFemme
Can I dirty you up after?Before, after and during.

LethalFemme
Originally posted by Robtard
You know... I tried the OTF, I just didn't get it. I can debate politics, religion, sexuality, ethics and whatnot... But throw "Kiss the person above you" or "Which vampire killer's brother would you rather have tea with" at me and I'm helpless.

It's okay.petpet

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Before, after and during.

Deal meet me in 10 mintues.

Molly Hayes
Originally posted by LethalFemme
She left. She was my best friend here and she left.weep

Sorry, because you were upset I went back and edited it.

Originally posted by Molly Hayes
I wouldn't flirt with 32 year old guys online anyway and that's all that seems to happen on this forum. I hoped people discussed things, looks like it's just another one of those rooms where people talk about sex all the time. especially teen girls trying to sound adult to older guys who should have families of there own or at least know better. So i'm going, if you're into that thats up to you. I just hope your parents don't find out and if they do I hope they care.

Bye "sweetie".

Byes again. Take care all of you.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by LethalFemme
It's okay.petpet

Deal meet me in 10 mintues. Damn I left my teleporter in my other mansion.

FeceMan
Typical religious nutjobs, halting the advance of science.

...Waaaait a second...

PVS
Originally posted by LethalFemme

Seriously get the hell off this forum.roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by Molly Hayes
Sorry, because you were upset I went back and edited it.



Byes again. Take care all of you.

how? laughing out loud

Soleran
Originally posted by FeceMan
Typical religious nutjobs, halting the advance of science.

...Waaaait a second... thumb up confused

PVS
Originally posted by FeceMan
Typical religious nutjobs, halting the advance of science.

...Waaaait a second...

and advance in science is one which benefits mankind, not just the superficial wants of a few.

Soleran
Originally posted by PVS
and advance in science is one which benefits mankind, not just the superficial wants of a few.

Actually I see the advance of many "newer" sciences benefiting the superficial wants of a few, thats why I don't get excited and trust "them."

Bardock42
Originally posted by LethalFemme
The thread was moved and I know how scared you guys are of the OTF.shrug

I know what you mean...they are so scared. And they would fit so well.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Soleran
Actually I see the advance of many "newer" sciences benefiting the superficial wants of a few, thats why I don't get excited and trust "them."

yes because science that has the potential to save billions of lives and improve quality of life worldwide is superfical and selfcentered.

Soleran
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
yes because science that has the potential to save billions of lives and improve quality of life worldwide is superfical and selfcentered.

It's the fear of the people that control it, I don't place alot of trust in them.

Now dismount and get off your high horse.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Soleran
Now dismount and get off your high horse.

That's not a high horse. It's just a guy standing behind him banging coconuts together.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Soleran
It's the fear of the people that control it, I don't place alot of trust in them.

Now dismount and get off your high horse.

I'm just pointing out that the science itself in benifical to mankind. What the idiots that control the world do with it doesn't change the goodness of the science.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by PVS
doesnt all this information kill the idea that homosexuallity is necessarily chosen/taught? makes me wish they would unban whob so i could laugh in his face.


Whob is the reason I began attacking the Christian Right Wing on KMC...before that, I just stuck to the comic book forums..but he provoked everything, and ever since I've been on the religion forums like crazy...

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Whob is the reason I began attacking the Christian Right Wing on KMC...
Whob isn't a Christian. He doesn't even like Christians.

What a trade-off.

Lord Urizen
Nellinator, do you still think being Gay is a choice ?





Originally posted by FeceMan
Whob isn't a Christian. He doesn't even like Christians.


Whob is a Right Wing Conservative nonetheless, and was a pain in my rectum....and not the good pain, more like a tumor.

Marcello doesn't like other Christians either......Whob not liking Christians has nothing to do with the fact that he shares many of thier ideals.





Originally posted by FeceMan
What a trade-off.




If it weren't for Whob, I'd probably have visited the Religion Forum far less often, and debated more in the comic book forums....however, he opened my eyes to the Homophobic ignorance that not only runs rampant in KMC, but that also runs rampant in the Conservative mainstream.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If it weren't for Whob, I'd probably have visited the Religion Forum far less often, and debated more in the comic book forums....however, he opened my eyes to the Homophobic ignorance that not only runs rampant in KMC, but that also runs rampant in the Conservative mainstream.
Remind me to thank him for that.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
Remind me to thank him for that.


Feel free to tell any one of his recent socks: Marcello, Adarksiedjedi, Jesusisalive....

Symmetric Chaos
But they are avatars of God

Nellinator
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Nellinator, do you still think being Gay is a choice? Why are you trying to bring me into this? This is semi-random.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
Why are you trying to bring me into this? This is semi-random.

Can you please answer the question ?


You made a comment earlier in this thread, but never addressed the actual issue. I'm just curious....

Nellinator
And what did you think of the comments?
I won't answer the question here because it distracts from the discussion presented by this thread and I hate to go off topic.

PVS
Originally posted by Nellinator
And what did you think of the comments?
I won't answer the question here because it distracts from the discussion presented by this thread and I hate to go off topic.

nell's right.
perhaps you should post this article in the abortion thread and ask him there:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

interesting note: they actually wanted to create gay sheep blink

Nellinator
Weird stuff. I'm not sure it belongs in the abortion thread though.

PVS
damnit, i mean the 'homosexuality chosen or genetic thread'.

Barker
Why does this remind me of the last X-men movie..?

PVS
sharper than a coconut

The Wishmaster
I thinkit's discusting. Don't these scientists have better things to do with their time? How about finding a cure for cancer? **** the sheep. Who gives a shit if a boy sheep screws another boy sheep? I don't.

PVS
Originally posted by The Wishmaster
**** the sheep.

hardly a solution...or is it?

Robtard
Originally posted by The Wishmaster
I thinkit's discusting. Don't these scientists have better things to do with their time? How about finding a cure for cancer? **** the sheep. Who gives a shit if a boy sheep screws another boy sheep? I don't.

Read the article again, "curing" sheep of homosexuality is not the underlying reason.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
And what did you think of the comments?
I won't answer the question here because it distracts from the discussion presented by this thread and I hate to go off topic.


Then please tell me your answer in PM...we have been arguing this for months, and you are stubborn in your assertion that Homosexuality is a "chosen behavior".


Now that you are presented with evidense to the contrary, I would like to know your response. Please stop trying to avoid it, I NEVER avoid your questions when presented to me.

Lord Urizen
And also, A big thanks to PVS for starting this thread. I know we do not get along, but I feel I must commend you for presenting KMC with evidense as to how and why Homosexuality is not chosen....thanks for opening a path through the usual cloud of ignorance.


If it were me who made this thread, its probable that no one would take it seriously.

But because you took the time to do your research and present, it seems the conversation if flourishing and people are getting enlightened, even if it's just a little bit.


thumb up

PVS
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then please tell me your answer in PM...we have been arguing this for months, and you are stubborn in your assertion that Homosexuality is a "chosen behavior".


Now that you are presented with evidense to the contrary, I would like to know your response. Please stop trying to avoid it, I NEVER avoid your questions when presented to me.

do you have some kind of mental deficiency? the homosexuality chosen/genetic thread.

and get off my nuts

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by PVS
do you have some kind of mental deficiency? the homosexuality chosen/genetic thread.

and get off my nuts



That post wasn't addressed at you.....

PVS
ok. just please dont swing from them. you're stretching my scrotum out

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by PVS
ok. just please dont swing from them. you're stretching my scrotum out



But I didn't thnk that would be a problem considering your nuts hang down to the floor......



but I can understand if the pain starts to get at you, so i'll let go

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by PVS
this is so xmen3

So scientists are working on a way to end homosexuality? Interesting.

PVS
well, thats the implication. however to be fair at the moment the only motive is to create a gay sheep.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>