T1B

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:00 pm**

Listening to Andrew Wilkow this afternoon. He is talking about the latest freak show "reality" program about the tranny teenager. The discussion goes to whether or not being gay is genetic. He then brings up an interesting question. Lets say scientist do find the gay gene and are able to map it.

Would it be OK for people to screen for the gay gene during pregnancy and abort based on what they find? Wilkow said that should get your average liberal's head to explode.

Interested to hear the takes of our resident commies.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:02 pm**

Get a life.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:04 pm**

I would never scan for that. I'm guessing the people who would would also not want to abort for the same religious reason they hate they gay. So they're fucked.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:08 pm**

Too bad they weren't able to scan for the "weapons-grade stupid" gene many years ago and abort on that basis. This board would be much more readable.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:13 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:This board would be much more readable.

...and quite sparsely populated.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:20 pm**

A more compelling and pressing ethical question would come should there be gene therapy that would change the orientation of said unborn child. What then?

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:25 pm**

BSmack wrote:A more compelling and pressing ethical question would come should there be gene therapy that would change the orientation of said unborn child. What then?

Can we change them into an alligator-fucker?

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:33 pm**

:doh: Once again the avatar fits the poster...

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:37 pm**

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:This board would be much more readable.
...and quite sparsely populated.

I would be pretty lonely in here by myself.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:39 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
BSmack wrote:A more compelling and pressing ethical question would come should there be gene therapy that would change the orientation of said unborn child. What then?
Can we change them into an alligator-fucker?

Just so long as it ain't no gay alligator fukker, I don't see a problem with it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:42 pm**

BSmack wrote:A more compelling and pressing ethical question would come should there be gene therapy that would change the orientation of said unborn child. What then?

That is a good question.

I think that even the most enlightened progressive parent out there does not wish faggotry on their spawn and would take measures to avoid it if they could.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:03 pm**

Yea you're shame is pretty evident every time I read one of your tuff guy posts.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:19 pm**

smackaholic wrote:I think that even the most enlightened progressive parent out there does not wish faggotry on their spawn and would take measures to avoid it if they could.

Wanna bet?

Sally "I'm gay and I want my kid to be gay, too" Kohn
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:16 pm**

schmick wrote:I am an atheist and I would scan for that because the shame of a gay kid would be so vast I would likely kill myself rather than face it.

Anybody this anti-gay is almost always gay themselves. It's been proven by science.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:38 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
schmick wrote:I am an atheist and I would scan for that because the shame of a gay kid would be so vast I would likely kill myself rather than face it.
Anybody this anti-gay is almost always gay themselves. It's been proven by science.

I'd listen to mgoo on this, he's pre-med.

Or is it on meds?

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:47 pm**

Think about it. In order to get that stirred up over gays, there has to be something driving that emotion. Chances are, it's his own battle with his sexual orientation. Now, if we can only figure out a way to get his kid to go gay...

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:58 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Think about it. In order to get that stirred up over gays, there has to be something driving that emotion. Chances are, it's his own battle with his sexual orientation. Now, if we can only figure out a way to get his kid to go gay...

You think he's actually got a kid?

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:16 am**

smackaholic wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Think about it. In order to get that stirred up over gays, there has to be something driving that emotion. Chances are, it's his own battle with his sexual orientation. Now, if we can only figure out a way to get his kid to go gay...
You think he's actually got a kid?

Would that include any that have been removed by CPS?

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:17 am**

schmick wrote:I am an atheist and I would scan for that because the shame of a gay kid would be so vast I would likely kill myself rather than face it.

So you're a pussy. Got it.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:21 am**

smackaholic wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Think about it. In order to get that stirred up over gays, there has to be something driving that emotion. Chances are, it's his own battle with his sexual orientation. Now, if we can only figure out a way to get his kid to go gay...
You think he's actually got a kid?

Surrogacy is popular in the gay community. Which is unfortunate, because the main benefit of homosexuals in society should be population control.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:02 am**

smackaholic wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
schmick wrote:I am an atheist and I would scan for that because the shame of a gay kid would be so vast I would likely kill myself rather than face it.
Anybody this anti-gay is almost always gay themselves. It's been proven by science.
I'd listen to mgoo on this, he's pre-med.

Pre-law,......same thing.

We will not sit here, and listen to you bad mouth The United States of America! Or try to understand this:

the people who would would also not want to abort for the same religious reason they hate they gay.

:

"I would would not not hate hate they they gay gay!" :wink: (just funnin...kinda sounds like Gary Cooper in The Pride of the Yankees with the echo)

PS - If yer born with a penis and testicles, yer a dude. Cut 'em off like Brucey......still a dude. Born with uterus...yer a chick. Graft a wang on...still a chick.

I quote the sage of our age,...Andrew Dice Clay(not really relevant, but, oh well) -

"There is no such thing as bi-sexual. Either you suck dick, or you do NOT suck dick. What's the debate about already?"

The only argument I have ever had with this issue is that....WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Call yourself Sue or Bob and screw whoever will have you, go for it. It's just your business, not mine!! Keep this shit to yourself. Just do NOT!!! demand everyone else think it's 'normal' and forced to accept it. It isn't. Here is my logic: If homosexuality is 'normal' than it would be no problem if every body else was too, right? The whole "dying off of the Human race" would just be an unfortunate by product of gay-itude-iness, but natural and normal. Right?

Damn long Post Script. My bad.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:13 am**

Papa Willie wrote:
If there is a gay gene (and yeah - I actually think there may be, contrary to what a lot of conservatives think), I would want to stomp it out before birth if possible.

Really? Why?

Let's be honest. Any primordial ooze that seeps out of your gene pool is likely too grotesque to illicit a sexual attraction from either sex.

If they share your genetics, being queer is like the 14th thing horribly wrong with them at best. If your demon seed were even born with complete limbs, they are damned to a life of flicking their bean like a speedbag in Rocky or feverishly beating their dick as if it was a 1950s housewife. If it's not brought up, would you really tell the difference?

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:57 pm**

I don't think it is that hard of a question for most libs, at least those consistent in their views. What we hear from them often is it isn't a human until birth and a woman's body her choice. Just because there is more info doesn't change anything about the previous statements.

I think the real question is if that gene were to be found, should it be treated as a birth defect? Should foundations be set up to eliminate it. We have heard over and over from gays that this isn't a choice and no one would choose to be born this way, etc. if they actually mean that doesn't that indicate we should attempt to eliminate the gene if we could? By their own words wouldn't that be the compassionate thing to do?

As for scanning for birth defects prior to birth and aborting due to the findings? Not for me. If the Mrs and I decided to have kids we certainly would not be aborting for any reason. Once you make the choice to have kids you can't decide to kill them because you don't like something about them. IMO.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:20 pm**

And this is why the abortion debate will continue.

You see it as a choice, I don't. Both sides can point to laws and court cases to help their argument.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:17 pm**

A Lying Sack of Shit wrote:Some (many, most?) people would say that is no problem, that was done in order to save the mother's life. But there are some who oppose even that, including politicians and churches.

Pure bullshit. Go fuck yourself, liar.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:10 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Sometimes it isn't a choice...

In the end, yes, it is a choice, and it is the mother's choice. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree, yes. But just because you feel or believe the way you do, doesn't make you right, nor does it allow you to define the terms of the discussion.

Despite your obvious double speak above, it is always a choice. It is how we define the word "choice" that is the issue. I am sure I would likely make the same choice you did if my wife was pregnant and it put her life at risk. However, I disagree that the decision is exclusively my wife's to make in that situation.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:21 pm**

Jsc810 wrote: The Republican party platform in 2012 adopted a position that was completely opposed to all abortion, with no exception for the health of the mother. John McCain tried to amend the party language to include exceptions for rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother, but his attempts failed due to opposition.

No mention of ectopic pregnancy.

Then there is Joe Walsh (R).

One dumbass who, evidently, has never even heard of an ectopic pregnancy.

Catholic Church opposes abortion for ectopic pregnancies: "Of the three commonly performed procedures for addressing ectopic pregnancies, two raise significant moral concerns while the third is morally acceptable."

The headline is a blatant lie and you are, evidently, too fucking stupid or too intellectually dishonest to actually read it. What part of the third method being morally acceptable are you struggling to comprehend?

Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church

Has fuck all to do with ectopic pregnancies. Good job proving my point once again, you lying shit bag.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:30 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Fine, it was an easy choice to terminate that pregnancy.

You phrase it how you want and I'll do the same. To me, "pro-life" is better phrased as "forced birth," which is repugnant.

While the flip side of that is "pro-murder."

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:47 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:mvscal quit being retarded. What part of no abortions even to save the life of the mother is confusing to you? That includes ectopic pregnancies.

The part where anything of the sort is actually said in the 2012 GOP Platform.

You are an intellectually lazy dumbfuck who relies on intellectually dishonest dumbfucks to inform your "opinion."

The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in
the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity
of human life and affirm that the unborn child
has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot
be infringed. We support a human life amendment
to the Constitution and endorse legislation to
make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
apply to unborn children. We oppose using
public revenues to promote or perform abortion or
fund organizations which perform or advocate it and
will not fund or subsidize health care which includes
abortion coverage. We support the appointment of
judges who respect traditional family values and the
sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual
withholding or withdrawal of care or
treatment, including food and water, from people
with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the
elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive
euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit
the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion
and permitted States to extend health care coverage
to children before birth. We urge Congress to
strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by
enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on
healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment
and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including
early induction delivery where the death of
the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban
sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its
most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn
children who are capable of feeling pain; and we
applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort
to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children
in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on
the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research.
We support and applaud adult stem cell research
to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose
the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose
federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
We also salute the many States that have passed
laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods
prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic
regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation
through a parental consent requirement;
and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather
than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned
pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with
counseling and adoption alternatives and empower
them to choose life, and we take comfort in the
tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed
Republican legislative initiatives

Posted: **Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:16 pm**

Shame? Wow, just wow. I'm just going to say that's fucked up and leave it at that.

T1B

Good question for libtard.

Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.

Re: Good question for libtard.