Sure, I’ll bite!
And I’ll go further–selection by sex trivializes life. And the article is right, if you can start choosing the sex, then it’s not a stretch to start selecting eye color, height, and so on. Designer babies! Maybe it will come to that, but to me in 2020 it seems like bad science fiction.
Oh, but I think it most certainly is a “gotcha”.
Them being against it would force them to acknowledge that there is actually a person being murdered.
Or it could force them to admit that female lives matter more to them than male lives.HomeschoolDad:
Them being against it would force them to acknowledge that there is actually a person being murdered.
This would then be about whether sexism against girls and boys are equally bad, not about abortion, though. Which would be out of topic.
And this was often never the case. They didn’t view the fetus as a life. To them it is about the mentality of preferring a son over a daughter, or a daughter over a son and how that mindset is flawed.
The self victimisation on both ends is annoying, tbh, as well as not relevant here with all due respect.
I’m nobody’s victim. I am just stating a well-known fact in today’s society. Put another way, who else is it acceptable to hate? Imagine the horror that would be elicited by T-shirts or bumper stickers that said “The Future Is Male”, “Boys Rule”, “The Best Man For The Job Is a Man”, “Girls Lie”, and so on. And while, yes, taking the thread in this direction threatens to veer off-topic, and “off-topic” is discouraged in these forums, I think it most certainly is relevant to thrust it in the Democrats’ face, as to whether it is “worse” to selectively abort one sex rather than the other. Maybe they’d say it’s equally justified — but I think it would be interesting to see their reaction, and to listen to them try to justify sex selection.
See above.HomeschoolDad:
This would then be about whether sexism against girls and boys are equally bad, not about abortion, though. Which would be out of topic.
But even by their reasoning, in nine months or less, it will be a life, and if they prefer having a boy to having a girl, it gives them something to explain.HomeschoolDad:
And this was often never the case. They didn’t view the fetus as a life. To them it is about the mentality of preferring a son over a daughter, or a daughter over a son and how that mindset is flawed.
Again, your question would be out of point. When talking to someone, figure out what you’re trying to make them realise. Are you trying to explain the inconsistency of the pro choice belief, or the double standards of sexism? You can’t do both effectively, because you will get a very messy conversation. Which this is already lol.
Are we assuming that this gay litmus test is legal in the first place? With no issue whatsoever?
This explains a lot.
You make some good points and I thank you for that, but I think there is something to be said for getting the other side shook up, throw some “hash” at them that forces them to dismantle other aspects of their preciously-held worldview, get them rattled, and make them lose their equilibrium. This would be in the spirit of Saul Alinsky, to be sure, but not all of the tricks in his tool kit are immoral in and of themselves. Not to be too melodramatic, but we are at war against the forces of evil, we are not in a college Forensics 101 class, and psychological warfare and demoralization of the enemy are legitimate tactics that have been used in wars from the beginning of time.It would make an interesting question for someone with little conviction, sure, but it’s not a gotcha. Or at least in the way you might be implying (that the pro-life position is the right one)…
This already happens to the disabled and women aborting disabled fetuses, and we don’t see this drama even though everyone is against ableism.
You won’t catch a democrat rethinking their pro choice stance from this scenario. Unless, like I said, they were already “personally pro life”.
HomeschoolDad:
Again, your question would be out of point. When talking to someone, figure out what you’re trying to make them realise. Are you trying to explain the inconsistency of the pro choice belief, or the double standards of sexism? You can’t do both effectively, because you will get a very messy conversation. Which this is already lol… You bring this up and all you get in return is someone explaining why sexism against girls is more severe and how sex selection perpetuates such beliefs. They wouldn’t even have to touch on the morality or legality of abortion. They will just have to explain the double standards of sexism and you are forced to address such points before bringing it back to abortion. Waste of time imo, because if talking about sexism is what you’re after, you might as well have the conversation to be about that only in the first place.
Are we assuming that this gay litmus test is legal in the first place? With no issue whatsoever?
I can picture both camps (pro lifers and choicers) being against such testing in the first place, especially since it won’t ever be necessary to find out if your fetus would be gay at that point of time. Such a test would be a whole other topic as Biden or Harris can easily say that they support the freedom to choose, but they’re against such testing as the tests promote a culture of homophobia.
It’ll be better if you stick to testing that already exists which would be sex or disability.
Fixed that for you.