Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
The above is out of character with your usual rational debate. You are, here, quite twisting what Rumpole has said.
The above is out of character with your usual rational debate. You are, here, quite twisting what Rumpole has said.So if there was a test that could be used to determine a babies sexuality, you would be in favor of using it so that heterosexuals don't adopt gay children?
The above is out of character with your usual rational debate. You are, here, quite twisting what Rumpole has said.
So if there was a test that could be used to determine a babies sexuality, you would be in favor of using it so that heterosexuals don't adopt gay children?
Such a situation is extremely rare compared with the number of adult males who assault children of both genders.
I think the whole surrogacy issue needs to be clamped down on. There have already been too many examples of males using vulnerable, poverty-stricken females as surrogates to provide them with children whose future will be uncertain at best.
Yes, female sexual predators are rare, by far the most common sexual predators are straight males.
Interesting question. .
.Would you be in favour of a mother having an abortion if that test indicated her baby would be gay ? Most parents want grandchildren of their own offspring so I suggest that such a test would be used to filter gays out of the population if it was available
All else being equal, I think that a loving family with a father and mother provides the best environment for raising children
True, but there have been a number of cases of mothers pimping their children in prostitution rings, which amounts to child abuse.
So with the evidence suggesting that both males and females are capable of sexual child abuse, and by far most sexual assaults are conducted by straight males, what reason (other than bigotry) do we have for trying to disqualify gay men and women based on the charge of sexual assault risk?
Very little, but as I said, all the other factors like role models, balanced male/female outlooks add up to heterosexuals providing a more complete environment for children in the normal course of events.
.
I have a few cousins who were raised by single parents, and they turned out fine,
.
Single parenthood is a less than ideal arrangement, brought about by unforeseen and unwanted circumstances, and it can't be compared to a planned arrangement like adoption.
No, there are many cases where single parenthood is planned.
There is even cases of single mothers having ivf, and i would have to research it but i am sure i have heard of single women adopting.
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q_YpxX1swas[/video]
Just because things have been done doesn't mean they should be done. The IVF and surrogacy trade is all about making money. The welfare of the children doesn't enter into it.
lol, there is no actual club, It was just a figure of speech, I was just pointing out from what your saying, you seem to be an "agnostic Atheist", because you said you don't believe in a god (so that's atheism) but also said you don't know if one exists ( which is agnosticism), which makes you an agnostic atheist.
So you don't agree with Ivf either?
So you don't agree with Ivf either?
No, as I said it's a commercial process in which the rights of children, specifically the rights to know and be raised by their biological parents, are deprecated.
To an extent, religious bigotry against gays is on topic here. Otherwise perhaps this particular spat should be carried on elsewhere.
The religious love to hold onto the notion that the "traditional" family (husband/wife) is best for children but do so for religious reasons and not because it's always best for the children's welfare. They abhor any deviation from their imaginary God's perfect order for the family unit and indoctrinate their children with this prejudice. Society has generally moved on from such dogma but the religious continue their campaign for religious based traditions based on the mythology scribed in iron-age scrolls. After all, only a sky God of some description knows best how humans should interact with one another or has the authority to determine this right?
Yet you post drivel about "radical" atheists and their imaginated oppression of religion and religious freedom. My argument was against religious dogma in general with respect to the traditional family unit.The problem with your argument is that I'm not religious.
I kindly remind you again that the IVF/surrogacy debate is clearly off topic here, either create a new thread or stay on topic please.I don't like the fact that some people born of ivf or surrogacy have to search for years to find their biological parents (if they ever do), get their medical history and determine their lineage. These are things you and I take for granted but for children of IVF and surrogacy they have no such rights, and I ask you what right do you have to deny them these things ? As for bigotry against gays, the points above apply to both gay and heterosexual people who have children by those methods. All your talk about "sky gods" is so much piffle which is irrelevant to this debate.
Yet you post drivel about "radical" atheists and their imaginated oppression of religion and religious freedom. My argument was against religious dogma in general with respect to the traditional family unit.
I kindly remind you again that the IVF/surrogacy debate is clearly off topic here, either create a new thread or stay on topic please.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?