Hypothetical question, for your consideration.

[Hapless]

This occurred to me awhile back, and I just remembered it.

Assume that the belief that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition is valid and proven.

Assume scientists discover the actual gene responsible for this.

Assume that pre-natal testing advances to a point where it is possible to determine whether or not a fetus is predisposed toward homosexuality.


Assume that, all else being equal, the majority of liberals are pro-choice and pro-homosexual and that the vast majority of homosexuals are liberal.

Assume that, all else being equal, the majority of conservatives are anti-gay and pro-life.

With the above conditions in mind, how long do you think it would take for liberals to become pro-life and conservatives to become pro-choice if women starting aborting pregnancies because pre-natal testing showed the fetus was pre-disposed toward homosexuality?

Nothing in this post should be construed as drawing from or having bearing on real events or people. This is just an interesting question, and I'd like to hear what people have to say.

 

[Link]

The question is, are the conservitives more pro-life than they are anti-gay or vice versa?

 

[Bodacious]

This needs to be simplified. I have seen this discussion elsewerhe.

The question is:

If your wife, gf, one of your hoes, whatever, was pregnant and it was discovered that the baby was predispositioned to be homosexual because of a hypothetical "gay" gene would you support the abortion of this child on the grounds that she did not want to raise a gay child?

 

[Hapless]

Hmm, never seen it before. I do believe, however, that one's political beliefs regarding the abortion issue and the gay issue are important to the discussion.

 

[Bodacious]

I saw it on a differnt forum, not here.

 

[RZAL]

Ouch! Good question.

The liberals would see it as genocide and push for legislation against it, while continuing to support pro-choice: Their argument would be Genocide is not the same issue as Pro-choice. Mothers have the right to choose but their decisions cannot be based on race, sex, etc,

The conservatives would view it as a medical disorder and add it to the exemption list.

 

[Hapless]

Ouch! Good question.

The liberals would see it as genocide and push for legislation against it, while continuing to support pro-choice: Their argument would be Genocide is not the same issue as Pro-choice. Mothers have the right to choose but their decisions cannot be based on race, sex, etc,

The conservatives would view it as a medical disorder and add it to the exemption list.

But isn't it the woman's choice whether she wants to raise a gay child or not? Isn't the woman's choice the most important issue here? And how can it be genocide if the fetus is not a human being? How can Conservatives exempt one "medical disorder," and not all medical disorders?

 

[Link]

No, it is the parents choise. I am sick and tired of men getting ignored when it comes to the rights of parents. Yes, they have to carry the child and go through labour, but that dosen't actually entitle them to more rights than the man.

I know you probably meant that, but I feel so strongly about that one, I'm using it as a platform...

 

[burner69]

Thought I'd barge in here and say - we're born bisexual, and through society we become gay/straight, whatever.

But if we could identify if babies would be gay, I think it's rediculous to suggest people could legally terminate their baby on the grounds that it's homosexual. That's one step towards saying that homosexuals don't have the right to live... well... it's starting it.

But good question.

 

[Hapless]

Thought I'd barge in here and say - we're born bisexual, and through society we become gay/straight, whatever.

But if we could identify if babies would be gay, I think it's rediculous to suggest people could legally terminate their baby on the grounds that it's homosexual. That's one step towards saying that homosexuals don't have the right to live... well... it's starting it.

But good question.

Ok, so would you normally otherwise support a woman's right to choose? And what gives you the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body?

 

[Link]

Burner69 - Up untill the cutoff point, you can abort your baby because you are worried that its hair might be the wrong colour. You don't need a reason, it is your right to have it done.

 

[RZAL]

But isn't it the woman's choice whether she wants to raise a gay child or not? Isn't the woman's choice the most important issue here? And how can it be genocide if the fetus is not a human being? How can Conservatives exempt one "medical disorder," and not all medical disorders?

Ask a hypothetical question and you'll get a hypothetical answer.

Its a good question, kinda like "if god can do anything can he make a rock so big that he can't pick up". I can't answer your question, to many Variables and unknowns I can only speculate. Best guess is both sides would rationalize their own defense.

 

[RZAL]

No, it is the parents choise. I am sick and tired of men getting ignored when it comes to the rights of parents. Yes, they have to carry the child and go through labour, but that dosen't actually entitle them to more rights than the man.

I know you probably meant that, but I feel so strongly about that one, I'm using it as a platform...

Hey Link I agree with you.. fathers don't have any rights but look on the bright side if your a farther in a homosexual relationship abortion shouldn’t be an issue. The whole ideal rather simplifies the process.

 

[Pericolos0]

tbh i wouldnt care raising a gay kid

 

[Hapless]

tbh i would care raising a gay kid

Care to clarify that?

 

[Pericolos0]

wups, i meant to type wouldnt lol

 

[burner69]

Ok, so would you normally otherwise support a woman's right to choose? And what gives you the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body?

If she had reason to abort the child for financial reasons, ethical reasons (say she was raped and got pregnant), or just didn't want a child.

I'd object to her aborting her gay baby, purely because it was gay. If she tried for another baby right after I'd honestly think she was quite evil.

But if we are presuming homosexuality is identifiable in genes, and so there's no getting out of being gay or not, what's the point in telling someone if their baby will be gay or not?
If they want a straight baby they'll either have to kill it and start again, or force anti-homosexual ideals into their childs head to cover their subconscious drives - which would f**k them up good by the way.

New science should be done to help people. Identify at an early stage whether or not a child will be born with a debilitating disease that will mean it cannot live properly. I'm not talking about Downs syndrome, or things like that, I know of many people with such illnesses that do just fine. But serious mental problems, that prevent a child from ever forming the ability to understand its surroundings and requires 24/7 care. Identify those problems and give the woman the choice to abort. DON'T identify aspects of their child that will in no way affect their lives unless mama decides to flush them because they'll grow up to be gay, or have ginger hair, or become computer nerds.
Personality, appearence, or sexual desire should not be a factor when deciding whether or not to abort the child.

So my answer - if we could identify homosexuality in unborn babies, don't allow the parents to know this information - and let nature run its course as it has done for thousands, nay, millions of years.

 

[Hapless]

If she had reason to abort the child for financial reasons, ethical reasons (say she was raped and got pregnant), or just didn't want a child.

I'd object to her aborting her gay baby, purely because it was gay. If she tried for another baby right after I'd honestly think she was quite evil.

But if we are presuming homosexuality is identifiable in genes, and so there's no getting out of being gay or not, what's the point in telling someone if their baby will be gay or not?
If they want a straight baby they'll either have to kill it and start again, or force anti-homosexual ideals into their childs head to cover their subconscious drives - which would f**k them up good by the way.

New science should be done to help people. Identify at an early stage whether or not a child will be born with a debilitating disease that will mean it cannot live properly. I'm not talking about Downs syndrome, or things like that, I know of many people with such illnesses that do just fine. But serious mental problems, that prevent a child from ever forming the ability to understand its surroundings and requires 24/7 care. Identify those problems and give the woman the choice to abort. DON'T identify aspects of their child that will in no way affect their lives unless mama decides to flush them because they'll grow up to be gay, or have ginger hair, or become computer nerds.
Personality, appearence, or sexual desire should not be a factor when deciding whether or not to abort the child.

So my answer - if we could identify homosexuality in unborn babies, don't allow the parents to know this information - and let nature run its course as it has done for thousands, nay, millions of years.

So I ask you, are you pro-life or pro-choice?

 

[burner69]

So I ask you, are you pro-life or pro-choice?

Sometimes I'm pro life, sometimes pro-choice. If I had to polarise myself into one category, I'd be pro-life. But as you can see, I agree that abortion is perfectly acceptable in many circumstances. Just not when it's about a baby's sexuality.

 

[Hapless]

Sometimes I'm pro life, sometimes pro-choice. If I had to polarise myself into one category, I'd be pro-life. But as you can see, I agree that abortion is perfectly acceptable in many circumstances. Just not when it's about a baby's sexuality.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Gray Fox]

The liberals would be pro-life, if the abortion happend before a certain time, just like now. I mean if women can abort now becasue of financial reasons, or just because they don't want a baby, why would the liberals be against it. And what the conservatives would be I don't know, rightwing tend to have no problem beeing hypocrits, but I still think they would be pro-life, and just accept the gay child.

 

[Hapless]

The liberals would be pro-life, if the abortion happend before a certain time, just like now. I mean if women can abort now becasue of financial reasons, or just because they don't want a baby, why would the liberals be against it. And what the conservatives would be I don't know, rightwing tend to have no problem beeing hypocrits, but I still think they would be pro-life, and just accept the gay child.

So your opinion is that the status quo would remain, for the most part? Starting to get a little bit of a range of answers....

 

[Death.Trap]

Wouldn't happen, abortion is wrong no matter the circumstances. NO ONE should be deprived the right to live. Predisposed to homosexual tendencies or not.

 

[dlandis72]

Most conservatives, myself included, consider abortion to be murder. Very few conservatives think that it's ok to murder homosexuals. Therefore, I believe that the conservative parents would be likely to have the child and try to raise the child as straight.

Just to put this in perspective, most conservatives use the Bible and God's law as their reason for opposing homosexuality. The Bible says nothing about having a homosexual predisposition or tendency. It only says that one should not have sex with somebody of the same gender. This means that a child born with a homosexual tendency is not in any wrong, even from a Christian perspective. Somebody explained it like this once: I might have been born with the tendency to lie in order to get what I want, but that doesn't mean I have to do it. Likewise, a homosexual can choose whether he or she wants to accept their tendencies or work to go against their tendencies.

Just my two cents...

 

[Kommie]

Of course things will remain the same, If people can sue and win because they didn't want to have mentally retarded children and the doctor said that it would be "normal" so they did not have an abortion. people will have abortions because of homosexual tendencies.

 

[burner69]

Most conservatives, myself included, consider abortion to be murder. Very few conservatives think that it's ok to murder homosexuals. Therefore, I believe that the conservative parents would be likely to have the child and try to raise the child as straight.

Just to put this in perspective, most conservatives use the Bible and God's law as their reason for opposing homosexuality. The Bible says nothing about having a homosexual predisposition or tendency. It only says that one should not have sex with somebody of the same gender. This means that a child born with a homosexual tendency is not in any wrong, even from a Christian perspective. Somebody explained it like this once: I might have been born with the tendency to lie in order to get what I want, but that doesn't mean I have to do it. Likewise, a homosexual can choose whether he or she wants to accept their tendencies or work to go against their tendencies.

Just my two cents...

Quick question; do you think homosexuals should repress their urges then, and act heterosexual?

 

[bliink]

jeez... you think I would want, for one second, to abort a kid because he/she was gay??
How pitiful, thats basically terminating a life because they're gay of all things..
Not only is that blatantly homophobic, but its just cold.

 

[Hapless]

jeez... you think I would want, for one second, to abort a kid because he/she was gay??
How pitiful, thats basically terminating a life because they're gay of all things..
Not only is that blatantly homophobic, but its just cold.

So....are you pro-choice or pro-life? When homosexuality isn't involved, I mean.