WND: Gays will abort Straight Babies!

WND warns of gays aborting straight babies. Leaving aside how hilariously stupid this is.....okay, hold on: It forgets the idea of gayness being a choice, it's basically a shameless attempt to invert the existing theory of people aborting "gay" fetuses (Which had a play made about it, adapted into a movie starring Brendan Frasier, and there's a doctor in Florida who apparently injects pregnant women with hormones to prevent nasty little lesbian babies....), and it seems to predict Marriage Equality in Indiana (And IVF treatment where this would be a choice!), it makes me wonder about that question of it being ethical to abort fetuses that are identified as ones going to grow up gay. Obviously, I think we have value to society and I think it would be a pretty deplorable reason to have an abortion, but obviously there's some question of hypocrisy there. Or there would be if I was definitely pro-choice, which, seeing as Abortion will not be legal here anytime soon, I've avoided deciding upon, just to avoid being dragged into topics about it. So, yeah.

So, worthy of discussion?

Dumbo

I'm not sure what there is to discuss. These are obviously paranoiac rantings—maybe instead of discussing abortion (again) or homosexuality, we should use this as a jumping-off point to discuss mental healthcare, or possibly drug abuse.

What I want to know is what sort of bizarre storm is going to be raised if people start aborting homosexuals.

Given that the pro-homosexuality deal is mostly associated with the left, and the pro-choice deal is mostly associated with the left, how will they reconcile the two?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

That's why I'm not too worried about it becoming an issue.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

...what? Oh god. Well that was a good laugh I had. Thank you sir for sharing this with us.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

If people otherwise opposed to abortion terminate pregnancies that would result in gay children, it would mean admitting two things.

Homosexuality is not a choice.

There are circumstances in which aborting a pregnancy is acceptable.

This would be something of an own goal.

As for reconciliation, all the "left" has to say is something like: "While we respect the the decisions of every individual in regards to their own bodies, you might want to reconsider this one, as it makes you look like total hypocrites."

So there is a "Gay Gene"?

♥♥II'GSJQGDvhhMKOmXunSrogZliLHGKVMhGVmNhBzGUPiXLYki'GRQhBITqQrrOIJKNWiXKO♥♥

Hell if I know.

Fish, isn't it generally accepted already that homosexuality isn't a choice?

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

It seems to be more related to hormone levels in the womb.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

At the moment, that's correlation rather than causation, and practicing de facto eugenics on that basis would be jumping the gun a wee tad.

You wouldn't get a lot of conservatives to admit that, even in this day and age.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:07:38 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

True.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

@Yej

Yes, but not by certain segments of the population.

As I mentioned above, there's at least one Doctor in Florida who's trying, I'll try and find the link.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:09:38 PM by occono

Dumbo

A hundred people will protest waving signs, six people will write angry letters to the ACLU/Congress/Amnesty International/whatever, a few million people will grumble angrily and polls will show between 25% and 50% opposition to the practice. Voting patterns will not change, nor will any notable public figures speak out in opposition, nor will anything of real consequence happen.

I'm pretty familiar with how the left seems to operate today....

I have devised a most marvelous signature, which this signature line is too narrow to contain.

After some thought, this presents a very interesting situation.

Pro-choice: Abortion is okay, always, unless you're doing it for de facto eugenics, in which case it's reprehensible... maybe, kinda. So, umm... don't take away our abortions, dude!

Pro-life: Abortion BAD. Gay BAD. Eugenics BAD. Aborting/modifying "gay fetuses" = ???

edited 24th Jan '11 1:27:46 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Supporting the right to abortion doesn't mean supporting the choice to abortion for homophobic reasons.

When people start identifying genetic causes for all sorts of things, it's going to cause a moral uproar about all sorts of things. Not just gays, but also Autistics and all sorts of other genetic aspects of birth diversity. Not having a baby because you're not prepared for it and don't want the toll of pregnancy on your body is one thing, selectively removing people from your pregnancy list because of what nose they'll have, what biological sex they'll be, what orientation they'll have, what personality type they'll fall into, are two very different ethical matters.

Considering it's so different, I don't see what's to or what's not to be reconciled here.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:37:56 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Question: What if you knew ahead of time that your baby would grow up homosexual, but would grow up in a violently homophobic neighborhood?

Move?

Dumbo

Dalaran force field around city, thought experiment designed to force you into an obvious dichotomy to test the boundaries of your beliefs, etc.

edited 24th Jan '11 1:57:39 PM by Pykrete

Except the things you mentioned (aside from biological sex) can't be decided through genetic testing, because genetic expression is only one part of the equation. The rest of it is caused by conditions in the womb, and early life experiences. Heck, hypothetically, if you could exactly control the environment in which you conceive, you could simulate the conditions which produce either male or female children. It's been hypothesized that the movement and chemical composition of amniotic fluid affects body features, and it' also fairly well known that hormonal changes in the womb can affect things like gender preference, gender identity, and basic personality, which are then later built on and modified by life experience as the child grows.

For example, myself. As a child, I was quite outgoing and strong willed. After about fifteen years of physical and mental abuse by my step-father, I'm now really shy, and a lot more likely to back down or run away from confrontations of any sort.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

@Pkyrete: Unless I myself were violently homophobic (for the sake of this experiment I presume I'm not), I would have the child anyway. Much can change in the years that it would take for his/her orientation to become apparent.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Then I'd be more concerned with overthrowing the city than making children.

Simply put, if I'm living in a situation where I simply can't do anything but choose between safety and having my children have the ability to be born the way they are in safety, then I'm not interested in having children and this is no time to be having them.

The boundary of belief ends with me not having children in such a society. Not with compliance to not having gay children. Sorry, but I'll Take a Third Option, and take arms against the state at that point. There's no reason for me find a reason that there's a "boundary" that it becomes okay to not be able to have gay children.

edited 24th Jan '11 3:05:09 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Can't we all agree they are fucking nuts and move on with our lives? There is too many crazy people in all spectrums to bother looking through each one.

edited 24th Jan '11 2:55:54 PM by saladofstones

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

Well, the topic is actually not about them, they just made me think about the issue they're trying to invert for their purposes.

But it's named after their post, so yeah, fail.

edited 24th Jan '11 3:18:41 PM by occono

Dumbo