HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Abortions motivated by a ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:52 AM

Abortions motivated by a fetus's perceived homosexuality.

I found it interesting that many DU posters seemed okay with the idea that it shouldn't be the business of the government if a woman or family chooses to have an abortion because of the fetus's gender.

So, I want to propose a different hypothetical- what if the fetus's was perceived to be, or thought to be proven, to be gay?

178 replies, 8828 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 178 replies Author Time Post
Reply Abortions motivated by a fetus's perceived homosexuality. (Original post)
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 OP
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #1
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #5
dsc Jan 2013 #14
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #31
dsc Jan 2013 #43
EOTE Jan 2013 #121
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #154
Smarmie Doofus Jan 2013 #65
CreekDog Jan 2013 #93
DetlefK Jan 2013 #105
dsc Jan 2013 #129
DetlefK Jan 2013 #136
RobinA Jan 2013 #139
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2013 #140
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #156
bettyellen Jan 2013 #159
dsc Jan 2013 #160
liberal_at_heart Jan 2013 #177
snooper2 Jan 2013 #126
Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #130
dsc Jan 2013 #137
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #15
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #24
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #32
morningfog Jan 2013 #33
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #41
morningfog Jan 2013 #48
Warpy Jan 2013 #69
aquart Jan 2013 #108
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #166
MADem Jan 2013 #2
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #3
MADem Jan 2013 #6
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #21
MADem Jan 2013 #38
EOTE Jan 2013 #122
RudynJack Jan 2013 #18
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #23
morningfog Jan 2013 #34
MADem Jan 2013 #35
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #44
MADem Jan 2013 #66
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #68
MADem Jan 2013 #72
EOTE Jan 2013 #123
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #119
MADem Jan 2013 #127
RudynJack Jan 2013 #42
Aerows Jan 2013 #74
Mdterp01 Jan 2013 #98
michigandem58 Jan 2013 #134
dsc Jan 2013 #161
Chan790 Jan 2013 #158
SheilaT Jan 2013 #4
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #8
SheilaT Jan 2013 #133
MADem Jan 2013 #25
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #30
MADem Jan 2013 #49
bluestateguy Jan 2013 #7
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #10
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #12
morningfog Jan 2013 #20
RudynJack Jan 2013 #46
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #59
MADem Jan 2013 #96
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #120
bluestateguy Jan 2013 #143
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #9
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #11
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #19
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #22
morningfog Jan 2013 #28
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #36
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #39
Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #56
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #62
Aerows Jan 2013 #84
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #170
Texasgal Jan 2013 #175
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #169
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #37
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #45
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #168
MADem Jan 2013 #29
morningfog Jan 2013 #13
ismnotwasm Jan 2013 #16
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #26
Occulus Jan 2013 #57
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #64
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #71
ismnotwasm Jan 2013 #89
peacebird Jan 2013 #106
RobinA Jan 2013 #141
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #17
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #27
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #40
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #47
morningfog Jan 2013 #51
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #53
morningfog Jan 2013 #54
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #171
Aerows Jan 2013 #78
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #172
blogslut Jan 2013 #50
morningfog Jan 2013 #52
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #55
morningfog Jan 2013 #60
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #61
blogslut Jan 2013 #58
MADem Jan 2013 #67
ancianita Jan 2013 #94
Smarmie Doofus Jan 2013 #63
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #70
MADem Jan 2013 #75
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #85
MADem Jan 2013 #91
DonViejo Jan 2013 #153
Aerows Jan 2013 #87
MADem Jan 2013 #95
gkhouston Jan 2013 #124
Aerows Jan 2013 #73
Heather MC Jan 2013 #76
Aerows Jan 2013 #81
Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #77
REP Jan 2013 #102
Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #107
REP Jan 2013 #109
Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #112
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #79
Behind the Aegis Jan 2013 #86
Jenoch Jan 2013 #80
TDale313 Jan 2013 #92
LittleBlue Jan 2013 #82
Hugabear Jan 2013 #83
TDale313 Jan 2013 #88
Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #90
sarge43 Jan 2013 #113
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #97
Quantess Jan 2013 #150
Old and In the Way Jan 2013 #163
David__77 Jan 2013 #99
BlueCheese Jan 2013 #100
Riftaxe Jan 2013 #101
MichaelHarris Jan 2013 #103
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #104
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #110
cali Jan 2013 #115
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #111
diphthong Jan 2013 #114
gollygee Jan 2013 #116
Warren Stupidity Jan 2013 #117
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #118
Capt. Obvious Jan 2013 #125
Recursion Jan 2013 #128
slackmaster Jan 2013 #131
AngryAmish Jan 2013 #132
Maeve Jan 2013 #135
galileoreloaded Jan 2013 #138
cecilfirefox Jan 2013 #155
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #142
CreekDog Jan 2013 #144
NCTraveler Jan 2013 #145
yellowcanine Jan 2013 #146
cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #147
idwiyo Jan 2013 #148
barbtries Jan 2013 #149
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #151
benld74 Jan 2013 #152
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #173
notadmblnd Jan 2013 #157
joshcryer Jan 2013 #162
Texasgal Jan 2013 #164
Tien1985 Jan 2013 #165
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #167
Arkana Jan 2013 #174
Old and In the Way Jan 2013 #176
JTFrog Jan 2013 #178

Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:54 AM

1. This may bring accusations of trolling- but I'm genuinely curious what the response to this

will be as opposed to the one about gender.

As a gay person this is actually something in the back of my mind- what if this becomes a reality??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:57 AM

5. Why is sexual orientation any different than gender?

I'm not sure why you feel certain groups should get a veto on a woman's right to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:02 AM

14. because gay people will cease to exist if this happens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:08 AM

31. And you know this how?

I would imagine that there would be a "market" for gay babies among gay couples looking to adopt..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:13 AM

43. under those circumstances maybe

but frankly currently I think most gays don't care one way or the other if their kid is gay or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:43 AM

121. I think the great bulk of heterosexual parents feel the same way.

Of course there will be exceptions, but I, as well as everyone that I know who has children wouldn't ever let the sexual orientation of the child influence our decision to keep him/her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #121)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:40 PM

154. I think the only heterosexual parents who would give a damn and WANT to abort

a gay-destined fetus would be certain religious fanatic couples who would either NEVER opt for abortion anyway, or who we wouldn't want a gay child to be tortured by growing up in their home so abortion would be preferable.

So there really isn't an actual PROBLEM here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:28 AM

65. Interesting. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:14 AM

93. you aren't pro choice anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:07 AM

105. Homosexuality is a side-effect of genes that increase fertility.

And these genes should have spread through the whole homo sapiens sapiens population by now, simply as a matter of "survival of the fittest". (I read about an isolated tribe, a few months ago, that had never even heard of homosexuality.)

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.short
A statistical proof that male homosexuality is genetically inherited and is related to increased fertility in female family-members.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051107001433
A statistical proof: About a third of men and two thirds of women are somewhat bisexual and most likely the cause for homosexuality is genetic.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231
Sexual orientation is determined before birth, depending on which hormones the developing brain of the fetus is subjected to.
Quote (page 8): "Prenatal nicotine exposure has masculinizing/defeminizing effects on sexual orientation of female offspring and increases the probability of lesbianism."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #105)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:24 AM

129. just look at what happened to down syndrome

It has all but disappeared. It is irrelevant what causes it for this scenario provided there is a test that can be given before birth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:52 AM

136. Genetic proliferation depends on the social feedback.

Humans are shallow. If someone is pretty on the outside, then he must have good genes, which means, you really should have sex with that person.

Down-syndrome changes the phenotypical appearance in a way that moves an individual farther away from the parameter-set that defines beauty. Therefore, people with down-syndrome are less likely to procreate.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not visible by the mere eye.
Even if the male embryo inherits the appropriate genes from the mother, he will not automatically turn out gay. (Otherwise every son of a particular mother would have to be gay.) This means, there are men and women out there, who carry the genes but aren't homosexual.
(For female embryos: From what I have read so far, lesbianism isn't genetic but determined by the chemicals that influence the embryo in utero during the brain-formation-stage.)

My point is, that the homosexual genes were advantageous and undetectable in the past, so they must have spread far and wide.
When they become detectable in the future, getting rid of them could only be achieved by keeping a sizable (or maybe even overwhelming) part of the population from having children at all.
And even if a society attempts to go there, all of the lacking population would have to be born by mothers which lack the fertility-bonus of the homosexual genes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:56 AM

139. You Are Equating

gay with Down syndrome??? This heterosexual would not abort for gender or sexuality. Down syndrome would be an issue. However, thought policing should not inform abortion legality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

140. Down's has all but disappeared? I never heard that. Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #140)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:42 PM

156. The syndrome is alive and well. But most Downs babies are probably aborted.

It will never die out. It naturally occurs in aging eggs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:11 PM

159. um, NO. why do people make up shit and state it emphatically?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #159)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:43 PM

160. Um yes sorry but before you accuse people of making shit up you might

just might, want to do a simple google search. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/down-syndrome-births-drop-us-women-abort/story?id=8960803

"An estimated 92 percent of all women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies, according to research reviewed by Dr. Brian Skotko, a pediatric geneticist at Children's Hospital Boston.

Birthing trends worldwide show that women are waiting longer to have children and advanced maternal age is associated with increased risk of having a child with Down syndrome.

The number of Down Syndrome cases is declining enough in the United States to raise concerns that research funding to study the congenital condition will dry up. There's also worry that more people will deny themselves what some call the "gift" of raising children with Down syndrome.

The words you're looking for is sorry I lied about you I should have actually, God forbid, have looked before I typed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #129)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:15 PM

177. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing people pregnant with a down syndrome baby

abort because they know that child will be dependent on someone else to care for them for the rest of their lives. The dependent child is very likely to out live their parents and will still need someone to care for them. And we as a society don't care for our sick and disabled anymore. I have an autistic child and I am scared to death about whether or not he will have everthing he needs in life after I and my husband are gone. If the republicans have their way there won't be any social programs for the disabled in the future, a very anti pro life policy. They care for the fetus. They just don't care about the child once it is born. As far as someone aborting because they fear their baby would be gay I very seriously doubt it. And if they did wouldn't they themselves be committing a sin that would send them to hell forever according to their own beliefs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:29 AM

126. I literally LOL when I read your post

LOL...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:33 AM

130. No No

People just aren't so petty.

Also, there is no test and it is pretty clear there never will be - if identical twins quite often differ in sexual orientation, it is not a fixed genetic thing that we could ever test for (like Downs Syndrome). See the Swedish all-twin study:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9386-1

But even if there ever were such a test, I don't think people would abort most those children.

Quite a few people know that their children have Downs Syndrome, but don't abort the baby. Downs kids have always seemed to me to be able to live very happy lives. As a parent, that is what would make the difference for me.

I don't think most people perceive having a same-sex orientation as being a characteristic that dooms a person to a tragic, tortured life, so I think you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #130)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:53 AM

137. 1 in 4 gay kids get kicked out when they tell their parents they are gay

and that is after they have lived with those parents for a long enough time to tell them they are gay. You seriously think that given those numbers abortion of gay kids wouldn't be a huge problem. as to you other point, that is a fairer one but the OP presumed it had been neutralized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:02 AM

15. Because it's a deliberate attempt to stamp out a people, a specific group, and it's likely grounded

in prejudice. I just am flabbergasted that folks don't have an issue with this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

24. How is this in any way true?

Are you implying that women will be forced to abort a suspected "gay" fetus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:08 AM

32. No, it's quite plain what I'm asking- if a person has an abortion motivated

by possible sexual orientation of the fetus do you think there is an issue there? I suspect we all, as liberals believing in equality, would find a moral issue, but what about a state saying " No, that's not okay. The right to an abortion ends at that point. "

I'm really just trying to have a discussion, I swear. :/ People get feisty if you try to have any rational discourse over this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:08 AM

33. It is twisted logic. They apparently think that if a "gay gene" were discovered,

women would get tested for it and then abort as a routine practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:12 AM

41. Do you actually think the evangelical's in the van with kids wouldn't do it?? I'm saying it would be

widespread- but we are actually in some aspects creeping closer to potentially being able to produce something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:14 AM

48. How would you even know why someone is seeking an abortion?

How would you be the arbiter of what abortions are sanctioned? It is pro-choice, or it is not.

I don't think it would be widespread. I don't think the evangelical's in the van would do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:32 AM

69. It's not going to be widespread and it's also not going to work.

You have to trust women and their doctors to make the appropriate health care decisions.

Not your body. Not your risk. Not your decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:27 AM

108. Maybe because nobody is doing it?

I assume you think this idiotic waste of time is funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:01 PM

166. No one has a right to force a woman to have a child

And, as is quite obvious, I'm gay.

One can find something loathsome, but still respect the legal right of someone doing that thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:56 AM

2. Abortion is between a woman and her doctor. It's Not Our Business. Even if her "reasons" are

lousy ones...or there's no "reason" at all.

Not.

Our.

Business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:56 AM

3. Wow. O_O

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:57 AM

6. Try reading the Roe v. Wade decision, sometime, there, sparky. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:03 AM

21. * Eye roll. *

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:10 AM

38. You got that right.

I think most of us here have your number, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:46 AM

122. You could try to add something substantive to the discussion

By you having to resort to stupid emoticons and snark shows that you've conceded the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:03 AM

18. Why a "wow"?

Women currently have abortions for good reasons, bad reasons, perhaps no reason. We don't get involved.

It's a woman's decision. Starting down the road of guessing her motives will lead to a morass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

23. Because, as a gay person it sends chills down my spine.

You folks probably can't understand that, unless you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:09 AM

34. Are you a male?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:09 AM

35. Don't you presume the worst? Why ever would you do such a thing?

There are plenty of people in this world, believe it or not, who don't regard "gay" as a negative.

You should get out more, maybe you'll meet some of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:13 AM

44. Okay, really? Try to have an honest discussion with someone

without baiting them, and telling them their sleazy, and that they need to 'get out more'- I get out plenty and I'm surrounded by loving people.

Really MADem? Try not to be mean to people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:28 AM

66. You are not having an honest discussion, and you and I know this.

You are rolling out an anti-choice canard, very similar to the one I just heard--moments ago-- Rush Limbaugh babble on about on a clip on Lawrence O'Donnell's program.

If you were "surrounded by loving people," you surely wouldn't have the world view that so many "loving people" would contemplate aborting a fetus SOLELY based on their gender or their orientation-which-cannot-be-determined-by-a-test, assuming they were inclined to welcome a child into their lives. The fact that you do think these things--gender and orientation--somehow MATTER, and are perceived as NEGATIVES, makes me question your agenda in posing this divisive scenario.

I'm not being mean. I'm being BLUNT. You're behaving badly here. You'd be better off putting the question to the GOP--they're the ones with the "Right to Life" plank in their platform. Go poll them and get back to us.

Democrats are pro-CHOICE, it's in our party platform....and if the choice is not yours, or mine, it's NOT OUR BUSINESS.

That's all you need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:31 AM

68. I wouldn't even read your diatribe- I know damn well what my intentions are and are not,

and I don't need a person on a computer in gods no where to tell me otherwise.

Think I'm blocking you at this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:37 AM

72. Fine. Proudly refuse elucidation. It speaks to your lack of willingness to honestly engage on

the topic.

You see what kind of reception your bright idea is getting--it ain't going over like you hoped. Damn few cheerleaders for your thesis, and I'll bet you thought you'd do better.

Democrats and progressives do tend to be consistent, particularly when it comes to that hard-won battle for women's choice. It's not your business. It never will be your business.

Enjoy your time here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:48 AM

123. Doesn't surprise me. Not reading seems to be your specialty

You might want to try it sometime, you might learn something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:40 AM

119. Your op is troll flame bait. You are not having an honest discussion

Your hypothetical is absurd. It is just nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #119)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:18 AM

127. It's a hypothetical that Rush Limbaugh has been honing for ten years, to try to divide the liberal

community. Textbook presentation, too. It's a "gay rights...or abortion rights? Which will YOU choose?" false dichotomy.

A quick google of "Rush Limbaugh, gay gene, abortion" will give you a plethora of examples dating back across the last decade.

Not even subtle.

I was born at night, but not last night!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:12 AM

42. I am gay

I would hope society would discourage such abortions, but I'd adamantly oppose any laws or regulations that infringe on a woman's right to choose. We already have enough people trying to do just that, and it infuriates me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:41 AM

74. I'm gay

And it isn't any of my damn business if a woman gets an abortion any more than it is my business who someone else sleeps with as long as it is consensual. Tending to other people's business causes more problems than anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #74)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:01 AM

98. Co-sign

 

Speak on it. Im gay and feel the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:46 AM

134. Homophobes are generally anti-abortion as well

 

So my guess is you wouldn't see this scenario a lot, even if it could be identified in the womb.

End of the day, her business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Reply #134)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:45 PM

161. I wouldn't count on the moral consistancy of abortion opponents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:08 PM

158. That's my feelings too.

I've known a few women who have had abortions for lousy reasons. It's still not my business; it might be grotesque but it has nothing to do with me. If they ask me my opinion, I'm going to tell them that I think their reasons for having an abortion are awful...but I'd still defend their right to have an abortion for any idiotic reason or no reason at-all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:57 AM

4. I know I cannot speak for anyone, but for me

that would not be a reason for an abortion.

My oldest son (now 30) has alopecia areata. It's an auto-immune disorder that causes hair loss. Shortly after he lost all of his hair at the age of 3, I became pregnant with my second child. My mother actually asked me if I was sure I wanted another child, because what if this second one also got alopecia? I thought that was totally nuts, and was not a good reason not to have the second baby.

As it turned out, child number 2 also lost all of his hair to alopecia areata at age 10.

There are various circumstances under which I would choose to have an abortion, but possibly homosexuality, or hair loss are not among those circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:57 AM

8. What do you think about making such circumstances illegal though? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:35 AM

133. How would this differ from any other pre-natal testing

after which some women have an abortion and others don't, even with the exact same diagnosis?

Down Syndrome. Deafness. ADD. Tay-Sachs. Slightly below average IQ. Athletic ability. Dwarfism. Left-handedness. Autism. Musical prodigy.

Some of those we can test for, others we can't. In the end, it's a highly personal choice and I believe in choice.

Let me add a little more to my story. I was 38 when I had son number 2. Both my OB and my mother were disturbed that I did not have pre-natal testing for Down Syndrome, since at my age there was a higher risk. But I'd already decided that a child with Down Syndrome would not be the worst possible thing to happen, and so I passed. Son number 2 is very smart and witty. He graduated from the University of Tulsa cum laude a few years ago, and currently earns his living delivering pizza while doing stand-up. He lives in Portland, OR. Son number 1, who is positively brilliant, but somewhat socially awkward, turns out to have Asperger's Syndrome. He wasn't diagnosed until age 18 and half way through his senior year of high school. As frustrating and difficult as things sometimes have been with him, I wouldn't want him any other way. And he has told me he would not want to be "normal".

Oh, and as for the alopecia, both sons have told me that if there's ever a cure for it, they'd pass on it. Imagine, you guys, how easy life is for them. They've never had to shave. Never have to get a hair cut. Plus, they're very distinctive looking, so if any of you are in the Portland area and ever go to the comedy clubs, look for the one who's totally bald. That's my kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

25. You articulated your sentiments beautifully.

I am pleased that you made it plain that these are your sentiments and that you wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else.

I find the premise of this thread very troubling. It's one of those "How dearly do you hold your principles?" type threads, looking for people to be outraged at a scenario that doesn't even exist, and to involve themselves in a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

Roe v. Wade makes it quite plain--for those who are NOT having an abortion, the whys and wherefores of the termination are not our business, and I find it troubling that this OP is attempting to bait people into responding to a fantasy circumstance by using a group (in this case, homosexuals) with whom most of us identify as being deserving of full equality under the law.

It's sleazy, at a minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:06 AM

30. As a gay person I find it highly offensive I can't ask about something,

that is especially sensitive to me personally, without having hyper-emotional people calling me sleazy.

Think on that, "sparky".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:15 AM

49. I have thought on what you've said--and like I said, I have your number.

Keep up the good work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:57 AM

7. If a so-called gay gene is ever found this issue will have to be addressed

Like it or not. And it will cause a lot of strange political alliances and role reversals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:59 AM

10. ^ That's kinda my point. ;) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:01 AM

12. The issue has already been addressed.

A woman has the right to chose whether or not she carries her pregnancy to term.

You don't get to decide for her. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:03 AM

20. Ridiculous. Every word of your post.

From "gay-gene" to the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:14 AM

46. In many people, homosexuality is inborn.

That doesn't mean it's genetic.

For others, it doesn't appear to be inborn.

The notion of a single "gay gene" that could be detected is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:20 AM

59. That's correct- unless the epigentics study is validated, then it is possible-

However, it could be possible to test the likelihood of homosexuality, concurrent to what we can physiologically pinpoint that is different between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We aren't there yet, but it's not completely out of the ballpark of possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:32 AM

96. Rush Limbaugh has been "addressing" it for ten years, now. It's a Divide-and-Conquer set-piece with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:41 AM

120. So you suggest that the mind police determine intent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:43 PM

143. I guess I have to address all the people putting words into my mouth

To re-establish: I am pro-choice; when it comes to the law it is, and should be, the woman's choice. That has always been my view.

But I don't think anybody can say that it is a healthy thing for our society when expectant mothers choose abortion for no other reason than that the child might be gay. For the same reason that many Chinese mothers choose abortion upon learning that the baby will be a girl. Mara Hvistendal has written about the social consequences of this, which also blends into the issue of a culture that values males more than females.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:58 AM

9. Arguments like this one have been used by the anti-choice movement from the very beginning.

You don't like abortions? Don't get one. That is all you need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:59 AM

11. See, that's just a simple way to dodge the morality of what I asked. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:03 AM

19. I'm not seeing the moral issue here.

Are you advocating for women to be forced to carry their pregnancies to term? If so, how is that in any way moral?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:04 AM

22. I'm not advocating anything, I'm asking about circumstances that lead to abortions-

do you support allowing individuals to abort children based solely off their possible race?? :/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

28. What do you mean "possible race?"

This is all very strange. And, yes, it is a woman's choice for any reason or no reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:09 AM

36. Certainly, if that's the woman's choice.

Sorry dude, but nothing trumps that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:10 AM

39. I just disagree- I think that's wrong, and I think saying its constitutionally protected is a bit of

a stretch(in that circumstance, not abortion as a whole).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:19 AM

56. I can respect that you disagree...

but the Supreme Court has pretty clearly decided that abortion for any reason is constitutionally protected. That simply isn't a "strech".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:21 AM

62. I suppose what I'm thinking is that in re-litigation on an issue similar to that, that I could see

the SCOTUS ruling in favor of such a law. At least in this climate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:00 AM

84. If you are against the abortion of

gay fetuses (not that there is a way to determine that, there is plenty of evidence to support that sometimes it is genetic and sometimes it is hormonal in the womb) it's really simple - don't have one.

You are male and can't get pregnant? Oh, then it's even more simple than that. You won't be getting pregnant anytime soon, so it's none of your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:06 PM

170. Whoa -- so you admit you're anti choice



You can't even get pregnant, right? Aren't you male? And you think you have a right to force a woman to have a child.

again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:24 PM

175. How about you keep your grubby

hands off my uterus?

This is actually very simple: It's none of your business.

Why is this hard for your to grasp?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:05 PM

169. "Possible race"?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:10 AM

37. I politely disagree. The anti-choice movement has been throwing hypothetical questions like this one

around ever since Roe v. Wade. It's no different than comparing abortion to the Holocaust. You're casting pregnant women in the role of potential persecutors, and it's ridiculous.

The law of the land states that no woman should be forced to give birth. That is a basic human right, no matter what genetic traits the fetus might have or not have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #37)


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:04 PM

168. There is no morality in deciding to have a medical procedure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:06 AM

29. Bingo. It's not your business unless you're the one seeking the procedure.

And yes, they are easy to avoid--don't go to the doctor and request one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:01 AM

13. It is quite simply none of your business why a woman gets an abortion.

It is not society's business either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:02 AM

16. Still a red herring argument.

Another way of undermining a women's right to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ismnotwasm (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

26. No- answer the question, what do you think? It's not trying to subvert anything,

I'm just proposing something that is very, very possibly going to be an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:19 AM

57. Some questions imply a desired answer when they are asked by the way they are phased

and yours is very obviously one of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:22 AM

64. No- it's a discussion topic on a discussion forum. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:37 AM

71. Why would this very possibly be an issue? Are you saying gay people will want to force woman to

 

have children just because the fetus is gay? If you're not saying that, where's the issue?

Woman shouldn't be forced to give birth under any circumstance whether it's gay, a boy, or the next president. What if a woman wanted to abort because she felt the outcome would be an ugly child? It's not our business. Are you saying a gay fetus is more special than a female fetus or an ugly fetus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:09 AM

89. Ok

Personally, as a women, I would NOT choose to abort a fetus it it was found to be Gay. I would embrace that potential and rejoice.


My body, my choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:14 AM

106. It is the womans body, her decision, for whatever reason somehow you seem to think all women would

choose to abort an "insert type here" fetus. Some might,but again, not anyones business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:12 PM

141. Here's What I Think

No one has any right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion. For any reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:02 AM

17. Apparently it's just fine no matter what the circumstance.

 

So this would be a-o.k.!

Of course my penis disqualifies me from even having an opinion so it doesn't really matter what I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:05 AM

27. ^+1. Thank you, kind sir, for reason. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:11 AM

40. Oh, THAT you consider a reasonable response.

The "my penis disqualifies me" response.

But you're not trying to stir anti-choice shit here. No sirree, not you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:14 AM

47. The point is that he's bringing up something that I think many liberals outright dismiss-

and I don't think that's totally fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:15 AM

51. And what point is that? A man's say in an abortion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:16 AM

53. The right to express an opinion without being ramrodded. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:19 AM

54. That's what liberals dismiss? That doesn't make sense with the context of the previous posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:08 PM

171. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:52 AM

78. You having a penis

does disqualify you since you won't be the one carrying the child for 9 months. When you can get pregnant, you are welcome to an opinion. Sorry to be harsh, but a man that never has to deal with a pregnancy doesn't have a horse in this race. As a woman, I also don't have any business telling another woman whether she should have a child or not, either. Not your body, not your business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #78)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:09 PM

172. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:15 AM

50. Are you pregnant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blogslut (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:15 AM

52. As a self-identified gay male, I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:19 AM

55. Then you have nothing to worry about, do you.

I would never presume to tell a gay man (or anyone else) what to do with his body. I ask for the same respect in return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:20 AM

60. I think you meant this for cecilfirefox. And, I agree!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:21 AM

61. Oops! You are correct. I'm up too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:19 AM

58. Well, then

When he grows a uterus, fallopian tubes, some eggs and science develops an actual test to determine sexuality, I'll answer his "hypothetical".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #52)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:30 AM

67. I often tell people I am an astronaut.

Doesn't mean it's true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #67)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:20 AM

94. Love this. Glad this thread got allowed out and that you help me understand DU better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:21 AM

63. It seems to me that if the entity is regarded as unworthy of any legal status...

... independent of the pregnant woman, consistency would require that there would be NO mitigating factors ( gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

Either the entity has legal status or it does not have legal status. Gender and sexual orientation of the entity is and ought to be extraneous.

If we are being consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:34 AM

70. I have never heard of a woman seeking an abortion asking her self if the fetus is gay...

The considerations are usually

A. Not ready to have a child

B. Finances ie not ready to have a child

c. The relationship with the father is strained ie not read not have a child

D. She is in college and can't see working, going to college and raising a child ie not ready to have a child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:44 AM

75. This is an old canard, promulgated by Rush Limbaugh for the past seven years, at least.

He pulls it out of his ass anytime he has a lull in his Things To Be Outraged About.

Pardon the link (it's World Nut Daily) but this is illustrative:

http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/29120/

BILL WOULD BAN ABORTIONS OF 'GAY' FETUSES
Maine legislator got idea listening to Rush Limbaugh


State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.

He said the bill looks into the future in case scientists find what he described as a “homosexual gene.”

“I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong,” said Duprey, who got the idea while listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show.

But some lawmakers say Duprey is neither interested in creating new policy to protect gays and lesbians nor seriously discussing the issue of abortion. The bill, they say, is a way of forcing some lawmakers to choose between abortion rights and gay rights.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:01 AM

85. Well I have no proof for this...

But, I bet it would be much more likely that a RW woman would abort a gay fetus than a liberal woman. Just a hunch. I saw a movie where the mother said she was hoping for a gay child. I don't know if she was saying that because she was being supportive of her gay son or because she really was hoping. But, I will say this I wouldn't have been disappointed if I had a gay son. Nor was I disappointed when one of my daughters turned out to be gay. They are my children period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:11 AM

91. If I were placing a bet, I'd bet the same way you would.

If you love your kids, they love you back. And they're good to you when you get old!

The only people I know who are "worried" or "concerned" about the orientation of their kids aren't Democrats. Republicans, when they reveal this sort of detail, are very defensive, as though they EXPECT to be derided for an entirely natural occurrence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:48 PM

153. I pity the child of that RW woman...

her/his young life will be hell. I would hope the mother, if she chose to carry her child to term, would give the child up for adoption.

BTW, Phyllis Schlafly, aka Grande Dame of the Flying Monkey Brigade, has a gay son. Discredited psychiatrist Dr. Richard(?) Socarides, the prime mover of the "gays choose to be gay" school of thought, also has a gay son. Socarides' son served as President Clinton's liaison to the Community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:07 AM

87. It's shit-stirring

based upon hypothetical situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:22 AM

95. Yes, it is.

An attempt to divide by demanding that people make a false choice, using a fictional nexus of abortion rights and gay rights.

It's not new, either. Here's another example, courtesy of The Unfinished Lives Project BIGOT WATCH, of Rush trotting out his gay gene/abortion argument:

http://unfinishedlivesblog.com/2010/07/04/bigot-watch-rush-limbaugh-on-gay-gene-abortion-and-gay-babies/

How many groups does this screed by Rush Limbaugh injure and offend? Limbaugh pontificated in 2003 on how the hypothetical discovery of a “gay gene” would cancel LGBTQ support for women’s right to choose. On the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, Limbaugh launched this broadside (see Joe Kovacs, World Net Daily.com:

“Imagine we identify the gene – assuming that there is one, this is hypothetical – that will tell us prior to birth that a baby is going to be gay. Just like a baby is gonna be redheaded and freckled and maybe tend to be overweight and so we tell the parents that, and the parents say “Nope, don’t wanna give birth to that child, not gonna have a fair chance. Who wants to give birth to an overweight, freckle-faced redhead?” Bam. So we abort the kid.“Well, you add to this, let’s say we discover the gene that says the kid’s gonna be gay. How many parents, if they knew before the kid was gonna be born, was gonna be gay, they would take the pregnancy to term? Well, you don’t know but let’s say half of them said, “Oh, no, I don’t wanna do that to a kid.” gay community finds out about this. The gay community would do the fastest 180 and become pro-life faster than anybody you’ve ever seen. … They’d be so against abortion if it was discovered that you could abort what you knew were gonna be gay babies.”


These guys finish up the argument way better than I could, but I associate myself with their comments:

...When rhetoric dehumanizes people, robbing them of the dignity of their full personhood as Limbaugh routinely does to gay people, his is culpable for setting the conditions for hate crimes against the very gay babies he demagogues about on the radio. When LGBTQ people grow up, face discrimination and irrational hatred, Rush simply washes his hands of any violence done them. And, in the case of the gay baby scenario he set forth, we must ask the nagging question he left unanswered: “If a test were devised to ID a baby as LGBTQ before birth, Rush, how quickly would you and your supporters flip and become advocates of abortion?” ~ The Unfinished Lives Team

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:06 AM

124. I wish there were a genetic test for shrieking fruitcakes.

I certainly wouldn't want to give birth to an idiot like Rush or his followers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:38 AM

73. I'm gay

It's still none of my business why a woman has an abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:46 AM

76. if someone has an abortion because they fear the unborn fetus is gay

they shouldn't be trying to become parents.

It is sad we live in a world where people actually want to know something like that. If you are not prepared to love your baby unconditionally, DO NOT GET PREGNANT PLEASE!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heather MC (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:58 AM

81. Best answer yet

If you aren't prepared to love your children unconditionally, don't have them. If you are male and incapable of becoming pregnant, don't try to tend to the business of those that can become pregnant.

It's pretty damn simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:51 AM

77. The responses in this thread are quite interesting.

Your very question was the plot for a motion picture, Twilight of the Golds.

The controversial dramedy tackles the issue of fictional genetic testing that would determine the sexual orientation of an unborn child. When Suzanne Gold-Stein discovers her son is destined to be gay, she considers aborting the fetus, much to the dismay of her gay brother David, whose sexual orientation has never been fully accepted by his conservative family. In the stage version, she has the abortion late in the pregnancy, resulting in her inability to bear any more children, as well as David's estrangement from the family. In the film version, Suzanne chooses to have the baby, though this leads to a break-up with her husband, who does not wish to raise a gay son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds


Even so, the choice is still between a woman and whomever she wishes to involve in the decision, though aborting a fetus because it was female/male, or gay would be repellent to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #77)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:02 AM

102. Here in the real world, though ...

Most women with a wanted pregnancy want that pregnancy and resulting baby, no matter what - especially here. Anecdote is not the plural of data, but I've never heard a pregnant woman worry that the baby might be gay (almost everything else - i think that may be part of pregnancy - but never about gay/not gay )

In countries where sex-selection abortions are endemic, look at the treatment of women and that's where you'll find the real problem (and if sexuality-selection is ever a reality, look at how non-straights are treated in those same countries).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #102)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:21 AM

107. It was a hypothetical question.

I still maintain it is the choice of the woman and who she may choose to make a decision as to abort or not. However, it doesn't change the fact I find it disgusting that someone would (consider) ending a pregnancy based on the fetus' sex or sexuality. You might not have heard of someone wanting an abortion because the fetus might be gay, sadly, I have, multiple times! It is a changing attitude (or it might be because I don't get out as much).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #107)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:37 AM

109. I know :-)

I maintain - against much evidence - that most people are basically decent. Also, I've been debating abortion politics for over 20 years and I've seen data that that indicates that those sampled would not terminate an otherwise wanted pregnancy because of the probable sexuality of the resulting baby. I can't put my hand on that research right now, but much like "abortions are bad - except mine," gayness may be no longer terrifying when it's in a wanted baby.

Again, I would think if such a thing were possible, it would be a terrible thing, primarily occurring where sex-selection abortions happen because women are already so devalued/worthless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to REP (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:48 AM

112. It is interesting to ponder, but highly unlikely.

As I said, I have seen a change in attitudes, but I have met those who claim they would abort a "gay child." Now, the reality is also, if they were actually IN the situation, would the response still be the same. I have met a number of "anti-abortion" people, right up until they had an unwanted pregnancy and terminated it, which you referenced.

It would be terrible, just as it is for those who abort because of sex, but doesn't change the idea of choice, at least not for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:56 AM

79. Is there a way to tell the fetus is gay?

I'd like to see that sonogram!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:02 AM

86. It's Faaaab-U-Lous!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:57 AM

80. I have a hypothetical.

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

What if the fetus was perceived to be, or thought to be proven, to be an alcoholic? A drug addict? Or have a propensity to be a criminal? Would it be ok for a woman to use any of these hypothetical genetic markers as a reason to choose to have an abortion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:12 AM

92. What do you mean "ok"?

Should it legally be her decision? No matter why she came to the decision? Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:59 AM

82. So what? The choice is still the mother's regardless of the reason

Even if you don't agree with that reason. End of.

OP is a troll. A crappy, desperate one at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:00 AM

83. Should we require any woman seeking an abortion to fill out a questionaire first?

Perhaps any woman seeking an abortion should have to answer a list of questions, then deny her if any of the answers are deemed "objectionable".



Seriously though...what part of CHOICE do you have a hard time with?

Either a woman has the right to choose, or she doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:08 AM

88. +1000

It's her choice. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:10 AM

90. there you go.

pretty much answers the whole thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:15 AM

113. There's that, then there's the problem of her veracity.

If she would be denied an abortion because her answer(s) were "objectionable", anyone believe she'd tell the truth. In short, how would this "test" be enforced?

This isn't a slippery slope; it's a vertical cliff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:35 AM

97. Some ideas (like this one) are best examined in the alternative

Hypothetically — a woman finds out she is pregnant and (somehow) learns that the baby is/will be gay.

Has her autonomy been reduced in some way by the future sexual orientation of the fetus?

Would she have more rights somehow if the child were hetero?

Aha!

Since her right is to terminate a pregnancy by her own standards then of course that includes standards you or I wouldn't agree with.

As to whether this would lead to the statistical elimination of gay people at some future point in time (a concern voiced in this thread)... well, then that's what it leads to, but not as a top down decision. It would arise only from (hypothetical) unanimity among billions of individual women that they all feel strongly about not wanting gay children.

If, hypothetically, all women decided to eliminate some trait from the human gene pool then that is what all women chose, as a series of individual choices, to do with their bodies.

That sounds shocking, but again, consider it in the alternative. If all women who existed felt the same way (unlikely) would one then say that all women are wrong, and that women should be forced to carry gay fetuses to term?

In every scenario, not matter how weird or impossible, women must not be considered an agricultural resource as producers of humans... any humans. Women do not have an obligation to perpetuate the species.

It is against everything in human nature to conceive a world where all women prefer to be childless, but if that happened then the human race would end. As it ought to if no woman wanted to bear children.

Which isn't going to happen, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:13 PM

150. I like that angle.

Your post is possibly my favorite, but there are so many great responses in this thread...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #97)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:54 PM

163. Brilliant and well thought out response.

I trust women to make the right decision for themselves...ultimately, the aggregate choices made will define the societies that future generations live under.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:20 AM

99. Homosexuality would still exist.

I'm gay, and think that homosexuality is perfectly moral. I do not think that human sexuality is SIMPLY biologically-determined. I know too many straight men that have sex with men to think that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:54 AM

100. I think this discussion is foundering on what should be legal and what should be ethical.

From a legal point of view, I am pro-choice. As far as what the law should be, that's it.

However, I think many people think that some reasons for abortion are more ethically acceptable than others. For example, many pro-choice people are probably very uncomfortable with the idea of selectively aborting female fetuses, as happens in some parts of the world. It doesn't mean that they feel that any law should be passed to stop the practice, but that they disapprove of it personally. There are many unfortunate things that people do that shouldn't be illegal, but all the same it'd be best if people didn't do them.

As to your specific question, I would answer it the same way. I would fervently hope that parents would not abort a fetus because the child may be homosexual, but as of now I don't think the law should stand in the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:41 AM

101. Abortion because the baby might be ginger

is fine by me.

It is no one's place to decide when an abortion is permissible no matter the reason.

Will the occasional woman make a stupid choice? of course...as is their right to do so, and little harm is done.

On edit: well a fewer sociopaths to vote for, but we will have to live with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:03 AM

103. People are getting abortions?

And you know about it and even know why they are doing it? Get the fuck out of their medical records, you're breaking the law!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:07 AM

104. A woman's right to choose

is sacrosanct and her reasons for aborting is absolutely none of my . . . or anyone else's . . . business. The End.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:39 AM

110. Are you asking if there should be a law, or simply whether this is wrong?

I would be 100% against a law, for the simple fact that even if women were doing this they could easily lie if asked. Therefore we would be opening the door first to requiring doctors ask women why they're having an abortion, then to the required recording and reporting of those reasons, then a huge potential for abuse of that information when it's stored in some file somewhere.

Are some people going to make bad choices when they have the freedom to make a choice? Yes, they are. People use their freedom of speech to be assholes; they use their freedom of assembly to stage Klan rallies; they use their freedom of the press to, well, create Fox News.

Freedom to choose means that we accept sometimes people will make choices with which we disagree, or that we think are wrong.

I support the freedom of choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:02 AM

115. this is an excellent post. thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:43 AM

111. A person’s body is theirs and theirs alone, NO ONE should have the right to

 

tell another what they can and cannot do with their body, whether it be getting a tattoo, removing a parasite or wanting to kill yourself.

Your body your choice, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:51 AM

114. Scrape it if it's gay...

 

For that matter, scrape it if it's white, black, asian, has halitosis, walks, dates Miss America contestants, has eyes.....

We're overpopulated - abort 'em all....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:19 AM

116. Pro-choice is pro-choice

although it seems like, generally anyway, the people who would do that are also very anti-abortion to the point in some cases of wanting to do away with some kinds of birth control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:38 AM

117. What part of "it is none of your fucking business", pun intended, do you not understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:39 AM

118. Abortion is a very serious subject best left to a woman and her doctor, and NOT....

...to ANY legislative body or to ANY discussion about nonsensical, no way to be proven "hypotheticals" on a public message board.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:26 AM

125. Only if the fetus is eaten



Good troll by the way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:23 AM

128. Abortions based on fetus's stance on gun control

While breastfeeding at Olive Garden.

Some people have trouble with the concept of "autonomy". Particularly when it's applied to women's bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:35 AM

132. I'd bet that the "condition" would be treated rather than be cause of an abortion

This is a bit sci-fi but based on the studies I've seen homosexual behavior is a product of how specific genes are expressed with interaction with their environment during fetal growth. I would think that if a genetic test picks up a likelihood of homosexuality then the mother would be treated with hormones to prevent expression of the genes that make a person gay.

This is not my field and there is a very good chance I'm wrong.

But it is coming and it will be very, very controversial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:49 AM

135. Ooo, or what if it was because they thought it was really an ALIEN???

Not the business of the government why a woman decides. At all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:55 AM

138. This is crunchy! What about a male birth control pill...

 

That is what I am waiting for.

Talk about cultural realignments and fucking up some paradigms. Lets get it on! (pun intended)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to galileoreloaded (Reply #138)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:42 PM

155. I would so like a birth control pill for men- little responsibility goes a long way!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:21 PM

142. It does seem to beg the critical and relevant question

It does seem to beg the critical and relevant question-- how does one determine the sexual orientation of a fetus? Only from that may we proceed further with the premise...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:51 PM

144. the types that oppose this don't believe this is genetic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:54 PM

145. A womans choice in this matter is personal and is her business. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:54 PM

146. It is not our business but that doesn't mean we are "okay" with the idea.

The point is that once you start making personal morality everyone's business it becomes very hard to stop and at the same time it encourages the talibanistas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:09 PM

147. But to an authoritarian crackpot okay and legal are synonyms

I wish the median DUer understood that about rights other than abortion (and I am not referring to guns)

Dozens of things are discussed here daily within the frightening legal=okay framework.

I have even, in extreme instances, seen people say that the ACLU supports the KKK. (As opposed to supporting the right to free assembly)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:03 PM

148. Her body, her choice. End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 05:03 PM

149. i don't think it's possible to know that for sure.

and believe that an otherwise wanted and welcomed baby being aborted for that reason would be despicable.
i don't have a lot of respect for the many people in india and china aborting their girls for that matter. i figure that practice will come back to kick them in the ass when their sons can't find wives. i have wonderful fantasies of girls' families demanding humongous dowries from boys' families, for instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:16 PM

151. why would you think you'd get any different answer?

says more about you and your prejudices than it says anything about DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:37 PM

152. A fetus's PERCEIVED homosexuality? HTH is it perceived?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #152)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:14 PM

173. They like football and Project Runway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:55 PM

157. I think what a woman chooses to do with her fetus is her business

Not yours, not mine, not the government's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:47 PM

162. A woman may use whatever information she has available to choose to have an abortion.

One may make moral judgements about all sorts of reasons a woman would chose to have an abortion. It is not our decision nor our business what those reasons are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:56 PM

164. It is still no ones business!

I will make my own decisions regarding my body no matter what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:58 PM

165. I'm gay and pro choice.

I oppose forced birthing and find the very idea disgusting. Her body, her choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:04 PM

167. Forcing a woman to have a child is disgusting

And, obviously I'm gay. A woman has a right to abort any fetus she wants, and I will support her legal right to do so.

Emotion has no place in allowing someone to have a legal medical procedure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:16 PM

174. Women have abortions for good and bad reasons.

There is no role for government when it comes to a woman's decision about whether or not she wants to allow her body to be a vessel for another human being. None whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:27 PM

176. You know...if I was a fundie Christian, I'd think....

let the woman make her own choice and then let God judge her reasoning. Why do Fundie Christians think they should sit in judgment? Isn't that their God's role?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:12 AM

178. None of your fucking business.

Period.

And fuck bringing a disgusting right wing "morality" testing hypothetical to this website. Seriously. Fuck that noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread