Abortions motivated by a fetus's perceived homosexuality.

[cecilfirefox]

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?

[cecilfirefox]

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??

[Llewlladdwr]

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.

[dsc]

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

[Llewlladdwr]

31. And you know this how?

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

[dsc]

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.

[EOTE]

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

[kestrel91316]

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.

[Smarmie Doofus]

65. Interesting. n/t

[CreekDog]

93. you aren't pro choice anyway

[DetlefK]

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."

[dsc]

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.

[DetlefK]

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.

[RobinA]

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.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

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

[kestrel91316]

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.

[bettyellen]

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

[dsc]

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.

[liberal_at_heart]

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?

[snooper2]

126. I literally LOL when I read your post

LOL...

[Yo_Mama]

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.

[dsc]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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!

[Llewlladdwr]

24. How is this in any way true?

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

[cecilfirefox]

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.

[morningfog]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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.

[morningfog]

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.

[Warpy]

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.

[aquart]

108. Maybe because nobody is doing it?

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

[obamanut2012]

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.

[MADem]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

3. Wow. O_O

[MADem]

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

[cecilfirefox]

21. * Eye roll. *

[MADem]

38. You got that right.

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

[EOTE]

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.

[RudynJack]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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

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

[morningfog]

34. Are you a male?

[MADem]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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!

[MADem]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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.

[MADem]

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.

[EOTE]

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

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

[Warren Stupidity]

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

Your hypothetical is absurd. It is just nonsense.

[MADem]

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!

[RudynJack]

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.

[Aerows]

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.

[Mdterp01]

98. Co-sign

Speak on it. Im gay and feel the same.

[michigandem58]

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.

[dsc]

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

[Chan790]

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.

[SheilaT]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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

[SheilaT]

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.

[MADem]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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".

[MADem]

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

Keep up the good work!

[bluestateguy]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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

[Llewlladdwr]

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.

[morningfog]

20. Ridiculous. Every word of your post.

From "gay-gene" to the end.

[RudynJack]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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.

[MADem]

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

him.

This is not a new argument--it's a canard.

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

http://www.wnd.com/2003/01/16871/

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/homophobia-rush-limbaughs-top-anti-gay-quotes/discrimination/2009/03/05/517

He's a very clever propagandist.

[Warren Stupidity]

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

[bluestateguy]

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.

[Chorophyll]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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

[Llewlladdwr]

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?

[cecilfirefox]

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?? :/

[morningfog]

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.

[Llewlladdwr]

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

Sorry dude, but nothing trumps that.

[cecilfirefox]

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).

[Llewlladdwr]

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".

[cecilfirefox]

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.

[Aerows]

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.

[obamanut2012]

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.

[Texasgal]

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?

[obamanut2012]

169. "Possible race"?!

[Chorophyll]

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.

[obamanut2012]

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

[MADem]

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!

[morningfog]

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

It is not society's business either.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Still a red herring argument.

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

[cecilfirefox]

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.

[Occulus]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

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?

[ismnotwasm]

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

[peacebird]

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.

[RobinA]

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.

[MrSlayer]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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

[Chorophyll]

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.

[cecilfirefox]

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.

[morningfog]

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

[cecilfirefox]

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

[morningfog]

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

[obamanut2012]

171. +1

[Aerows]

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.

[obamanut2012]

172. +1

[blogslut]

50. Are you pregnant?

[morningfog]

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

[Chorophyll]

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.

[morningfog]

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

[Chorophyll]

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

[blogslut]

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".

[MADem]

67. I often tell people I am an astronaut.

Doesn't mean it's true!

[ancianita]

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

[Smarmie Doofus]

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.

[Kalidurga]

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.

[MADem]

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.

[Kalidurga]

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.

[MADem]

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.

[DonViejo]

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.

[Aerows]

87. It's shit-stirring

based upon hypothetical situations.

[MADem]

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, [it's] 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, [that he] 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.” [Then the] 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

[gkhouston]

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.

[Aerows]

73. I'm gay

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

[Heather MC]

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!!!!

[Aerows]

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.

[Behind the Aegis]

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.

[REP]

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).

[Behind the Aegis]

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).

[REP]

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.

[Behind the Aegis]

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.

[Drunken Irishman]

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

I'd like to see that sonogram!

[Behind the Aegis]

86. It's Faaaab-U-Lous!

[Jenoch]

80. I have a hypothetical.

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:38 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?

[TDale313]

92. What do you mean "ok"?

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

[LittleBlue]

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.

[Hugabear]

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.

[TDale313]

88. +1000

It's her choice. Period.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. there you go.

pretty much answers the whole thing.

[sarge43]

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.

[cthulu2016]

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.

[Quantess]

150. I like that angle.

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

[Old and In the Way]

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.

[David__77]

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.

[BlueCheese]

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.

[Riftaxe]

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

[MichaelHarris]

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!

[Le Taz Hot]

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.

[NYC Liberal]

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.

[cali]

115. this is an excellent post. thanks.

[stultusporcos]

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.

[diphthong]

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....

[gollygee]

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.

[Warren Stupidity]

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

[OldDem2012]

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.

[Capt. Obvious]

125. Only if the fetus is eaten

Good troll by the way

[Recursion]

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.

[AngryAmish]

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.

[Maeve]

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.

[galileoreloaded]

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)

[cecilfirefox]

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

[LanternWaste]

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...

[CreekDog]

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

[NCTraveler]

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

[yellowcanine]

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.

[cthulu2016]

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)

[idwiyo]

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

[barbtries]

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.

[Fresh_Start]

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

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

[benld74]

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

[obamanut2012]

173. They like football and Project Runway?

[notadmblnd]

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

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

[joshcryer]

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.

[Texasgal]

164. It is still no ones business!

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

[Tien1985]

165. I'm gay and pro choice.

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

[obamanut2012]

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.

[Arkana]

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.

[Old and In the Way]

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?

[JTFrog]

178. None of your fucking business.

Period.

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