Someone mentioned that race is genetic and it doesn’t stop racism…why would a genetic cause for homosexuality cause more acceptance of gays? I think both issues are more social in nature, i.e. acceptance is an attitude.
3cushion
We’ve had this question before, and I think it involves false assumptions on the part of the pro-lifers. They assume that pro-choice people would have a big moral dilemma with this. Let me assure you, they wouldn’t. A woman can terminate a pregnancy for any reason or no reason.
Anyone who wants to cry hypocrisy needs to actually identify someone who is normally pro-choice but would want to change the rules to prevent pregnancies from being terminated
because of sexual orientation.
That’s pure wishful thinking on Limbaugh’s part. I guarantee there would be no conflict. There would also be practically nobody who would terminate solely for that reason anyway.
Yes.
If by “life” you mean one of the choices is carrying a pregnancy to term, then yes, of course that’s one of the choices.
I am pro-life, yet accept the necessity of abortion, though I do not think it should be publicly funded. I am neither religious nor conservative and accept free will as a reality. And, should it come to be that there is a “gay” gene, then I will accept that reality as well.
3cushion
By the way, it couldn’t be a “hate crime” because there wouldn’t be a victim.
[quote=“Diogenes_the_Cynic, post:22, topic:486662”]
Anyone who wants to cry hypocrisy needs to actually identify someone who is normally pro-choice but would want to change the rules to prevent pregnancies from being terminated because of sexual orientation.
Good point!
I’ve never seen anyone accused of “choosing” to be black, white, or whatever color they happened to be born. Many of the people I’m stuck putting up with around here see homosexuality as a choice to behave unnaturally or “Willfully disregarding the intentions of our creator”, as one put it. If the issue of choice were removed, don’t you think there would be some reevaluation on the part of some of these people?
I think they would either simply deny the scientific evidence (if they can deny the earth is older than 6000 years, denying a gentic determination for sexual orientation woyuld be a snap), or they would shift gears to say that it’s a akin to a congentital disease or disorder like diabetes or autism and claim that it can be “treated” or “reversed.”
Pro-choicer here, who shrugs at the idea of an orientation selection. Actually, I’m quite curious what’ll happen in India and China over the next 30 years, as these populations have routinely been practicing gender selection to eliminate female fetuses for some time.
Yes.
Yes. I’m against forcing anyone to have an abortion against her will, as is sometimes done in China, and used to be done there much more often. You aren’t going to find many people in this country who’d be in favor of that.
I would think that getting an abortion because the fetus has the gay gene is repugnant, but should be legal. Just like I think that getting pregnant with octuplets when you already have six children you can’t support is repugnant, but shouldn’t be illegal.
I don’t think you would see any heads explode. For that segment of the anti-abortion movement that you are discussing, consistency isn’t a requirement. If you talk to people who work or volunteer at clinics, you’ll find a lot of people who are vocally anti abortion end up getting the procedure. Because their abortion is different and justifiable, of course. They would still manage to oppose abortion rights for others and get rid of the nasty little gay fetus inside themselves.
I’m pro-choice. I would never have an abortion, but then I’ve never been pregnant.
If you want to abort your child for being gay or lesbian, I’ll give you that right.
Anti-abortion, pro-adoption people are mostly not pro-gay/lesbian adoption. They only favor adoption to the “right” people.
Nobody is more pro-choice than Whoopi Goldberg. When she found out her 15 year old daughter was pregnant and wnated to keep the baby, she thought “Pro-choice means choosing the have the child.” The anti-abortion camp didn’t give her any recognition for this action.
ABORTING GAY FETUSES is the title of the thread and I’m the first to yell
BAND NAME!
What’s wrong with you people?
As for the OP, abortion would have to be a crime for it to be a hate crime, and then the crime would be abortion. (Personally I’m against hate crime legislation for many reasons, but this would be particularly silly, besides which if you were a gay guy would you really want parents who would have aborted you for that forced to keep you?)
I’ve wondered something similar though about, say, if you learned your child would be born healthy but had a 95% chance of developing Huntington’s Disease or ALS or some other awful debilitating illness in young adulthood (diseases that people like Stephen Hawking and Woody Guthrie prove can certainly lead productive lives even when they have it) or even just severely autistic or Down Syndrome, would it make you a eugenicist to abort the fetus? Personally I do not believe it would, nor does it mean that you think such people have no right to live.
I am pro-life and believe that abortion is the single most destructive act that humans are capable of, devastating the woman and child, and also I believe the father too, as the child is the very heart of the father which has serious effects on society as the family is torn apart. As such I would not like to see the furthering of this practice under any circumstances.
So do you support gay & lesbian adoption?
There is already widespread abortion of female foetuses. Abortion of gay babies adds no controversy, which doesn’t already exist. It is not a hate crime to abort a foetus for being female, it will not be a hate crime to abort a foetus for being gay.
I think it wouldn’t make you a eugenicist if you decided to do that. If, however, you wanted laws that made it mandatory for anyone to get an abortion if they found out that a fetus had health problems, then you would be a eugenicist.
What “child” is devastated by abortion? The embryo/fetus is dead, and I doubt it has any emotions to feel at any point in the development.
If abortion is so devasting to women, why do some of them have more than one of them?
We all know, of course, that no man in human history has ever gotten a woman pregnant and then not wanted the baby.