It seems this would be a more difficult question for pro-lifers who are also anti-gay.
No because most people who are opposed to gay marriage and the like don’t want to massacre the homosexuals.
Hahaah. That’s sweet.
It’s true! They don’t want to. They just have to because those faggots won’t settle down and marry women, like God intended.
This is a question where I can’t speak for other people. What if someone decided to abort a homosexual fetus (NOT baby) for that one reason for the fear of being bullied or killed? Doesn’t matter. The reasons for those who choose to abort don’t need to be broadcast. But if you’re doing it simply because the fetus in question contains the “gay-gene”, you’re a complete shit head.
Speaking of this gay-gene, how do we know it is always a dominant gene in a fetus? Could the gay-gene simply change with development or result in bi-sexuality?
For me, if my future and sexy girlfriend and I decide to keep a pregnancy, and if it test positive for this gene, I wouldn’t think of aborting for a minute. My son/daughter-- gay, straight or bisexual-- deserves a chance.
I’d be worried a lot more about the money kids cost than their possible sexual preference. Now if we get a gene where we can identify that he/she will become a tea-partier, I’m full steam ahead on the abortion. THAT would be a gene that mattered. 
Hypothetically, the gene can be whatever you want. In real life it doesn’t exist.
Of course they do; that’s why they beat and kill homosexuals when they can; that’s why they tried to keep anything being done about AIDS; that’s why American anti-homosexual crusaders helped push for those murderous anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, for that matter. They are monsters, murderous bigots. They’d kill all the homosexuals on Earth and literally dance on their graves praising Jesus, if they could. And they’d never feel an instant of remorse, guilt or compassion.
Hypothetically, it could also be a transgender gene too. Hmmm… that’s for another thread. 
I’d find it abhorrent reasoning but I’d rather a fetus with the gay gene be aborted any day over having a life of misery at the hands of homophobic parents.
Pro-choice means pro-choice.
Contrarily to previous posters, I’ve a problem with his hypothetical. Abortion was allowed for a variety of reasons but eugenics or selection of the characteristics of the baby wasn’t one of them.
The OP picked homosexuals for some reason (because he thought it would put pro-gay posters in a quandary, I guess), but it could be more commonly because “it’s a girl and I want a boy” (already common enough in some countries), or for whatever other reason : she won’t be a redhead like my mom and myself, it doesn’t have the “being a lawyer that makes millions” gene, etc…
Even though I don’t know how it can be avoided (except by not testing/disclosing informations that aren’t medically relevant, as they do, I believe, in India), I think it’s a real issue.
^^This.
The reason a woman may choose to have an abortion may be shitty in my view but it is not my view that matters.
It is her choice and if you place a stigma or laws saying that is not a good reason and prevent women from having an abortion they’ll just mumble whatever bullshit is deemed “acceptable” and have the abortion anyway.
If we could detect a “gay” gene I suspect it’d be the current crop of religiously motivated anti-abortionists running to have an abortion. I know…the irony burns.
I have no doubt there would be women who would abort because they did not like the sex of a baby or the baby would be gay or have blond hair or whatever. With a big enough population you are bound to get some outliers.
But outliers they are. I worked at Planned Parenthood many (many many) moons ago and saw the results of their internal questionnaires of women seeking abortions (as in the reason(s) a woman gave who was there to have an abortion) and I honestly never saw a single one say it was due to the gender of the baby or some such thing. I will not go so far as to say it never happens but I suspect it is pretty damn rare.
Anecdotal I know, take it for what it is worth.
Why would I care? No woman has to carry a pregnancy if she doesn’t want one, and no justification is needed. I don’t know why the OP thinks this would be difficult for pro-choicers. It’s not like it actually involves harming a gay person.
That’s definitely a cultural thing, it famously happens quite often in India for example.
While I’m uncomfortable with the idea of withholding medical information from parents, I can see some merit to doing that if this becomes a widespread problem. In the U.S. I don’t think that’s very likely.
True.
And China has a real problem with a lack of women currently. Their policies of how many kids a family could have saw female babies killed after birth. Boys were deemed more valuable and if you could only have two kids then you wanted boys.
Now there is a decidedly lopsided gender problem in China. There are not enough women to match-up with the men. In the US (or most western countries) men/women are close to 50/50 (I think there is a tiny bias to more females but not enough to be really noticeable).
Qin Shi Huangdi, admit it; this thread is not going exactly the way you expected, is it?
To turn the question around:
If (hypotheically) it became possible to detect the “homosexual” gene before birth, would pro-lifers of this board tolerate fetuses being aborted solely for that reason?
ETA: I would hope the answer from them would be “no” in that they would not change their stance on abortion because they hate homosexuals that much.
I have a problem with this.
I agree no “justification” should be needed in a legal sense (as in “this reason we allow it”, “that reason we don’t”). To be clear I agree the woman has the final say and whatever her reasons others’ second guessing her leads to bad results.
That said I would hope a woman is not cavalier about it. Just because something is not illegal does not mean something needs no justification in a moral sense. I would hope a woman’s reasons for getting an abortion are more profound than she’ll be having a blond haired baby.
Again, in my view, the choice ultimately rests with her but if she aborts a “gay” baby I deem her despicable. She probably won’t care what I think either so leaves us in a quandary.
I know there are some places in the world where women might choose abortion for such reasons frequently.
I think in the US or other Western countries this is not likely to happen much (although I still think a “gay” baby, if we could actually test for it, would see the Bible Thumpers in an awkward position as they’d be the ones wanting an abortion…somehow I suspect they’d manage to rationalize it).
This. The suicide rate for LGBT teens is already 3-4x higher than normal. It’s bad enough for them trying to come out to homophobic parents now, hell it’s hard for them to inform even the most open-minded parents out of fear of rejection.
Imagine how shitty your life would be knowing your parents hated you from before you were born for something you can’t do anything about.
They could always sterilize themselves in that case. You can disown the gay kid (it’s not like he or she is about to go out “spreading their disease” by having children) and force sterilize the parents to prevent another such occurance. Then those horrible carriers of “disease” won’t be able to spread it. Soon you’ll have a master race completely lacking the evil, evil buttsecks gene.
I guess you haven’t witnessed picketers at a Pride Parade?
I’m pro-choice. Women should be able to abort for whatever reason they see fit. Is it an asshole reason? Of course, but it’s not up to me to make up her morals.