Except for possible health issues to the woman, there are no other effects worth considering.
Of course we can. I don’t think we should.
If it realistically looks like our country is in danger of gender imbalance due to selective abortion, then there’s a good argument that there is harm by the practice - harm to society as a whole, harm to men who can’t get mates due to disparity of numbers, harm to women (oppression of women tends to rise in such cultures, possibly because fewer women have to fill all the reproductive needs), and so then I think we’d, as a culture, be on steadier ground to ban or restrict that particular kind of abortion.
But we’re not, so we don’t.
The stretchiest stretch I can come up with for selectively aborting gay fetuses harming people is that maybe, if there were markedly fewer gay people born, we might see the gay community losing strides in their struggles against discrimination. It’s pretty stretchy. But sure, if that happens, then there’d be harm to people from selective abortion, and we should address that.
But there’s not, so we don’t.
I talk with the local anti-abortion people a lot, and most don’t support the idea of “a gay gene.” Even if it were found and a test were deleooped to detect it, I’m suspect their attitude would be “Well, if the child is placed in a straight, two family home they will turn out straight.”
I’ve actually had these people tell me “It’s better for a child to be adopted and murdered like Lisa Steinberg than to be aborted.”
Do you really think her choice exists in a vacuum of her and no one else?
Who is a normal person? How off from normal may one be and still be allowed to live? Who decides? How?
Again, in these issues, i would advise extreme caution.
The mother. Any way she wants.
And I mean that. If a child with a 40% chance of developing diabetes is too much for the mother to handle raising, then she should have the right to abort it if she wants. If another woman would welcome a child with a 40% chance of developing diabetes, then she should have the right to keep it.
Any OTHER answer other than the absolute pro-life or pro-choice one is drawing lines. “Abortion is only okay in the case of rape and incest,” is drawing a line. Why rape or incest but not an abandoning father or financial inability? “Abortion is okay if the fetus has Down’s Syndrome,” is drawing a line. Why Down’s Syndrome and not diabetes?
Her choice? Yes. Completely. Everything else is society’s problem,not hers. So what if there isn’t a 1:1 sex ratio. Who does that actually harm? Men are not *entitled *to women.
And poof! goes your credibility.
Für ze same reason antibiotics ver invented; it’s better to be healthy zan sick. Vile ze danger of people choosing to eliminate dings zat aren’t diseases ist ein real vun, eliminating actual diseases vould of course be ein gut ding.
When I said “there is no father,” I didn’t mean that the fathers were absent. I’m saying that “fatherhood” is something that desn’t exist unless and until a live birth occurs. If a pregnancy is terminated then there never was a baby, and if there never was a baby, there never was a father.
Change “father” to “sperm donor” if you like, but you’re taking this to a ridiculous extreme now. Unless you believe all conceptions are miraculous. 
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘tolerate’. Legally, yes, of course.
On a personal level, if my friend disclosed that as a reason for their abortion I would no longer be their friend.
I think this would be a more difficult dilemma for the fundamentalist christian, as it could potentially effect a number of their beliefs.
- They would have to admit that homosexuals did not chose to be gay.
- They would probably deem this as an exception to abortion (after all, the child would be an abomination - perhaps the ‘choice’ now lay with the parents?).
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I agree with clairobscur on this one. I think a woman has a right to abort a fetus, but I don’t think that right’s absolute, and I think that if people start having abortions for sex selection (or like the OP, for sexual orientation selection), that’s something where society has to step in, because I think that’s detrimental to the society as a whole.
[/QUOTE]
Either a woman has the right to make the choice for herself or she doesn’t. Saying it’s for the good of society that she shouldn’t have that abortion is the same as saying that abortion is immoral and against the will of God. How is ‘I don’t want this baby’ different than ‘I don’t want a girl baby/boy baby’? How is that different than ‘I don’t want a straight/gay baby’ or ‘I want/don’t want a baby with red hair’?? It’s all the same, and it all boils down to whether a woman should be allowed a choice in whether or not she wants to have a baby. Either we as a society support her right to choose, or we don’t, except when it’s in our collective best interests to do so (like when she is making an absolute choice, instead of an incremental choice…or something).
Part of giving people the ability to choose is acknowledging that some people are going to make asshole-ish choices like that in the OP. They might make choices based on their perceptions of race (perhaps a woman who sleeps around doesn’t want a baby from a ‘race’ other than her own…or perhaps she only wants a baby that come from a certain ‘race’), or coloration (such as the red hair example), or sexual orientation, or sex (male or female)…or the myriad other bullshit reasons people decide stuff based on. As our medical science becomes more advanced it’s going to give people more information about their kids…and by giving a woman the right to choose she is going to base her choice on more than the absolute of have baby/don’t have baby.
-XT
I’m a pro-choicer, and it’s not a difficult question. A woman’s right to abort a first-trimester fetus, and probably a second-trimester-one, should be absolute and unreviewable. She need not explain her decision to anyone but herself and, if she’s married, her husband, and even in the latter case he may not gainsay it. Her reasons are her own and no one else’s business.
This exact choice was the premise of the 1996 film The Twilight of the Golds in which a pregnant Jennifer Beals must decide whether or not to abort her probably-gay fetus, or risk him turning out like his gay uncle, played by Brendan Fraser.
Oh, such writhing agony of a dilemma…! Thing is, once Rosie O’Donnell showed up (I forget what role she was playing) I figured the decision would be to not abort, else O’Donnell would never have agreed to be in the movie in the first place.
(To my question, “Who decides?”
I am not sure if I agree with you or not, but your position has the very great advantage of being clear. If I carried out my (still forming) ideas, I guess there would be rules, regulations and all sorts of claptrap.
My point is that the sperm donor can’t be victimized by a terminated pregnancy that abortion has no victims, therefore can’t be classified as morally “despicable,” no matter what the reason.
I think Whack-a-Mole is wrong to describe those people as victims, but an abortion can certainly affect a woman’s partner and her family.
Not sure what planet you live on if you think the father (or sperm donor as Marley23 succinctly put it) has no interest in this even before the baby is born.
Is there something magical that happens at birth to make dads all of a sudden interested in the child?
I don’t see how, unless they think they have some kind of ownership of her body.