I looked to see if anyone else asked this but I couldn’t find it.
First, this is NOT an abortion debate. I don’t even wanna hear from you if you aren’t gay and pro-choice, mmkay?
So anyhow …
Let’s say they find the gay gene, and some people start having abortions when they find out that their unborn baby carries the gay gene. (Yes, like in “Twilight of the Golds.”)
Would you be okay with that, or would it change your mind on the abortion thing, or what?
While I think it’s a morally horrific thing to do, I’m not sure it would change my opinion on the legality of abortions in general.
That is a hard question. I think of abortion as an option if a woman really can’t have a child, either because she’s too young or not at the right place in her life or doesn’t have money… it’s completely different if she WANTS a child and has an abortion only because the child would grow up to be gay.
I really don’t know. I’d say it would be best for all if that kind of testing was just not done, but I don’t think banning it would be reasonable either. Hmm, I dunno.
Moving this to Great Debates for obvious reasons.
Wouldn’t change my mind. Who am I to control any other person’s life?
Probably expecting a much more deep answer, but really, that’s all there is to it.
A woman has the right to control her own body, even if she’s a heartless, bigoted moron. That’s really the only issue here.
But what would be the alternative - forcing her to have a child that she’d hate? If she chose to keep it, it would be a horrible situation for both of them. But what’s the actual problem here? Isn’t homophobia based on the assumption that sexual orientation is a choice? If there is, in fact, a gay gene (which I doubt), it destroys that argument, since it is obviously no longer a choice. Of course, reason typically eludes these people, so who knows? The bottom line is that she has the right to do what she wants.
I half expected to open this thread and read an OP that said:
“Hah! You are gay. I thought so!”
Seriously, though, I think this raises a good point, easily generalized to any genetically influenced behavior. I’d agree with those who say that a woman has a right to rid her body of a fetus* for any reason she wants. No questions asked.
*But I always add the caveat that I’m generally anti-abortion once the fetus becomes viable.
How about this slight highjack: Supposing there was gene therapy that could be given to someone after birth to “correct” the gay gene “problem”. What if a parent decides to “treat” their young child and make him/her heterosexual? Assume that the “treatment” only works when given prior to, say, age 5 (ie, the child is too young to reasonably make the decision for himself/herself).
An interesting question and a gay mans answer…
I would have to say that I would still be pro-choice. I’m not pro-abortion really but I just don’t feel that I have a right to decide that for any woman. I would think that aborting a fetus, simply because of its sexual orientation, would be a choice based on bigotry though and I would hate to see that happen.
Of course, another interesting question would be to the fundamentalists. If the scenario of the OP was possible, would they change their view on abortion and abort the gay fetus, knowing that it would, in their view, live a life of sin or would they keep it?
musicguy:
That’s esay (and I’m not a fundamentalist). No abortion, and we’ll convince him that Jesus can save him and turn him straight.
Yeah, pro-choice, but disapproving.
I agree that they have the right to make the choice. I don’t have to like their choice.
PS, I know you said “I don’t even wanna hear from you if you aren’t gay …” but I decided bi would count. Ignore me if you wish.
Yes, bi counts, cajela.
What if the choice wasn’t based on bigotry, but based on fears of what the kid would have to go through as a gay man/woman?
(I bring this up because I’ve heard the same argument for the fat gene.)
If the scenario of the OP was possible, would they change their view on abortion and abort the gay fetus, knowing that it would, in their view, live a life of sin or would they keep it?
I’m a “fundie,” or I assume I’d be classified as one in your book and my answer is no, it wouldn’t change my view. There is no way I’d abort my baby if it turned up with the gay gene. Never, ever, ever.
Gay and pro-choice here and both of them would stay the same if the technology to determine sexual orientation by genes of a pre-born were available.
The more interesting thing for me would be to see if they’d test the pre-born which tested positive for the “sexuality gene”, if they’d turn around and test the parents to see if they had it too.
Alternatively, I wonder how a bi-sexual test result would change things.
The more interesting thing for me would be to see if they’d test the pre-born which tested positive for the “sexuality gene”, if they’d turn around and test the parents to see if they had it too.
But if one of the parents had the gay gene, wouldn’t that show that just because you have the gay gene doesn’t mean you will be gay?
I mean, if Mom has the gay gene and she’s married and pregnant by Dad, makes ya wonder.
You can carry a gene without expressing it.
And you can be pro-choice without being pro-eugenics.
And you can sire/conceive a child and be gay/bi. Sperm deposition and egg release do not an orientation make.
If there was a gay gene, it wouldn’t express itself on a dominant allele. Apologies if I’ve got the terminology wrong, it’s been a while since I’ve studied it, but I think most people get what I mean. In short, I’m saying that it’s quite possible for two straight parents to have a gay child.
I think I’m still pro-choice. The term “pro-choice” does imply choice, that is, a choice to be a bigoted homophobic idiot, but still a choice.
I’d be OK with that. If she doesn’t want the child, she shouldn’t have it. She’s either ignorant, stupid and/or closed-minded, probably all three, or living in a gay-hostile environment. In either case, abortion is better than having the child.
Its just plain wrong - I can imagine the scientists saying 3 years down the line “oops! That was the hair colour gene! Sorry.”.
And then another 10 years down the line - “oops we don’t actually know with any degree of certainty what any of these genes do - sorray again!”.