Abortion: Goor or bad for "gay community"?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2007 11:42 PM GMT
    1) In the near future it is probable but not certain scientists will discover the biological component that makes someone gay. When/if that occurs it will be only a matter of time before testing fetuses for this gay "component" or gene will be feasible. Would any of you support aborting a fetus because it's gay? Do you think abortion laws should be modified to prevent parents from aborting gay unborn children? As it stands there are few states which asks why a women is seeking an abortion it's virtually her business whether she's aborting a child who is a product of rape of if she found out it has downs syndrome and doesn't want to deal with the costs and effort to raise a mentally and physically handicapped child. Should abortion laws be clearly defined to limit which fetuses can get aborted?

    2) Even if the above never comes to frution and there is never a means to prove the sexual orientation of an unborn child do you still believe that abortion is morally right considering many of the unborn children aborted would in most likely cases be gay. By supporting abortion in general do you feel that this harms the gay community by aborting who would become future members of the gay community?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 12:19 AM GMT
    Well, I could go on all day about abortion. As far as discovering a gay gene...I don't think that being gay is just a genetic thing. It may have a genetic component, but it is also driven by many other factors-psychological, parental, social, etc. etc. While there might be a gene(s) that enhances ones proclivity to be homosexual (like a gene that enhances one's vulnerability to alcoholism), I don't think it would be the sole determinant.

    I also think if they do find a gene(s) for homosexuality, it will be more prevelant then expected (just a theory). Meaning there will be carriers who are straight.

    Outside of extremes (rape, incest, etc. etc.) I don't think abortion is a good thing. I think that Pro-choice means that you had a choice whether you wanted to have sex with that guy or not... the choice has already been made once your pregnant. However, I do think that the day after pill is fine because it prevents the egg from implanting in the uterine wall (which is a part of becoming pregnant).

    However, I will also say, that I don't know for sure if it's right for me to impose such views on other people... While this might be my standing, I am essentially trying to pass a law on someone elses body, and I don't know if I have the right to do that.

    That being said, I believe that the process for getting an abortion should be regulated much more closely, and that women wanting to undergo an abortion should first be cleared by a psychologist. I've known women in the situation of "what if I'm pregnant?" and I can tell you, every rational thought goes out the window...

    I think partial birth abortion is the most horrific act and should always be outlawed... If you want an abortion, do it while it is still a fetus, and not as it's being born. It's a horrible practice and to me is equivalent to murder. Basically they take the baby as it's being delievered, and they bash its skull in to kill it...Horrible and horrific...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 1:02 AM GMT
    I think it is a terrible thing for a person to do or try to do. And it took humans this long, most good things it takes a year for humans to screw up but they waited years to find the best way to kill it.
    I think that what we are doing walks the line of what is right and what is wrong. Is it something we really want to be able to do. What is next, saying I want a blond 6 foot 4 and IQ for 135 and they put a sperm in her and out comes a blond 6 foot 4 with an IQ of 135.
    This is something that is not right. Abortain that is. If you are so dumb that you do not use protection then you are stuck with him/her. Grow up and rase him/her. Also i think that when people say that we should force abortion are terrible people. But in a long time people will say gay children must be kill in the woum. So in the end i think the gene therey is bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 1:32 AM GMT
    Gay gene theory:
    Is it so important to know "why"?
    Of course there are predispositions.
    The most important is to be ourselves.
    "Why" will not help us to be happier.
    As if we were looking for a culprit.

    A women carries a child in her womb.
    She is the only person to decide if she will bring this child to birth.
    If she doesn't want to, then everything must be done to help her take the right decision, and perserve her life.

    The most evil thing in the world is to try to impose "good" on someone else.
    Against her/his will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 4:51 AM GMT
    What a manipulative attempt to generate doubt in the abortion rights issue...

    The question to ask is NOT if women are allowed to have an abortion if she knows ahead of time if her fetus will be gay, but RATHER if it is ethical to do such a testing during pre-natal stages, equating sexual orientation with other genetic DISEASE with DIRECT effect on the PHYSIOLOGICAL well being of a fetus once it becomes a future human being.

    Legalizing such a genetic pre-natal testing would not be any different from testing if a fetus will have "Aryan" traits such as blue eyes, blond hair, and fair skin. This would have been the Nazi's wet dream (and they have created these Aryan baby camps in hisotry.)

    Women with conjoined twins still give birth to these babies, why would one not give birth to a child simply because of his sexual orientation?

    A woman's control over her body is still just that... Do not equate sexual orientation with devastating genetic disease with terrible physiological outcomes...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 5:12 AM GMT
    Next thing you know would be if a woman should abort a fetus if they can tell you during pre-natal stages that it will never grow above height of 5'6...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 7:30 AM GMT
    They can already decide the sex of a baby, but sexual orientation is a bit different. Its something that isnt just gay or straight. Its more than that. Its in our brains. However, tests like these and isolation techniques are costly. Also I doubt many women would abort a fetus simply because it is gay and by the time this actually happens, if it ever does, our society will probably much more progressive. If it comes sooner than we would expect, then maybe it will unite us as a group to stand up for our right to exist. As of now, we really arent as united as we could be. Doctors will be unlikely to do these tests anyway since I doubt it will pass AMA or FDA aproval.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 12:44 PM GMT
    I do not think the sort of test you envision is possible even in principle. While it seems there is some genetic component that influences one's sexual orientation, there are many other factors to consider including, ironically in the present context, the prenatal environment. Science suggests that it is therefore impossible to say with certainty that a foetus will grow up to become a gay adult.

    To put it another way, there is a difference between aborting a foetus because something is _known_ about that foetus, and aborting a foetus because something is possible or probable about that foetus.

    This is a mildly original reformulation of the old "here's a reason you could have been aborted: we should ban abortion!" argument beloved of the so-called "pro-life" people. It is nothing more than an appeal to fear, as NYCMasc4Musc points out. The remaining posters are quite right to react with horror: there is no doubt that such an act is utterly unethical but there is no need to resort to law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 1:08 PM GMT
    Abortion is always wrong! It takes and innocent life. There are already people aborting children because they are male or female. It is wrong no matter how you look at it.
  • jc_online

    Posts: 487

    May 08, 2007 1:56 PM GMT
    Well said NNJf&b, well said.
  • duglyduckling

    Posts: 279

    May 08, 2007 3:16 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi... I agree totally. It's not up to us to decide. It's the woman's right to choose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 5:44 PM GMT
    Women have the right to choose...but I also think a baby has rights as well. Classifying a baby as subhuman may rid it of its rights, but is that ethical? Who is going to fight for the rights of the baby if the baby cannot fight for itself? Doesn't the baby deserve a shot at life just as the mother does, or any other human?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 6:54 PM GMT
    As an adoptee, I would much prefer there were as few abortions as possible. However, as a man, I'm in no position to be telling women what to do or not do with their bodies, and I simply can not align myself with a patriarchal, male dominator culture that is as much anti-gay as it is anti-abortion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 7:02 PM GMT
    I agree...it's tough either way you cut it... And both sides are limiting ones rights to choose what they want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 7:08 PM GMT
    Darnit !!!

    if only we dudes could impregnate one another. My bf and I keep trying, but all we've come up with is a stuffed kuala.

    A woman should have the right to choose no matter what.
    Women now have a fair standing in society. That can not be taken away. The right to choose is a basic civil right.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 8:28 PM GMT
    Abortion is a touchy subject.
    Before she died even katherine hepburn threw in her opion in her video-autobiography
    'In her own words'
    I think it's a womans choice. the wrong time the wrong place... then it doesnt suit the child any more than the parent.
    would you raise a child in a shack or leave it to fight it's life to be adopted and loved in an orphanage?
    or with the understanding that he/she was an accident... a result of rape/attack
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2007 8:43 PM GMT

    Thanks for the wonderful laugh, very cute!


    Do you think the "Republicans" are behind this research?

    All Joking aside it is deffinetly not right to tamper with what God created! However, I believe that women or couples have that right to abort but I feel that they should be counselled about the issue as there are many couples who would love to adopt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 10, 2007 4:51 PM GMT
    I also believe in a woman's right to choose, to choose whether or not to have sex. Problem is, many people do not care about consequences to their actions, especially sexual actions.

    If she DOES become pregnant, the baby has rights, as does the father. Abortion denies those rights. Bottom line: woman should choose to have sex ONLY when they are ready to have a child with a father.

    Even when rape or incest is involved, abortion is STILL not an ideal. Shouldn't we always strive towards the ideal, instead of settling for less?

    Many parents have children who are gay, mentally challenged, physically disabled, etc., but still love those children as any parent loves any child.

  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    May 11, 2007 11:32 AM GMT
    What a great topic. And I'm glad to see lots of well thought out replies from everyone, or both sides of the fence.

    My own opinion is that abortion isn't ideal, but should be allowed, as it should be a pregnant woman's right to terminate the pregnancy. She's the one who has to carry the child, suffer the many not very nice changes in her body and finally give birth (I don't think that's an easy task either). It's her life that would be affected, not ours as outsiders.

    Inspite of what people think no woman rushes into an abortion like it's a walk in the park, and I'm sure most women would try to avoid it. Everyone makes mistakes. Better a terminated pregancy than a lot of grief later.

    The question of terminating a pregnancy because abnormalities are detected is different one than terminating because the fetus is found to be Gay. Of course you should terminate if the child is going to be severely handicapped and/or have no quality of life. I don't think the medical profession, or mankind, will ever sanction a parent terminating a pregnancy because of sexuality/hair colour/IQ, if infact this is ever detectable at such an early stage.

    Of course, this is only my opinion and I know a lot of people here won't agree with it, but that's cool.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2007 11:44 AM GMT
    And this brings this thread to antoehr thread on the theory of "Gay gene" suspected to increase the percentage of homosexual new born (note: increase percentage ONLY.)

    There are identical twins out there, with the exact genetic make up, that are of different sexual orientatons (one gay, one straight.)

    Not only is the "gay gene" not isolated or discovered, but it is likely not a single gene phenomenon but a complex combination of multiple genes in additon to other factors such pre-natal conditions during different stages of gestation..

    Therefore, such a test to 100% predict "gayness" is NOT likely to come in the future ANYWAY....
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    May 11, 2007 12:47 PM GMT
    When you grow breasts and the ability to shoot a baby out of your uterus...you can judge.

    Till then, step to the sidelines boys - you don't get to judge.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 11, 2007 2:53 PM GMT
    No, it is NOT a woman's right to abort because her child might be gay. Neither is it her right to abort because it might have a big nose or tests say it might have the "wrong" color hair. This is what makes life interesting. A woman has the right to have a child or not, but not to sit in judgement as to if a child's life is worth her energy or not. Such testing should be outlawed before it's even available. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this is just plain wrong.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11648

    May 11, 2007 6:00 PM GMT
    Hmmm...my cynical mind see's a veiled agenda behind a question like this
    The right to choose question aside
    No..you do not have a right to choose what sex or what hair color or eye color you can have when having a baby
    you have the right to choose to bring into the world a child suffering from a disease if it can be screened prior to birth
    and unless it's changed since the last time I checked homosexuality is not a disease
    ...now the the meaty of your question and the reason I think you asked in the first place
    I as a man really shouldn't have a say in this since I don't have a uterus
    but I support a woman's right to choose
    and unless you can say that there will NEVER be an exception to the rule where a woman will not need to terminate a pregnancy because of health, rape incest or mental capacity...there should be no argument in the matter
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2007 6:46 PM GMT
    Intereseting article in the times about genetic testing and abortion. Check it out guys:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2007 6:49 AM GMT
    To be perfectly honest, I don't a woman should abort a child for any reason other than the fact that she doesn't want it. If she doesn't want a gay child, well hey, its her vagina a womb and I can't do anything about it.

    I think there's a lot of misconceptions of babies before birth. Just know that a lot of abortions take place before the babies form has actually developed.

    Whereas I could be wrong, I would like to believe that what ever it is that could scientifically make a child gay during development problem wouldn't even take place during that time.

    Depending of the level of development I am against abortion, early abortions do not bother me however because to me it nothing more than a clump of cells.