General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbortions motivated by a fetus's perceived homosexuality.
I found it interesting that many DU posters seemed okay with the idea that it shouldn't be the business of the government if a woman or family chooses to have an abortion because of the fetus's gender.
So, I want to propose a different hypothetical- what if the fetus's was perceived to be, or thought to be proven, to be gay?
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)will be as opposed to the one about gender.
As a gay person this is actually something in the back of my mind- what if this becomes a reality??
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)I'm not sure why you feel certain groups should get a veto on a woman's right to choose.
dsc
(52,162 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)I would imagine that there would be a "market" for gay babies among gay couples looking to adopt..
dsc
(52,162 posts)but frankly currently I think most gays don't care one way or the other if their kid is gay or not.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Of course there will be exceptions, but I, as well as everyone that I know who has children wouldn't ever let the sexual orientation of the child influence our decision to keep him/her
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)a gay-destined fetus would be certain religious fanatic couples who would either NEVER opt for abortion anyway, or who we wouldn't want a gay child to be tortured by growing up in their home so abortion would be preferable.
So there really isn't an actual PROBLEM here.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)And these genes should have spread through the whole homo sapiens sapiens population by now, simply as a matter of "survival of the fittest". (I read about an isolated tribe, a few months ago, that had never even heard of homosexuality.)
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.short
A statistical proof that male homosexuality is genetically inherited and is related to increased fertility in female family-members.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051107001433
A statistical proof: About a third of men and two thirds of women are somewhat bisexual and most likely the cause for homosexuality is genetic.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231
Sexual orientation is determined before birth, depending on which hormones the developing brain of the fetus is subjected to.
Quote (page 8): "Prenatal nicotine exposure has masculinizing/defeminizing effects on sexual orientation of female offspring and increases the probability of lesbianism."
dsc
(52,162 posts)It has all but disappeared. It is irrelevant what causes it for this scenario provided there is a test that can be given before birth.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Humans are shallow. If someone is pretty on the outside, then he must have good genes, which means, you really should have sex with that person.
Down-syndrome changes the phenotypical appearance in a way that moves an individual farther away from the parameter-set that defines beauty. Therefore, people with down-syndrome are less likely to procreate.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not visible by the mere eye.
Even if the male embryo inherits the appropriate genes from the mother, he will not automatically turn out gay. (Otherwise every son of a particular mother would have to be gay.) This means, there are men and women out there, who carry the genes but aren't homosexual.
(For female embryos: From what I have read so far, lesbianism isn't genetic but determined by the chemicals that influence the embryo in utero during the brain-formation-stage.)
My point is, that the homosexual genes were advantageous and undetectable in the past, so they must have spread far and wide.
When they become detectable in the future, getting rid of them could only be achieved by keeping a sizable (or maybe even overwhelming) part of the population from having children at all.
And even if a society attempts to go there, all of the lacking population would have to be born by mothers which lack the fertility-bonus of the homosexual genes.
RobinA
(9,893 posts)gay with Down syndrome??? This heterosexual would not abort for gender or sexuality. Down syndrome would be an issue. However, thought policing should not inform abortion legality.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)It will never die out. It naturally occurs in aging eggs.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)dsc
(52,162 posts)just might, want to do a simple google search. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/down-syndrome-births-drop-us-women-abort/story?id=8960803
"An estimated 92 percent of all women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies, according to research reviewed by Dr. Brian Skotko, a pediatric geneticist at Children's Hospital Boston.
Birthing trends worldwide show that women are waiting longer to have children and advanced maternal age is associated with increased risk of having a child with Down syndrome.
The number of Down Syndrome cases is declining enough in the United States to raise concerns that research funding to study the congenital condition will dry up. There's also worry that more people will deny themselves what some call the "gift" of raising children with Down syndrome.
The words you're looking for is sorry I lied about you I should have actually, God forbid, have looked before I typed.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)abort because they know that child will be dependent on someone else to care for them for the rest of their lives. The dependent child is very likely to out live their parents and will still need someone to care for them. And we as a society don't care for our sick and disabled anymore. I have an autistic child and I am scared to death about whether or not he will have everthing he needs in life after I and my husband are gone. If the republicans have their way there won't be any social programs for the disabled in the future, a very anti pro life policy. They care for the fetus. They just don't care about the child once it is born. As far as someone aborting because they fear their baby would be gay I very seriously doubt it. And if they did wouldn't they themselves be committing a sin that would send them to hell forever according to their own beliefs?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL...
People just aren't so petty.
Also, there is no test and it is pretty clear there never will be - if identical twins quite often differ in sexual orientation, it is not a fixed genetic thing that we could ever test for (like Downs Syndrome). See the Swedish all-twin study:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9386-1
But even if there ever were such a test, I don't think people would abort most those children.
Quite a few people know that their children have Downs Syndrome, but don't abort the baby. Downs kids have always seemed to me to be able to live very happy lives. As a parent, that is what would make the difference for me.
I don't think most people perceive having a same-sex orientation as being a characteristic that dooms a person to a tragic, tortured life, so I think you are wrong.
dsc
(52,162 posts)and that is after they have lived with those parents for a long enough time to tell them they are gay. You seriously think that given those numbers abortion of gay kids wouldn't be a huge problem. as to you other point, that is a fairer one but the OP presumed it had been neutralized.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)in prejudice. I just am flabbergasted that folks don't have an issue with this!
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Are you implying that women will be forced to abort a suspected "gay" fetus?
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)by possible sexual orientation of the fetus do you think there is an issue there? I suspect we all, as liberals believing in equality, would find a moral issue, but what about a state saying " No, that's not okay. The right to an abortion ends at that point. "
I'm really just trying to have a discussion, I swear. :/ People get feisty if you try to have any rational discourse over this issue.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)women would get tested for it and then abort as a routine practice.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)widespread- but we are actually in some aspects creeping closer to potentially being able to produce something.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)How would you be the arbiter of what abortions are sanctioned? It is pro-choice, or it is not.
I don't think it would be widespread. I don't think the evangelical's in the van would do it.
Warpy
(111,261 posts)You have to trust women and their doctors to make the appropriate health care decisions.
Not your body. Not your risk. Not your decision.
aquart
(69,014 posts)I assume you think this idiotic waste of time is funny.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)And, as is quite obvious, I'm gay.
One can find something loathsome, but still respect the legal right of someone doing that thing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)lousy ones...or there's no "reason" at all.
Not.
Our.
Business.
MADem
(135,425 posts)cecilfirefox
(784 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I think most of us here have your number, too.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)By you having to resort to stupid emoticons and snark shows that you've conceded the argument.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)Women currently have abortions for good reasons, bad reasons, perhaps no reason. We don't get involved.
It's a woman's decision. Starting down the road of guessing her motives will lead to a morass.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)You folks probably can't understand that, unless you are.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)There are plenty of people in this world, believe it or not, who don't regard "gay" as a negative.
You should get out more, maybe you'll meet some of them.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)without baiting them, and telling them their sleazy, and that they need to 'get out more'- I get out plenty and I'm surrounded by loving people.
Really MADem? Try not to be mean to people!
MADem
(135,425 posts)You are rolling out an anti-choice canard, very similar to the one I just heard--moments ago-- Rush Limbaugh babble on about on a clip on Lawrence O'Donnell's program.
If you were "surrounded by loving people," you surely wouldn't have the world view that so many "loving people" would contemplate aborting a fetus SOLELY based on their gender or their orientation-which-cannot-be-determined-by-a-test, assuming they were inclined to welcome a child into their lives. The fact that you do think these things--gender and orientation--somehow MATTER, and are perceived as NEGATIVES, makes me question your agenda in posing this divisive scenario.
I'm not being mean. I'm being BLUNT. You're behaving badly here. You'd be better off putting the question to the GOP--they're the ones with the "Right to Life" plank in their platform. Go poll them and get back to us.
Democrats are pro-CHOICE, it's in our party platform....and if the choice is not yours, or mine, it's NOT OUR BUSINESS.
That's all you need to know.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)and I don't need a person on a computer in gods no where to tell me otherwise.
Think I'm blocking you at this.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the topic.
You see what kind of reception your bright idea is getting--it ain't going over like you hoped. Damn few cheerleaders for your thesis, and I'll bet you thought you'd do better.
Democrats and progressives do tend to be consistent, particularly when it comes to that hard-won battle for women's choice. It's not your business. It never will be your business.
Enjoy your time here.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)You might want to try it sometime, you might learn something.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your hypothetical is absurd. It is just nonsense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)community. Textbook presentation, too. It's a "gay rights...or abortion rights? Which will YOU choose?" false dichotomy.
A quick google of "Rush Limbaugh, gay gene, abortion" will give you a plethora of examples dating back across the last decade.
Not even subtle.
I was born at night, but not last night!
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)I would hope society would discourage such abortions, but I'd adamantly oppose any laws or regulations that infringe on a woman's right to choose. We already have enough people trying to do just that, and it infuriates me.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)And it isn't any of my damn business if a woman gets an abortion any more than it is my business who someone else sleeps with as long as it is consensual. Tending to other people's business causes more problems than anything else.
Speak on it. Im gay and feel the same.
michigandem58
(1,044 posts)So my guess is you wouldn't see this scenario a lot, even if it could be identified in the womb.
End of the day, her business.
dsc
(52,162 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)I've known a few women who have had abortions for lousy reasons. It's still not my business; it might be grotesque but it has nothing to do with me. If they ask me my opinion, I'm going to tell them that I think their reasons for having an abortion are awful...but I'd still defend their right to have an abortion for any idiotic reason or no reason at-all.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)that would not be a reason for an abortion.
My oldest son (now 30) has alopecia areata. It's an auto-immune disorder that causes hair loss. Shortly after he lost all of his hair at the age of 3, I became pregnant with my second child. My mother actually asked me if I was sure I wanted another child, because what if this second one also got alopecia? I thought that was totally nuts, and was not a good reason not to have the second baby.
As it turned out, child number 2 also lost all of his hair to alopecia areata at age 10.
There are various circumstances under which I would choose to have an abortion, but possibly homosexuality, or hair loss are not among those circumstances.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)after which some women have an abortion and others don't, even with the exact same diagnosis?
Down Syndrome. Deafness. ADD. Tay-Sachs. Slightly below average IQ. Athletic ability. Dwarfism. Left-handedness. Autism. Musical prodigy.
Some of those we can test for, others we can't. In the end, it's a highly personal choice and I believe in choice.
Let me add a little more to my story. I was 38 when I had son number 2. Both my OB and my mother were disturbed that I did not have pre-natal testing for Down Syndrome, since at my age there was a higher risk. But I'd already decided that a child with Down Syndrome would not be the worst possible thing to happen, and so I passed. Son number 2 is very smart and witty. He graduated from the University of Tulsa cum laude a few years ago, and currently earns his living delivering pizza while doing stand-up. He lives in Portland, OR. Son number 1, who is positively brilliant, but somewhat socially awkward, turns out to have Asperger's Syndrome. He wasn't diagnosed until age 18 and half way through his senior year of high school. As frustrating and difficult as things sometimes have been with him, I wouldn't want him any other way. And he has told me he would not want to be "normal".
Oh, and as for the alopecia, both sons have told me that if there's ever a cure for it, they'd pass on it. Imagine, you guys, how easy life is for them. They've never had to shave. Never have to get a hair cut. Plus, they're very distinctive looking, so if any of you are in the Portland area and ever go to the comedy clubs, look for the one who's totally bald. That's my kid.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am pleased that you made it plain that these are your sentiments and that you wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else.
I find the premise of this thread very troubling. It's one of those "How dearly do you hold your principles?" type threads, looking for people to be outraged at a scenario that doesn't even exist, and to involve themselves in a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
Roe v. Wade makes it quite plain--for those who are NOT having an abortion, the whys and wherefores of the termination are not our business, and I find it troubling that this OP is attempting to bait people into responding to a fantasy circumstance by using a group (in this case, homosexuals) with whom most of us identify as being deserving of full equality under the law.
It's sleazy, at a minimum.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)that is especially sensitive to me personally, without having hyper-emotional people calling me sleazy.
Think on that, "sparky".
MADem
(135,425 posts)Keep up the good work!
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Like it or not. And it will cause a lot of strange political alliances and role reversals.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)A woman has the right to chose whether or not she carries her pregnancy to term.
You don't get to decide for her. Ever.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)From "gay-gene" to the end.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)That doesn't mean it's genetic.
For others, it doesn't appear to be inborn.
The notion of a single "gay gene" that could be detected is silly.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)However, it could be possible to test the likelihood of homosexuality, concurrent to what we can physiologically pinpoint that is different between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We aren't there yet, but it's not completely out of the ballpark of possibility.
MADem
(135,425 posts)him.
This is not a new argument--it's a canard.
http://unfinishedlivesblog.com/2010/07/04/bigot-watch-rush-limbaugh-on-gay-gene-abortion-and-gay-babies/
http://www.wnd.com/2003/01/16871/
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/homophobia-rush-limbaughs-top-anti-gay-quotes/discrimination/2009/03/05/517
He's a very clever propagandist.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)To re-establish: I am pro-choice; when it comes to the law it is, and should be, the woman's choice. That has always been my view.
But I don't think anybody can say that it is a healthy thing for our society when expectant mothers choose abortion for no other reason than that the child might be gay. For the same reason that many Chinese mothers choose abortion upon learning that the baby will be a girl. Mara Hvistendal has written about the social consequences of this, which also blends into the issue of a culture that values males more than females.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)You don't like abortions? Don't get one. That is all you need to know.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Are you advocating for women to be forced to carry their pregnancies to term? If so, how is that in any way moral?
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)do you support allowing individuals to abort children based solely off their possible race?? :/
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is all very strange. And, yes, it is a woman's choice for any reason or no reason.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Sorry dude, but nothing trumps that.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)a stretch(in that circumstance, not abortion as a whole).
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)but the Supreme Court has pretty clearly decided that abortion for any reason is constitutionally protected. That simply isn't a "strech".
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)the SCOTUS ruling in favor of such a law. At least in this climate.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)gay fetuses (not that there is a way to determine that, there is plenty of evidence to support that sometimes it is genetic and sometimes it is hormonal in the womb) it's really simple - don't have one.
You are male and can't get pregnant? Oh, then it's even more simple than that. You won't be getting pregnant anytime soon, so it's none of your business.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)You can't even get pregnant, right? Aren't you male? And you think you have a right to force a woman to have a child.
again.
Texasgal
(17,045 posts)hands off my uterus?
This is actually very simple: It's none of your business.
Why is this hard for your to grasp?
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)around ever since Roe v. Wade. It's no different than comparing abortion to the Holocaust. You're casting pregnant women in the role of potential persecutors, and it's ridiculous.
The law of the land states that no woman should be forced to give birth. That is a basic human right, no matter what genetic traits the fetus might have or not have.
Response to Chorophyll (Reply #37)
cecilfirefox This message was self-deleted by its author.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)And yes, they are easy to avoid--don't go to the doctor and request one!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is not society's business either.
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)Another way of undermining a women's right to choose.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)I'm just proposing something that is very, very possibly going to be an issue.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)and yours is very obviously one of those.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav
(408 posts)have children just because the fetus is gay? If you're not saying that, where's the issue?
Woman shouldn't be forced to give birth under any circumstance whether it's gay, a boy, or the next president. What if a woman wanted to abort because she felt the outcome would be an ugly child? It's not our business. Are you saying a gay fetus is more special than a female fetus or an ugly fetus?
ismnotwasm
(41,980 posts)Personally, as a women, I would NOT choose to abort a fetus it it was found to be Gay. I would embrace that potential and rejoice.
My body, my choice
peacebird
(14,195 posts)choose to abort an "insert type here" fetus. Some might,but again, not anyones business.
RobinA
(9,893 posts)No one has any right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion. For any reason.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)So this would be a-o.k.!
Of course my penis disqualifies me from even having an opinion so it doesn't really matter what I say.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)The "my penis disqualifies me" response.
But you're not trying to stir anti-choice shit here. No sirree, not you.
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)and I don't think that's totally fair.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)cecilfirefox
(784 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)does disqualify you since you won't be the one carrying the child for 9 months. When you can get pregnant, you are welcome to an opinion. Sorry to be harsh, but a man that never has to deal with a pregnancy doesn't have a horse in this race. As a woman, I also don't have any business telling another woman whether she should have a child or not, either. Not your body, not your business.
blogslut
(38,000 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)I would never presume to tell a gay man (or anyone else) what to do with his body. I ask for the same respect in return.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)blogslut
(38,000 posts)When he grows a uterus, fallopian tubes, some eggs and science develops an actual test to determine sexuality, I'll answer his "hypothetical".
MADem
(135,425 posts)Doesn't mean it's true!
ancianita
(36,055 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)... independent of the pregnant woman, consistency would require that there would be NO mitigating factors ( gender, sexual orientation, etc.).
Either the entity has legal status or it does not have legal status. Gender and sexual orientation of the entity is and ought to be extraneous.
If we are being consistent.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)The considerations are usually
A. Not ready to have a child
B. Finances ie not ready to have a child
c. The relationship with the father is strained ie not read not have a child
D. She is in college and can't see working, going to college and raising a child ie not ready to have a child.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He pulls it out of his ass anytime he has a lull in his Things To Be Outraged About.
Pardon the link (it's World Nut Daily) but this is illustrative:
http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/29120/
BILL WOULD BAN ABORTIONS OF 'GAY' FETUSES
Maine legislator got idea listening to Rush Limbaugh
State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.
He said the bill looks into the future in case scientists find what he described as a homosexual gene.
I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong, said Duprey, who got the idea while listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
But some lawmakers say Duprey is neither interested in creating new policy to protect gays and lesbians nor seriously discussing the issue of abortion. The bill, they say, is a way of forcing some lawmakers to choose between abortion rights and gay rights.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, I bet it would be much more likely that a RW woman would abort a gay fetus than a liberal woman. Just a hunch. I saw a movie where the mother said she was hoping for a gay child. I don't know if she was saying that because she was being supportive of her gay son or because she really was hoping. But, I will say this I wouldn't have been disappointed if I had a gay son. Nor was I disappointed when one of my daughters turned out to be gay. They are my children period.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you love your kids, they love you back. And they're good to you when you get old!
The only people I know who are "worried" or "concerned" about the orientation of their kids aren't Democrats. Republicans, when they reveal this sort of detail, are very defensive, as though they EXPECT to be derided for an entirely natural occurrence.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)her/his young life will be hell. I would hope the mother, if she chose to carry her child to term, would give the child up for adoption.
BTW, Phyllis Schlafly, aka Grande Dame of the Flying Monkey Brigade, has a gay son. Discredited psychiatrist Dr. Richard(?) Socarides, the prime mover of the "gays choose to be gay" school of thought, also has a gay son. Socarides' son served as President Clinton's liaison to the Community.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)based upon hypothetical situations.
MADem
(135,425 posts)An attempt to divide by demanding that people make a false choice, using a fictional nexus of abortion rights and gay rights.
It's not new, either. Here's another example, courtesy of The Unfinished Lives Project BIGOT WATCH, of Rush trotting out his gay gene/abortion argument:
How many groups does this screed by Rush Limbaugh injure and offend? Limbaugh pontificated in 2003 on how the hypothetical discovery of a gay gene would cancel LGBTQ support for womens right to choose. On the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, Limbaugh launched this broadside (see Joe Kovacs, World Net Daily.com:
Imagine we identify the gene assuming that there is one, this is hypothetical that will tell us prior to birth that a baby is going to be gay. Just like a baby is gonna be redheaded and freckled and maybe tend to be overweight and so we tell the parents that, and the parents say Nope, dont wanna give birth to that child, [it's] not gonna have a fair chance. Who wants to give birth to an overweight, freckle-faced redhead? Bam. So we abort the kid.Well, you add to this, lets say we discover the gene that says the kids gonna be gay. How many parents, if they knew before the kid was gonna be born, [that he] was gonna be gay, they would take the pregnancy to term? Well, you dont know but lets say half of them said, Oh, no, I dont wanna do that to a kid. [Then the] gay community finds out about this. The gay community would do the fastest 180 and become pro-life faster than anybody youve ever seen. Theyd be so against abortion if it was discovered that you could abort what you knew were gonna be gay babies.
These guys finish up the argument way better than I could, but I associate myself with their comments:
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)I certainly wouldn't want to give birth to an idiot like Rush or his followers.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It's still none of my business why a woman has an abortion.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)they shouldn't be trying to become parents.
It is sad we live in a world where people actually want to know something like that. If you are not prepared to love your baby unconditionally, DO NOT GET PREGNANT PLEASE!!!!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If you aren't prepared to love your children unconditionally, don't have them. If you are male and incapable of becoming pregnant, don't try to tend to the business of those that can become pregnant.
It's pretty damn simple.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)Your very question was the plot for a motion picture, Twilight of the Golds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds
Even so, the choice is still between a woman and whomever she wishes to involve in the decision, though aborting a fetus because it was female/male, or gay would be repellent to me.
REP
(21,691 posts)Most women with a wanted pregnancy want that pregnancy and resulting baby, no matter what - especially here. Anecdote is not the plural of data, but I've never heard a pregnant woman worry that the baby might be gay (almost everything else - i think that may be part of pregnancy - but never about gay/not gay )
In countries where sex-selection abortions are endemic, look at the treatment of women and that's where you'll find the real problem (and if sexuality-selection is ever a reality, look at how non-straights are treated in those same countries).
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)I still maintain it is the choice of the woman and who she may choose to make a decision as to abort or not. However, it doesn't change the fact I find it disgusting that someone would (consider) ending a pregnancy based on the fetus' sex or sexuality. You might not have heard of someone wanting an abortion because the fetus might be gay, sadly, I have, multiple times! It is a changing attitude (or it might be because I don't get out as much).
REP
(21,691 posts)I maintain - against much evidence - that most people are basically decent. Also, I've been debating abortion politics for over 20 years and I've seen data that that indicates that those sampled would not terminate an otherwise wanted pregnancy because of the probable sexuality of the resulting baby. I can't put my hand on that research right now, but much like "abortions are bad - except mine," gayness may be no longer terrifying when it's in a wanted baby.
Again, I would think if such a thing were possible, it would be a terrible thing, primarily occurring where sex-selection abortions happen because women are already so devalued/worthless.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)As I said, I have seen a change in attitudes, but I have met those who claim they would abort a "gay child." Now, the reality is also, if they were actually IN the situation, would the response still be the same. I have met a number of "anti-abortion" people, right up until they had an unwanted pregnancy and terminated it, which you referenced.
It would be terrible, just as it is for those who abort because of sex, but doesn't change the idea of choice, at least not for me.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I'd like to see that sonogram!
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)
What if the fetus was perceived to be, or thought to be proven, to be an alcoholic? A drug addict? Or have a propensity to be a criminal? Would it be ok for a woman to use any of these hypothetical genetic markers as a reason to choose to have an abortion?
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Should it legally be her decision? No matter why she came to the decision? Yes.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Even if you don't agree with that reason. End of.
OP is a troll. A crappy, desperate one at that.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Perhaps any woman seeking an abortion should have to answer a list of questions, then deny her if any of the answers are deemed "objectionable".
Seriously though...what part of CHOICE do you have a hard time with?
Either a woman has the right to choose, or she doesn't.
It's her choice. Period.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)pretty much answers the whole thing.
sarge43
(28,941 posts)If she would be denied an abortion because her answer(s) were "objectionable", anyone believe she'd tell the truth. In short, how would this "test" be enforced?
This isn't a slippery slope; it's a vertical cliff.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Hypothetically a woman finds out she is pregnant and (somehow) learns that the baby is/will be gay.
Has her autonomy been reduced in some way by the future sexual orientation of the fetus?
Would she have more rights somehow if the child were hetero?
Aha!
Since her right is to terminate a pregnancy by her own standards then of course that includes standards you or I wouldn't agree with.
As to whether this would lead to the statistical elimination of gay people at some future point in time (a concern voiced in this thread)... well, then that's what it leads to, but not as a top down decision. It would arise only from (hypothetical) unanimity among billions of individual women that they all feel strongly about not wanting gay children.
If, hypothetically, all women decided to eliminate some trait from the human gene pool then that is what all women chose, as a series of individual choices, to do with their bodies.
That sounds shocking, but again, consider it in the alternative. If all women who existed felt the same way (unlikely) would one then say that all women are wrong, and that women should be forced to carry gay fetuses to term?
In every scenario, not matter how weird or impossible, women must not be considered an agricultural resource as producers of humans... any humans. Women do not have an obligation to perpetuate the species.
It is against everything in human nature to conceive a world where all women prefer to be childless, but if that happened then the human race would end. As it ought to if no woman wanted to bear children.
Which isn't going to happen, of course.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Your post is possibly my favorite, but there are so many great responses in this thread...
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)I trust women to make the right decision for themselves...ultimately, the aggregate choices made will define the societies that future generations live under.
David__77
(23,402 posts)I'm gay, and think that homosexuality is perfectly moral. I do not think that human sexuality is SIMPLY biologically-determined. I know too many straight men that have sex with men to think that.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)From a legal point of view, I am pro-choice. As far as what the law should be, that's it.
However, I think many people think that some reasons for abortion are more ethically acceptable than others. For example, many pro-choice people are probably very uncomfortable with the idea of selectively aborting female fetuses, as happens in some parts of the world. It doesn't mean that they feel that any law should be passed to stop the practice, but that they disapprove of it personally. There are many unfortunate things that people do that shouldn't be illegal, but all the same it'd be best if people didn't do them.
As to your specific question, I would answer it the same way. I would fervently hope that parents would not abort a fetus because the child may be homosexual, but as of now I don't think the law should stand in the way.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)is fine by me.
It is no one's place to decide when an abortion is permissible no matter the reason.
Will the occasional woman make a stupid choice? of course...as is their right to do so, and little harm is done.
On edit: well a fewer sociopaths to vote for, but we will have to live with it
MichaelHarris
(10,017 posts)And you know about it and even know why they are doing it? Get the fuck out of their medical records, you're breaking the law!
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)is sacrosanct and her reasons for aborting is absolutely none of my . . . or anyone else's . . . business. The End.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)I would be 100% against a law, for the simple fact that even if women were doing this they could easily lie if asked. Therefore we would be opening the door first to requiring doctors ask women why they're having an abortion, then to the required recording and reporting of those reasons, then a huge potential for abuse of that information when it's stored in some file somewhere.
Are some people going to make bad choices when they have the freedom to make a choice? Yes, they are. People use their freedom of speech to be assholes; they use their freedom of assembly to stage Klan rallies; they use their freedom of the press to, well, create Fox News.
Freedom to choose means that we accept sometimes people will make choices with which we disagree, or that we think are wrong.
I support the freedom of choice.
cali
(114,904 posts)stultusporcos
(327 posts)tell another what they can and cannot do with their body, whether it be getting a tattoo, removing a parasite or wanting to kill yourself.
Your body your choice, period.
diphthong
(21 posts)For that matter, scrape it if it's white, black, asian, has halitosis, walks, dates Miss America contestants, has eyes.....
We're overpopulated - abort 'em all....
gollygee
(22,336 posts)although it seems like, generally anyway, the people who would do that are also very anti-abortion to the point in some cases of wanting to do away with some kinds of birth control.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...to ANY legislative body or to ANY discussion about nonsensical, no way to be proven "hypotheticals" on a public message board.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Good troll by the way
Recursion
(56,582 posts)While breastfeeding at Olive Garden.
Some people have trouble with the concept of "autonomy". Particularly when it's applied to women's bodies.
Response to cecilfirefox (Original post)
slackmaster This message was self-deleted by its author.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)This is a bit sci-fi but based on the studies I've seen homosexual behavior is a product of how specific genes are expressed with interaction with their environment during fetal growth. I would think that if a genetic test picks up a likelihood of homosexuality then the mother would be treated with hormones to prevent expression of the genes that make a person gay.
This is not my field and there is a very good chance I'm wrong.
But it is coming and it will be very, very controversial.
Maeve
(42,282 posts)Not the business of the government why a woman decides. At all.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)That is what I am waiting for.
Talk about cultural realignments and fucking up some paradigms. Lets get it on! (pun intended)
cecilfirefox
(784 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It does seem to beg the critical and relevant question-- how does one determine the sexual orientation of a fetus? Only from that may we proceed further with the premise...
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)The point is that once you start making personal morality everyone's business it becomes very hard to stop and at the same time it encourages the talibanistas.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I wish the median DUer understood that about rights other than abortion (and I am not referring to guns)
Dozens of things are discussed here daily within the frightening legal=okay framework.
I have even, in extreme instances, seen people say that the ACLU supports the KKK. (As opposed to supporting the right to free assembly)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)barbtries
(28,794 posts)and believe that an otherwise wanted and welcomed baby being aborted for that reason would be despicable.
i don't have a lot of respect for the many people in india and china aborting their girls for that matter. i figure that practice will come back to kick them in the ass when their sons can't find wives. i have wonderful fantasies of girls' families demanding humongous dowries from boys' families, for instance.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)says more about you and your prejudices than it says anything about DU.
benld74
(9,904 posts)obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Not yours, not mine, not the government's.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)One may make moral judgements about all sorts of reasons a woman would chose to have an abortion. It is not our decision nor our business what those reasons are.
Texasgal
(17,045 posts)I will make my own decisions regarding my body no matter what they are.
Tien1985
(920 posts)I oppose forced birthing and find the very idea disgusting. Her body, her choice.
obamanut2012
(26,076 posts)And, obviously I'm gay. A woman has a right to abort any fetus she wants, and I will support her legal right to do so.
Emotion has no place in allowing someone to have a legal medical procedure.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)There is no role for government when it comes to a woman's decision about whether or not she wants to allow her body to be a vessel for another human being. None whatsoever.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)let the woman make her own choice and then let God judge her reasoning. Why do Fundie Christians think they should sit in judgment? Isn't that their God's role?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Period.
And fuck bringing a disgusting right wing "morality" testing hypothetical to this website. Seriously. Fuck that noise.