Aborting Potential Gay Babies Choice or Bigotry?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I still do not understand the thread title. Specifically "choice or bigotry". The premise sounds more like the choice of bigotry.

[AUTUmike 79]

Would that be offensive in the mind of a pro-abortion believer, or would it just be simply, a choice?

You would have to ask someone who is "pro-abortion".

I don't know anyone that is pro-abortion. I know of people who are opposed to ALL abortion, even in cases of rape/incest. I know of people who make an exception for rape/incest. And I know people who would prefer abortions didn't take place, but believe it is up to the mother to decide. But I've never met or heard of anyone who liked abortion or promoted it...i.e., "pro" abortion. If I should meet such a person, I'll be sure to ask your question and get back to you with their answer.

Exactly. The "pro-abortion" label is even dumber than labeling libertarians who support the decriminalization of drugs as "pro-heroin."

[Weegle777 78]

I still do not understand the thread title. Specifically "choice or bigotry". The premise sounds more like the choice of bigotry.

No, choice or bigotry.

[quietfan 233]

I still do not understand the thread title. Specifically "choice or bigotry". The premise sounds more like the choice of bigotry.

No, choice or bigotry.

Personally I'm of the opinion that pretty much all bigotry is a choice, unlike homosexuality.

[Weegle777 78]

Also, if this gene was found in the test subjects to reveal a 30-40% guarantee that the subjects would be gay, shouldn't this gene be found in all gay people? And, what about the other 60-70%? What about gay people that don't have this gene? Are they gay because of a choice?

From you own linked article: ""The thing that's consistent is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest."

30% is fundamental and the other 70% is society or environmental.

[Weegle777 78]

I still do not understand the thread title. Specifically "choice or bigotry". The premise sounds more like the choice of bigotry.

No, choice or bigotry.

Personally I'm of the opinion that pretty much all bigotry is a choice, unlike homosexuality.

So then every homosexual should have this gene, correct?

[AUDub 11,149]

Also, if this gene was found in the test subjects to reveal a 30-40% guarantee that the subjects would be gay, shouldn't this gene be found in all gay people? And, what about the other 60-70%? What about gay people that don't have this gene? Are they gay because of a choice?

From you own linked article: ""The thing that's consistent is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest."

30% is fundamental and the other 70% is society or environmental.

Just because environment may have played a major role doesn't make it any less a core part of a gay person's self identity, Weegs. An overview of the field of epigenetics would be a good study for you.

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

Since science has found the "gay gene", if a couple had their baby's DNA examined and the test showed that the baby had the "gay gene", and they chose to abort the child because they wanted a straight baby, is this just simply their choice or is this a case for bigotry?

http://www.ibtimes.c...-choice-1436389

You've managed to combine two hot button topics, homosexuality & abortion. Allow me to introduce a third: designer babies. http://www.bionetonl...nt/db_cont1.htm For the far-sighted parents who think about these topics in a timely fashion, it's now possible to "weed out" undesirable genes without resorting to abortion!

Ok, in that same vein, would it be discrimination to weed out the gay gene or just a choice?

In the broadest sense, selecting anything is being discriminatory. From the article I linked, it's possible to select the sex of a baby. The Chinese famously prefer to have their first child be born a male. Is that discriminatory toward females, or just a cultural norm?

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

[japantiger 4,051]

From the opening link:

While the findings revealed genetics accounted for around 30% to 40% of a man's sexuality, the rest was based on social and environmental factors.

...

He added: "Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome."

...

He said: "The thing that's consistent is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest."

It seems obvious to me that fetus selection based on sexual orientation is prejudice, just as selection based on eye color, blood type, or race would be.

As for what that means in terms of abortion rights, I can't answer, as I don't know when human life begins. But I wouldn't deny abortion choice to all simply because some might use it for petty discrimination.

Would it be discrimination? Afterall, it isn't a human being so you can't discriminate against an inanimate object correct?

Come on Weegs...you're just being to tough on them now. Please, stop; even I can't stand to see some of the feeble responses here. You can't expect them to reconcile their "situational" morals on something like this. Which false god is more important here?

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

[Weegle777 78]

Also, if this gene was found in the test subjects to reveal a 30-40% guarantee that the subjects would be gay, shouldn't this gene be found in all gay people? And, what about the other 60-70%? What about gay people that don't have this gene? Are they gay because of a choice?

From you own linked article: ""The thing that's consistent is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest."

30% is fundamental and the other 70% is society or environmental.

Just because environment may have played a major role doesn't make it any less a core part of a gay person's self identity, Weegs. An overview of the field of epigenetics would be a good study for you.

Ok, so say a person has the "gay gene", but has zero attraction to those who are of the same sex. Is this person making a choice or just doing what is natural to him or her?

[AUDub 11,149]

Ok, so say a person has the "gay gene", but has zero attraction to those who are of the same sex. Is this person making a choice or just doing what is natural to him or her?

If they aren't attracted to people of the same sex, then they aren't gay. If they aren't attracted to any in particular, that's called asexuality or autosexuality.

One doesn't simply "choose" their sexual orientation.

[Weegle777 78]

Ok, so say a person has the "gay gene", but has zero attraction to those who are of the same sex. Is this person making a choice or just doing what is natural to him or her?

If they aren't attracted to people of the same sex, then they aren't gay. If they aren't attracted to any in particular, that's called asexuality or autosexuality.

One doesn't simply "choose" their sexual orientation.

So there really isn't a "gay gene" then correct?

[AUDub 11,149]

Ok, so say a person has the "gay gene", but has zero attraction to those who are of the same sex. Is this person making a choice or just doing what is natural to him or her?

If they aren't attracted to people of the same sex, then they aren't gay. If they aren't attracted to any in particular, that's called asexuality or autosexuality.

One doesn't simply "choose" their sexual orientation.

So there really isn't a "gay gene" then correct?

I'd imagine homosexuality is the result of a combination of factors. There might be some parts of the genome that would mean a proclivity for homosexuality, but they might not be turned on without some kind of environmental trigger, like hormone exposure in the womb and what have you.

Again, a quick overview of the field of epigenetics would be a good study for you.

[Weegle777 78]

Ok, so say a person has the "gay gene", but has zero attraction to those who are of the same sex. Is this person making a choice or just doing what is natural to him or her?

If they aren't attracted to people of the same sex, then they aren't gay. If they aren't attracted to any in particular, that's called asexuality or autosexuality.

One doesn't simply "choose" their sexual orientation.

So there really isn't a "gay gene" then correct?

I'd imagine homosexuality is the result of a combination of factors. There might be some parts of the genome that would mean a proclivity for homosexuality, but they might not be turned on without some kind of environmental trigger, like hormone exposure in the womb and what have you.

Again, a quick overview of the field of epigenetics would be a good study for you.

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct? Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

[AUDub 11,149]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

[Weegle777 78]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

It is impossible for you to declare that with certainty.

[AUDub 11,149]

So, in essence, since homosexuality cannot be proven to be an inherent trait in the womb, you would be more inclined to believe that it is behavioral correct?

Behaviorial? Certainly not.

We are very much shaped by environmental factors, Weegs. You didn't really have much say in the concentrations of the hormones you were exposed to in the womb, did you?

Because, unless a "trigger" is applied, homosexuality may never surface, correct?

Possibly.

It is impossible for you to declare that with certainty.

You asked me if I believed it was behavioral.

The environmental factors/hormone exposure point I made is most definitely true.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

[Weegle777 78]

Ok. If the "trigger" is never applied, and the individual lives and dies without ever being attracted to the same sex, how would you know? If it is never triggered by an outside influence, the behavior will never materialize.

[Weegle777 78]

Sounds like a win-win for the right wingers. They can be pro-abortion (or is it pro-choice??) thus winning the support of dumb blondes and anti gay for the insecure males all in one issue.

So clarify what you mean. Everybody is pro-choice. Not everyone is pro-killing babies. Would it be bigoted or wrong to abort a non-human clump of cells if that clump of cells had the gay gene?

No, everyone isn't pro-choice. Some people are pro-life. I'd guess those people would say that either way it's murder. But now that a "gay gene" has been thrown in the mix it will be interesting to see how Republicans switch their stance since they've been called to the carpet on women's health issues, one being abortion. Those most opposed to abortion and homosexualityare radical right wing conservative Christians . So this issue creates quite the conundrum. So now it's a "clump of cells with the gay gene" instead of a human life. Abortion rights trump homosexuality? What a way to crush the "gay agenda" they keep preaching is in existence to destroy life as we know it.

There are only two choices, life or death. Being "pro-choice" is a fence-riding, non-committal position. Everyone chooses. And you make a good point. Would that cause those that are staunchly pro-life to reconsider? But, considering that abortion is legal, would that make those that are for abortion rights to suddenly take a moral stance if a couple wanted to abort to keep a possibly homosexual child from being born?

[Mims44 1,870]

Man, wouldn't that be a great way to swing everyone to your side.

Call yourself Pro-life

Call the opposition Pro-murder, Anti-life, or the "Killin babies, I'm lovin' it crowd".

[AUDub 11,149]

Ok. If the "trigger" is never applied, and the individual lives and dies without ever being attracted to the same sex, how would you know?

The same way I know you and I are straight. Asking them. We can't read hearts and minds, Weegs. We can detect some indicators, but this is a gray area. We can't say for certain whether a given individual will be gay, but the research does indicate there are biological factors beyond their control that play a role.

If it is never triggered by an outside influence, the behavior will never materialize.

Possibly.

[alexava 6,973]

Just come out of the closet.