NationStates Jolt Archive

Mixing topics again...

Gay rights and women's reproductive rights.

Let's make some assumptions for the sake of argument:

1. Scientists discover and/or confirm that homosexuality is the product of a combination of genetic predisposition (several genetic factors that can be identified) in combination with certain environmental effects within the womb.

2. Scientists discover a genetic test for that predisposition. After all, there are now hundreds of tests for certain genetic predispositions that can be performed on both prospective parents and in situ fetuses.

Now, in the US, it's pretty obvious that although a large number of people don't really have anything terrible to say about gay people, a sizeable percentage (given the actual chance to vote on the issue) are against gay marriage. 12 or more states so far, and most are 60 to 70 percent against gay marriage. Let's assume that this means that most heterosexuals in the US think there's something "wrong" about being gay.

Not saying that's the right thing to think - just saying that's probably what's on their minds.

So, right now, women can abort their babies for just about any reason - it's their reproductive prerogative. In nations like India, even though it's illegal to do so, women abort because it's a female fetus. Here in the US, if you don't feel like carrying a child, you don't have to - just drive to an abortion clinic and make payment. You don't have to give a real reason.

If we go by the current assumption that 1 out of 10 people are currently gay, and we assume that the same people who voted against the right of gay people to "marry" would abort a fetus that they discovered would have a good chance of being "born gay", then we might have a radical reduction (within the US) of the total number of gay people within, say, 50 years. Even if 50 percent of women regularly take the test when they become pregnant, and half of those who come up positive abort the baby - that's a lot of gay people out the window.

Would gay people see this as a terrible thing? Do you think women have the right to make this decision? Do you believe that any woman having an abortion should be questioned as to why she's getting one? Do you believe you could deny a woman the right to abort solely because of a positive result on such a test? Is this eugenics at it's worst? Or is it ok?

Explain your answers.

Absolutely pathetic assumptions. And the rest follows from that.

As to a woman being allowed to abort a pregnancy - it is her decision in the end and she does not have to justify it in any way.

Absolutely pathetic assumptions. And the rest follows from that.

As to a woman being allowed to abort a pregnancy - it is her decision in the end and she does not have to justify it in any way.

What's pathetic about the assumptions?

Don't believe it will ever be possible to genetically test a fetus for the predisposition?

Let's say it does become possible. And some women abort for that reason.

Would you want to stop it from happenning?

I voted Yes after reading the thread title.
After reading the train smash of assumptions in the OP, I wished I hadn't.

WTF has a right to abortion got to do with gay marriage?

If you have to resort to a poll to get one response to a thread, well ... why bother?

people abort for selfish reasons. if they do it cause the baby is gay doesnt make a difference.

As opposed to public reasons?:confused:

As opposed to public reasons?:confused:

I'm asking:

Should a woman be required to give a truthful reason as to why she's getting an abortion?

And

If that reason is not politically acceptable (I want a male child; I don't want a gay child; fill in the blank) should she be denied the right?

What's pathetic about the assumptions?

Don't believe it will ever be possible to genetically test a fetus for the predisposition?

Let's say it does become possible. And some women abort for that reason.

Would you want to stop it from happenning?

The assumption that sexual preference is a genetic disposition is absolutely pathetic and unjustifiable. So let's not say it becomes possible.

If you wanted to question the benefit or otherwise of prenatal genetic testing, you could have done so with subjects that may be the result of genetic predisposition such as schizophrenia, but no, you had to go and throw an irrational and ill considered personal bias of your own into the discussion.

I'm asking:

Should a woman be required to give a truthful reason as to why she's getting an abortion?

No.


And

If that reason is not politically acceptable (I want a male child; I don't want a gay child; fill in the blank) should she be denied the right?

There's no such reason. It's a woman's right to determine who gets to use her body and for what, and if she doesn't want a male/gay/green eyed child, it's up to her to abort it.
I may not agree with her reasons, but that still doesn't give anyone the right to take the decision on what happens to her body away from her.

Which "right" is more important? The right of a woman to choose vs the right of the individual "the baby" to be gay.


I think the woman's right to choose outweighs the the rights of the baby in this case. If the parents can not bear to think of raising a child that might be gay then they should not be parents. It would do a disservice to the child to be forced into that family.

Well done we need more questions like this!

Which "right" is more important? The right of a woman to choose vs the right of the individual "the baby" to be gay.


I think the woman's right to choose outweighs the the rights of the baby in this case. If the parents can not bear to think of raising a child that might be gay then they should not be parents. It would do a disservice to the child to be forced into that family.

Well done we need more questions like this!

They could put the child up for adoption......

The assumption that sexual preference is a genetic disposition is absolutely pathetic and unjustifiable. So let's not say it becomes possible.

If you wanted to question the benefit or otherwise of prenatal genetic testing, you could have done so with subjects that may be the result of genetic predisposition such as schizophrenia, but no, you had to go and throw an irrational and ill considered personal bias of your own into the discussion.

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality. Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified. Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual. In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful. The results that Hamer's study did find though, cannot yet be accepted as absolute truth. Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality. As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

Other studies have been conducted that look at twin brothers rather than brothers of different ages. Bailey and Pillard (1991) did a study of twins that determined a 52% concordance of homosexuality in monozygotic twins, 22% for dizygotic twins, and 11% for adoptive brothers of homosexual men. These results, like Hamer's, provide further support for the claim that homosexuality is genetically linked. Studies very similar to the Bailey and Pillard study have been done both with female homosexual siblings and siblings of both sexes. The results for both of these studies were only off from Bailey and Pillard by a few percentage points. Putting all of these results together, it seems like genetics are at least 50% accountable for determining a person's sexual orientation.

I'm just saying it's possible. You are saying it's impossible.

There are studies that prove that it's certainly possible. Where is your evidence that it's impossible?

Women should not have to answer to anyone in order to exercise their right to privacy and to their own reproductive system. And if they want to abort a foetus because it might be gay, sure. It's horrible and sick, but none of my business, nor that of the state.

Mixing topics again...

Gay rights and women's reproductive rights.

Let's make some assumptions for the sake of argument:

1. Scientists discover and/or confirm that homosexuality is the product of a combination of genetic predisposition (several genetic factors that can be identified) in combination with certain environmental effects within the womb.

2. Scientists discover a genetic test for that predisposition. After all, there are now hundreds of tests for certain genetic predispositions that can be performed on both prospective parents and in situ fetuses.

Now, in the US, it's pretty obvious that although a large number of people don't really have anything terrible to say about gay people, a sizeable percentage (given the actual chance to vote on the issue) are against gay marriage. 12 or more states so far, and most are 60 to 70 percent against gay marriage. Let's assume that this means that most heterosexuals in the US think there's something "wrong" about being gay.

Not saying that's the right thing to think - just saying that's probably what's on their minds.

So, right now, women can abort their babies for just about any reason - it's their reproductive prerogative. In nations like India, even though it's illegal to do so, women abort because it's a female fetus. Here in the US, if you don't feel like carrying a child, you don't have to - just drive to an abortion clinic and make payment. You don't have to give a real reason.

If we go by the current assumption that 1 out of 10 people are currently gay, and we assume that the same people who voted against the right of gay people to "marry" would abort a fetus that they discovered would have a good chance of being "born gay", then we might have a radical reduction (within the US) of the total number of gay people within, say, 50 years. Even if 50 percent of women regularly take the test when they become pregnant, and half of those who come up positive abort the baby - that's a lot of gay people out the window.

Would gay people see this as a terrible thing? Do you think women have the right to make this decision? Do you believe that any woman having an abortion should be questioned as to why she's getting one? Do you believe you could deny a woman the right to abort solely because of a positive result on such a test? Is this eugenics at it's worst? Or is it ok?

Explain your answers.
A woman has the right to end her body's participation in pregnancy at any time, and for any reason. Whether or not you or I happen to agree with her reasons is totally and completely irrelevant.

Am I the only one who voted "no"?

I'm fairly liberal on most issues, and it sounds good when you say it's for "a woman's right to choose", but your right to swing a hammer around stops where my head begins.

Likewise, a woman's right to choose stops where the baby's future begins. I'm categorically opposed to all abortions after the baby is developed enough to suffer pain, unless the baby is likely to suffer a severe birth defect (in which case miscarriage handles the responsibility anyway much of the time) or the mother's life is in danger. I certainly don't believe the baby's future lifestyle is cause for abortion under any circumstances.

Before the child can feel, though, I still don't think that aborting over a gay gene is morally right, any more than I would support female infanticide among the Indians or male infanticide among the Amazons.

Which "right" is more important? The right of a woman to choose vs the right of the individual "the baby" to be gay.

The "right" of anybody to be gay is irrelevant to this discussion.

The only right that is of any importance is the right to one's own body.

Currently, no born human being has the right to comandeer another person's body for sustenance against that person's wishes. I see no reason why fetuses, be they gay or straight, should be granted "rights" which no human being possesses.

I'm asking:

Should a woman be required to give a truthful reason as to why she's getting an abortion?


Lying about your reasons for doing something isn't easily detected. How are you supposed to force the truth out of these women?

If that reason is not politically acceptable (I want a male child; I don't want a gay child; fill in the blank) should she be denied the right?

Instead of doing what you suggested why don't we ban doctors from revealing the gender or sexual orientation of the baby?

I agree adoption would be an option. I would hope the parents in question would have considered that. I agree with the reproductive freedom thing. I may disagree with their reasoning. In fact the parents in question should be sterilized to prevent them from ever having a baby again but that may be too far the other way.

Absolutely pathetic assumptions. And the rest follows from that.

As to a woman being allowed to abort a pregnancy - it is her decision in the end and she does not have to justify it in any way.
Threads like this one are just more of the same old refrain: "If we let women make choices, they'll make stupid/bad/sinful choices! Instead, we (read: male-dominated government) should make their choices for them! For the good of humanity, of course!"

Threads like this one are just more of the same old refrain: "If we let women make choices, they'll make stupid/bad/sinful choices! Instead, we (read: male-dominated government) should make their choices for them! For the good of humanity, of course!"

Actually, the thread was made to short circuit the forum by crossing two topics.

Just wanted to see if some people could make the choice between one thing they support and another thing they support.

The woman should have final say to anything that happens to her body. She should be able to abort for any reason she sees fit. One may not agree with her reasoning but that is no one's business but the womans.

Wow, strong reaction and opinions! Well done everyone.

Actually, the thread was made to short circuit the forum by crossing two topics.

Just wanted to see if some people could make the choice between one thing they support and another thing they support.
I fail to see how you've accomplished either one.

Yes, I believe gay individuals have the right to equality under the law, and I believe it's silly and infantile to act all squigged out by two boys kissing because really...get over yourself.

Yes, I also believe that every human individual has the right to control what happens to their own body. This fits nicely in with the above statement, since part of choosing what happens to your body includes choosing who your sexual partners are and what kind of sex you want to have.

Nobody has the right to force you into sexual relationships or activities you don't want, just like nobody has the right to comandeer your body to use for their own purposes. These are part-and-parcel of the same fundamental belief system.

I guess there aren't any right wingers stepping up to say:

"Abortion is wrong, even if the fetus is gay"

Thought I would at least hear some of that as well.

I guess there aren't any right wingers stepping up to say:

"Abortion is wrong, even if the fetus is gay"

Thought I would at least hear some of that as well.
Wanna know how to make an America pro-life conservative into a pro-choicer with one simple sentence?

"Your teenage daughter is pregnant, and the father is black."

are you kidding, the whole reason abortion is legal is because of medical privacy, and it should stay that way.

I guess there aren't any right wingers stepping up to say:

"Abortion is wrong, even if the fetus is gay"

Thought I would at least hear some of that as well.


I find meself in a very strange place then. Abortion is so very obviously wrong, yet I cannot bring myself to think anyother way than a womans right to choose is very right.


Ahhh consiounce what do you do to me:confused:

"Your teenage daughter is pregnant, and the father is black."

If you would terminate your prenancy because the child is black then you also do not, and should not ever be allowed to have children again.

Aborting babies with enfeebling genetic disorders is one thing, abortion for intolerance is another.

Aborting babies with enfeebling genetic disorders is one thing, abortion for intolerance is another.

Without demanding an answer to the question, and infringing on her medical privacy and reproductive rights, how would you know?

rape? what about that?

"Your teenage daughter is pregnant, and the father is black."

If you would terminate your prenancy because the child is black then you also do not, and should not ever be allowed to have children again.
Meh. Do you really think the world will be a better place if people like that choose NOT to terminate their pregnancies? Do you really want them breeding more than they already are?

rape? what about that?
Rape is only relevant if you believe that choosing to have sex means that a woman no longer gets to have the right to control her own body. Unless you think that women deserve to be punished for having sex, I can't think of any justification for this.

rape? what about that?

I love when people make the rape exception as it blows out of water the entire moral arguement that the foetus has a right to life and exposes the proponent of the exceptions true belief that banning abortion is about punishing women for consenting to sex.

And many pro-lifers are happy to have an except-for-rape clause...

Mixing topics again...

Gay rights and women's reproductive rights.

Let's make some assumptions for the sake of argument:

1. Scientists discover and/or confirm that homosexuality is the product of a combination of genetic predisposition (several genetic factors that can be identified) in combination with certain environmental effects within the womb.

2. Scientists discover a genetic test for that predisposition. After all, there are now hundreds of tests for certain genetic predispositions that can be performed on both prospective parents and in situ fetuses.

Now, in the US, it's pretty obvious that although a large number of people don't really have anything terrible to say about gay people, a sizeable percentage (given the actual chance to vote on the issue) are against gay marriage. 12 or more states so far, and most are 60 to 70 percent against gay marriage. Let's assume that this means that most heterosexuals in the US think there's something "wrong" about being gay.

Not saying that's the right thing to think - just saying that's probably what's on their minds.

So, right now, women can abort their babies for just about any reason - it's their reproductive prerogative. In nations like India, even though it's illegal to do so, women abort because it's a female fetus. Here in the US, if you don't feel like carrying a child, you don't have to - just drive to an abortion clinic and make payment. You don't have to give a real reason.

If we go by the current assumption that 1 out of 10 people are currently gay, and we assume that the same people who voted against the right of gay people to "marry" would abort a fetus that they discovered would have a good chance of being "born gay", then we might have a radical reduction (within the US) of the total number of gay people within, say, 50 years. Even if 50 percent of women regularly take the test when they become pregnant, and half of those who come up positive abort the baby - that's a lot of gay people out the window.

Would gay people see this as a terrible thing? Do you think women have the right to make this decision? Do you believe that any woman having an abortion should be questioned as to why she's getting one? Do you believe you could deny a woman the right to abort solely because of a positive result on such a test? Is this eugenics at it's worst? Or is it ok?

Explain your answers.
Too many of your assumptions are flawed. For starters, while anti-gay marriage amendments have passed--the number of states is 27--they've been passing by smaller and smaller margins, and 2006 witnessed the first ever defeat of one. While in 2002 and 2004, they were passing in the 60 and 70% range they're now in the 50-55% range, and the demographics show that the younger the age group, the more they support same sex marriage. In twenty years, if it takes that long, you'll see repeals of those laws, I'd wager.

Secondly, to say you're speaking facetiously about the ease of getting an abortion is to be kind about it. More proper would be to say that you're full of shit. It's easy for a woman to get a first-trimester abortion in some states (assuming she can afford it, that is)--they tend to be the more liberal areas of the country. Want to get an abortion in Texas? You'd better have two days to kill, because you'll spend the first one getting lectured (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/texas.html?templateName=lawdetails&issueID=1&ssumID=2849) by a doctor. Want to get one in Mississippi? It's practically impossible, because not only is there the same waiting requirement as in Texas, there's only one place in the state that'll do them, and they're only open something like 2 days a week.

Because of those two majorly bad assumptions, there's no way to continue an honest discourse on this subject. Any attempt to discuss the your topic would be irreparably flawed.

The assumption that sexual preference is a genetic disposition is absolutely pathetic and unjustifiable.

Well, the alternative is that it's a personal choice, which allows right-wingers (and I am one) to claim that it is an aberration that the government has a right to crack down on.

If you wanted to question the benefit or otherwise of prenatal genetic testing, you could have done so with subjects that may be the result of genetic predisposition such as schizophrenia, but no, you had to go and throw an irrational and ill considered personal bias of your own into the discussion.

But this actually is a relevant issue, as the field of genetics is growing by leaps and bounds. If homosexuality is in fact the product of simple genetics (as most leftists, who also happen to be pro-choice, suggest), then there is no reason to believe that genetic testing cannot reveal the baby's likely adult sexuality while it is still in utero.

I believe some states are actually taking up action to preemptively ban abortions on the basis of the baby's likely sexual orientation.

Too many of your assumptions are flawed. For starters, while anti-gay marriage amendments have passed--the number of states is 27--they've been passing by smaller and smaller margins, and 2006 witnessed the first ever defeat of one. While in 2002 and 2004, they were passing in the 60 and 70% range they're now in the 50-55% range, and the demographics show that the younger the age group, the more they support same sex marriage. In twenty years, if it takes that long, you'll see repeals of those laws, I'd wager.

Secondly, to say you're speaking facetiously about the ease of getting an abortion is to be kind about it. More proper would be to say that you're full of shit. It's easy for a woman to get a first-trimester abortion in some states (assuming she can afford it, that is)--they tend to be the more liberal areas of the country. Want to get an abortion in Texas? You'd better have two days to kill, because you'll spend the first one getting lectured (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/texas.html?templateName=lawdetails&issueID=1&ssumID=2849) by a doctor. Want to get one in Mississippi? It's practically impossible, because not only is there the same waiting requirement as in Texas, there's only one place in the state that'll do them, and they're only open something like 2 days a week.

Because of those two majorly bad assumptions, there's no way to continue an honest discourse on this subject. Any attempt to discuss the your topic would be irreparably flawed.
THE VOICES DIDN'T LIKE THAT COMMENT.

PAY UP IN FORM OF 20 SQUATS, OR SUFFER THE WRATH OF THE ESPERANTO-TALKING ELEPHANT!

"If we let women make choices, they'll make stupid/bad/sinful choices! Instead, we (read: male-dominated government) should make their choices for them! For the good of humanity, of course!"

good idea.

If you didn't call it marriage it would probably pass in the other states. Call it a civil union, call it a partnership call it anything else other than marriage. Marriage invokes religous thoughts and then you have to go to experts which is the church (pick one). Which is why they lose. Words do matter.

THE VOICES DIDN'T LIKE THAT COMMENT.

PAY UP IN FORM OF 20 SQUATS, OR SUFFER THE WRATH OF THE ESPERANTO-TALKING ELEPHANT!

I ain't skeered. ;)

The when someone asked are you married You could say no I am unionized or no I am in a partnership.

A women's right tops the fetus's right.

Because the fetus has no rights.

It could be a mistake to abort just because some tests says it's gay though.

A women's right tops the fetus's right.

Because the fetus has no rights.

It could be a mistake to abort just because some tests says it's gay though.I would certainly find it distasteful that a woman would choose that, but I also find it distasteful when parents send their children to Jesus Camp, and I don't advocate taking those children away from their parents either. My comfort level with an action should not be the determinate factor on whether a person takes said action.

Besides in a union you only need a 50% vote. In a partnership both parties must agree.

:D

I weighed in early with a quite personal outrage at the hodgepodge of hot-button issues which masqueraded as a yes/no question.

I've thought about it some more, and I see a real issue there.

As simply as I can: currently, conception is not predictable. That an offspring may carry a genetic trait from one or another parent is a matter of probability, so that a father at the time of conception (their last opportunity to legally enforce a choice) knows some of the genes their offspring will carry (as does the mother) but others are simply a probability.
But after conception, the foetus can be tested for any specific gene. It may then be aborted at the discretion of the mother (at least in modern societies like Australia's) ... thus, the mother may 'select' offspring for whatever traits she wants. It's important to note that pregnancy and termination are burdens, that by rejecting a brown-eyed child, the woman may also be forgoing a talented or long-lived child. Frivolous decisions like "I want a green eyed girl child, not over 5'6", and I don't care if she can walk" might vex the extremists, but most parents can be trusted to make decisions in their future child's interests. I hope.

So far, I don't have a problem. Giving birth to and raising a child is a burden (or challenge) but also a reward. Biologically speaking, it may be THE reward. I have no objection to parents being empowered to choose the characteristics of their children, within the range of possibilities offered by the combinations of their respective genes. Yep, I'm for genetically engineered kids -- within the combined genome of the parents.

Here's the problem: after conception, the child's genome is fixed. After conception, the mother has legal yea-or-nay, and the father has none.

The end result: in the future men and women will still have sex. Conception will still occur, and at the woman's discretion foetal development may continue inside her body until birth.
But this legal and ... dare I say, fatalistic? ... decision, the formation of a childs genome, will be taken out of the legal domain of one partner (the woman's body) and will take place in a legally neutral environment (eg a test-tube) to afford the male partner an EQUAL right to eugenically select their child.

I feel sad about that. Breaking the connection between old-fashioned fucking and making babies, inserting a legal and intellectual step between them, is another step away from life. Oh, it enhances our life, but makes it stranger yet to all other life. We don't walk on the same earth, for hours of the day we don't breathe the same air. We don't drink the water which falls from the sky, nor eat the fruits of the earth. And now we fuck without making babies, and make babies without fucking. I don't dare predict where that ends, but I find it sad.

The answer is simple: The woman has the right to control her own body and, thus, the right to abort her pregnancy for any reason, without having to justify it to anyone. She is under no obligation to tell her reasons to anyone, so you will never know if she did it for a reason you don't like.

So, how then, do you prevent people from using reasons you don't like, just in case? Again, it's simple: Ban elective testing for things like sexual orientation -- or eye color or height or IQ or any of the other eugenics nightmares. If the woman is not told her fetus is gay, she is unlikely to abort it for being gay.

Back this up with a general social education system (in the schools, for everyone) that addresses issues of prejudice, and you will see very few cases of people aborting fetuses because of bigotry.

Actually, you won't see any because the woman doesn't have to tell you why she is aborting her pregnancy.

See? A neat little circle for this debate to run in. Like a hamster.

As for whether a woman would abort a fetus that is gay - not many, and those that did, do we really want them raising gay kids?

I think that women should be allowed to abort for whatever reason they choose. Even if everyone else might disagree with it. It is ultimately her body, and her choice. Not even opting for just adoption is adequate - I personally didn't enjoy being pregnant, and would not want to carry a baby to term that I wasn't going to keep.

Abortion itself is never taken lightly - I have had friends who have had abortions, and it broke them up to do it - and invoked life long guilt and regret - even from a friend of mine who aborted because her boyfriend had beaten her so badly he harmed the baby.

As for the father's choice - many men, such as the one above, lord it over their girlfriends and force them to keep a baby - they have to slip away to get an abortion. And in the end, it is the woman who has to carry the baby to term, the woman who has a lot of back pain, the woman who gets to throw up, and feel queasy, not the man. She should be allowed to volunteer to do that - not be forced into an "equal deal" that isn't really equal.

The answer is simple: The woman has the right to control her own body and, thus, the right to abort her pregnancy for any reason, without having to justify it to anyone. She is under no obligation to tell her reasons to anyone, so you will never know if she did it for a reason you don't like.

So, how then, do you prevent people from using reasons you don't like, just in case? Again, it's simple: Ban elective testing for things like sexual orientation -- or eye color or height or IQ or any of the other eugenics nightmares. If the woman is not told her fetus is gay, she is unlikely to abort it for being gay.

Back this up with a general social education system (in the schools, for everyone) that addresses issues of prejudice, and you will see very few cases of people aborting fetuses because of bigotry.

Actually, you won't see any because the woman doesn't have to tell you why she is aborting her pregnancy.

See? A neat little circle for this debate to run in. Like a hamster.

I'm so glad we have you around to show how bigotry can be eliminated completely by a little education in public schools..... ROFLMAO

I'm so glad we have you around to show how bigotry can be eliminated completely by a little education in public schools..... ROFLMAO
Well, not for everyone. Not for you, obviously. But no system is perfect.

The answer is simple: The woman has the right to control her own body and, thus, the right to abort her pregnancy for any reason, without having to justify it to anyone. She is under no obligation to tell her reasons to anyone, so you will never know if she did it for a reason you don't like.

So, how then, do you prevent people from using reasons you don't like, just in case? Again, it's simple: Ban elective testing for things like sexual orientation -- or eye color or height or IQ or any of the other eugenics nightmares. If the woman is not told her fetus is gay, she is unlikely to abort it for being gay.

Back this up with a general social education system (in the schools, for everyone) that addresses issues of prejudice, and you will see very few cases of people aborting fetuses because of bigotry.

Actually, you won't see any because the woman doesn't have to tell you why she is aborting her pregnancy.

See? A neat little circle for this debate to run in. Like a hamster.

I'm so glad we have you around to show how bigotry can be eliminated completely by a little education in public schools..... ROFLMAO

Hmm. Doesn't sound to me like Murayvets is saying we can completely eliminate bigotry, just that we might be able to reduce its frequency.

Hmm. Doesn't sound to me like Murayvets is saying we can completely eliminate bigotry, just that we might be able to reduce its frequency.

I doubt it.

No abortion under any circumstances.

I doubt it.

We already have. Bigotry toward gays is down over the last thirty years, and is continuing in that direction, and it's largely due to education. We may eventually hit a floor, but we aren't there yet.

I imagine that some people abort if the baby might be half black. Especially if they are married to a white guy. So sure, why not.

We already have. Bigotry toward gays is down over the last thirty years, and is continuing in that direction, and it's largely due to education. We may eventually hit a floor, but we aren't there yet.

There's always a floor, and it's thicker than any government will ever admit.

So, even under ideal situations, Muravyets' plan would still have some women aborting solely because the fetus might be gay.

There's always a floor, and it's thicker than any government will ever admit.

So, even under ideal situations, Muravyets' plan would still have some women aborting solely because the fetus might be gay.
And Murayvets didn't say otherwise. I bolded the quote in the original reply. He just said it would be reduced.

And Murayvets didn't say otherwise. I bolded the quote in the original reply. He just said it would be reduced.
She, btw.

I also said we'd never know if it was reduced or by how much because the woman is not required to state her reasons.

My main point was that, if we want to try to reduce the likelihood of such a thing, then we can do so by attacking bigotry in general, and by not revealing information that we think would lead to unethical decisions. But not by forcing women to justify their reasons for getting a medical procedure done. My secondary point was that we can try to reduce the likelihood, but we cannot know if our efforts succeed or not.

I imagine that some people abort if the baby might be half black. Especially if they are married to a white guy. So sure, why not.

Yes its understandable to abort a baby thats half black because both you and your husband are white, but there really is no other reason. I mean, you cant be that against black people cause you slept with one.

Im not sure about the are abortions ok if your doing it because the baby is gay thing. In theory no woman should ever have to carry a baby she didnt want, and in a perfect world no woman would ever want to abort a baby just because it was gay. I dont think anything like this should ever be the soul reason for banning abortions, because that would mean that too many women who wanted an abortion for legitamate reasons (like being too young to cope, violent bf etc) wouldnt be able to get one.

But maybe by the time they work out if it is a gene that causes homosexuality or not and how to detect it, there may be accurate lie detector tests. Then we could get the best of both worlds.

She, btw.
Sorry. I knew that and blanked on it for some reason. I'll try harder. :)

I also said we'd never know if it was reduced or by how much because the woman is not required to state her reasons.

My main point was that, if we want to try to reduce the likelihood of such a thing, then we can do so by attacking bigotry in general, and by not revealing information that we think would lead to unethical decisions. But not by forcing women to justify their reasons for getting a medical procedure done. My secondary point was that we can try to reduce the likelihood, but we cannot know if our efforts succeed or not.
I liked your idea about making it illegal to test for those characteristics, though I doubt it'll ever happen. I don't like it, but I think we're already well on the road to designer babies, and it will further the divide between the haves and have-nots in this world.

Sorry. I knew that and blanked on it for some reason. I'll try harder. :)


I liked your idea about making it illegal to test for those characteristics, though I doubt it'll ever happen. I don't like it, but I think we're already well on the road to designer babies, and it will further the divide between the haves and have-nots in this world.

Well, with the designer baby thing, someone might abort just because the fetus isn't turning out exactly the way they wanted...

The answer is simple: The woman has the right to control her own body and, thus, the right to abort her pregnancy for any reason, without having to justify it to anyone. She is under no obligation to tell her reasons to anyone, so you will never know if she did it for a reason you don't like.

So, how then, do you prevent people from using reasons you don't like, just in case? Again, it's simple: Ban elective testing for things like sexual orientation -- or eye color or height or IQ or any of the other eugenics nightmares. If the woman is not told her fetus is gay, she is unlikely to abort it for being gay.

Back this up with a general social education system (in the schools, for everyone) that addresses issues of prejudice, and you will see very few cases of people aborting fetuses because of bigotry.

Actually, you won't see any because the woman doesn't have to tell you why she is aborting her pregnancy.

See? A neat little circle for this debate to run in. Like a hamster.

agreed on all points

Well, with the designer baby thing, someone might abort just because the fetus isn't turning out exactly the way they wanted...

No doubt. And I'll think that it's disgusting that such a person would do such a thing, but I still think she should have the ability to do so.

No doubt. And I'll think that it's disgusting that such a person would do such a thing, but I still think she should have the ability to do so.

At that point, you'll have marketing competing with Muravyet's public education.

I was taught in school that botulin toxin was a lethal poison to be avoided at all costs. Now thousands of people pay to get it injected into their faces.

I think marketing will win.

At that point, you'll have marketing competing with Muravyet's public education.

I was taught in school that botulin toxin was a lethal poison to be avoided at all costs. Now thousands of people pay to get it injected into their faces.

I think marketing will win.

It usually does. That's the cynic in me speaking. I'm very much in agreement with Bill Hicks's thoughts on marketing and advertising people.

What does the OP question mean, exactly? Are there "public" reasons for a woman to have an abortion?

How a woman treats a fetus is between her and her conscience (which, in the words of Tolstoy, is the "voice of God"). It is none of anyone else's business. I wonder why that's such a hard concept for some folks to grasp...

What does the OP question mean, exactly? Are there "public" reasons for a woman to have an abortion?

How a woman treats a fetus is between her and her conscience (which, in the words of Tolstoy, is the "voice of God"). It is none of anyone else's business. I wonder why that's such a hard concept for some folks to grasp...

I'm asking if the state has the right to ask the woman why she's doing it - i.e., is there ever a compelling reason to ask (and on that basis prevent)?

Just a thought, so far every single person on this thread has said that aborting a child because it might be born gay is a terrible thing. So who is it out there that might do it?

There are a small minotirty of wierdoes out there, who would go to the lengths of aborting to stop a gay baby being born, but they are infact a minorty.

I'm asking if the state has the right to ask the woman why she's doing it - i.e., is there ever a compelling reason to ask (and on that basis prevent)?

Would you go up to a person and ask them why they have 6 kids. If they can afford it? or something along those lines, personal questions....I am sure if a woman was raped ( say a young woman age 15 or something) she wouldn't want a doctor or any other person asking why she is choosing not to give birth to the baby.

Just a thought, so far every single person on this thread has said that aborting a child because it might be born gay is a terrible thing. So who is it out there that might do it?

There are a small minotirty of wierdoes out there, who would go to the lengths of aborting to stop a gay baby being born, but they are infact a minorty.

Lots of people say they believe in equality for blacks, but just wait until a black man is dating their daughter.

There's posturing on Internet forums about how enlightened you are, and then there is real life.

It usually does. That's the cynic in me speaking. I'm very much in agreement with Bill Hicks's thoughts on marketing and advertising people.

Ah, yes...

"If any of you here are in marketing or advertising...kill yourselves."

Would you go up to a person and ask them why they have 6 kids. If they can afford it? or something along those lines, personal questions....I am sure if a women was raped ( say a young women age 15 or something) she wouldn't want a doctor or any other person asking why she is choosing not to give birth to the baby.

Many WOMEN.

One WOMAN.

Sorry. Pet peeve.

I'm just saying it's possible. You are saying it's impossible.

There are studies that prove that it's certainly possible. Where is your evidence that it's impossible?

I went off line for a while - Have to work you know.

Those studies you quote - (from where by the way - a source would be nice) - do not show anything like the association that the quote used claims. 66% of genetic coincidence between brothers (in a very low sample size) is statistically insignificant and scientifically meaningless. The study would have to cover thousands of individuals before it could be used to claim anything, and then the level of coincidence would have to be in the order of 75 to 80% to be meaningful.

There is no scientific evidence that I have seen that shows that sexual preference is genetically influenced.

The question still remains as to why you chose this as the "illness" that would justify the abortion.

There are illnesses that are genetically linked and could have been so much easier to use. Try Haemophilia.

"Allowed"?

What is this, the 19th century?

"Allowed" - pffft.

Sorry. I knew that and blanked on it for some reason. I'll try harder. :)
No problem. :)

I liked your idea about making it illegal to test for those characteristics, though I doubt it'll ever happen. I don't like it, but I think we're already well on the road to designer babies, and it will further the divide between the haves and have-nots in this world.
Someone else also posted it. File it under medical ethics. But you're probably right, curse it. We can only hope all those perfectly engineered designer babies will turn out not to be genetically healthy enough to reproduce at the same rate as the natural masses. Life balances itself out in the end.

I'm asking if the state has the right to ask the woman why she's doing it - i.e., is there ever a compelling reason to ask (and on that basis prevent)?
No, the state does not have that right because there is no compelling reason.

Mixing topics again...

Gay rights and women's reproductive rights.

Let's make some assumptions for the sake of argument:

1. Scientists discover and/or confirm that homosexuality is the product of a combination of genetic predisposition (several genetic factors that can be identified) in combination with certain environmental effects within the womb.

2. Scientists discover a genetic test for that predisposition. After all, there are now hundreds of tests for certain genetic predispositions that can be performed on both prospective parents and in situ fetuses.

Now, in the US, it's pretty obvious that although a large number of people don't really have anything terrible to say about gay people, a sizeable percentage (given the actual chance to vote on the issue) are against gay marriage. 12 or more states so far, and most are 60 to 70 percent against gay marriage. Let's assume that this means that most heterosexuals in the US think there's something "wrong" about being gay.

Not saying that's the right thing to think - just saying that's probably what's on their minds.

So, right now, women can abort their babies for just about any reason - it's their reproductive prerogative. In nations like India, even though it's illegal to do so, women abort because it's a female fetus. Here in the US, if you don't feel like carrying a child, you don't have to - just drive to an abortion clinic and make payment. You don't have to give a real reason.

If we go by the current assumption that 1 out of 10 people are currently gay, and we assume that the same people who voted against the right of gay people to "marry" would abort a fetus that they discovered would have a good chance of being "born gay", then we might have a radical reduction (within the US) of the total number of gay people within, say, 50 years. Even if 50 percent of women regularly take the test when they become pregnant, and half of those who come up positive abort the baby - that's a lot of gay people out the window.

Would gay people see this as a terrible thing? Do you think women have the right to make this decision? Do you believe that any woman having an abortion should be questioned as to why she's getting one? Do you believe you could deny a woman the right to abort solely because of a positive result on such a test? Is this eugenics at it's worst? Or is it ok?

Explain your answers.

You know, I once read a science fiction story with a similar premise. Not about the abortyness, but about there being a 'Gay-gene'.

It ended up with the main character (a gay male) figuring out how to make it so that gays could make babies.

But back on topic, wouldn't a substantial amount of the people who voted against Gay Marriage be the same people who think abortion is murder?

What's pathetic about the assumptions?

Don't believe it will ever be possible to genetically test a fetus for the predisposition?

Let's say it does become possible. And some women abort for that reason.

Would you want to stop it from happenning?

Yes. A person objecting to his or her child's sexual orientation is no reason to stop their child from having a life. It may be an even worse decision for the parents, who will never experience the joy that that child may have brought to their lives.

Well, the alternative is that it's a personal choice, which allows right-wingers (and I am one) to claim that it is an aberration that the government has a right to crack down on.

Actually, no. It is likely developmental and biologic, which may be affected by genetics, but is in no way a definate. Studies indicate that what is likely happening is something to do with the hypothalamus, and how it develops in life.


But this actually is a relevant issue, as the field of genetics is growing by leaps and bounds. If homosexuality is in fact the product of simple genetics (as most leftists, who also happen to be pro-choice, suggest), then there is no reason to believe that genetic testing cannot reveal the baby's likely adult sexuality while it is still in utero.

There is more to how your body works than just genetics. As sexuality does not develop until puberty, it is possible that during this time hormone "imbalances" may cause certain parts of the brain that deal with sexuality to develop different than others, which in turn would determine sexuality. Genetics only play a tiny roll, and how your body works a much larger one. There is no way to predict sexuality, as the genetic code does not necessarily reveal how your body is going to work(Due to a varying amount of environmental stresses).


I believe some states are actually taking up action to preemptively ban abortions on the basis of the baby's likely sexual orientation.

Which ones might those be? I have yet to hear this.

I'm categorically opposed to all abortions after the baby is developed enough to suffer pain
Which would be...

About two months before birth, IIRC.

Why should anyone have the right to force a woman into carrying an unwanted blastoplast, like a parasite?