and obviously some people actually think people get 'upset' here by their words. i was typing in ALL CAPS for EMPHASIS...since you clearly missed my opinion offered 2x, and was saying i shared none....or didn't 'contribute' to the topic.
posts like 'chillax' add soooo much tho eh?
cate.....happy, glad and japanese? what an interesting turn of events.
abortion is legal. the 'reason's why one may choose to abort are their own. i think it was urbanhippie who best answered...suggesting should we be trsting for homosexuality in the unborn at all?
It's wrong to abort period. But, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about.
how can you not know what im talking about. if one asks is it okay to abort if a gay gene is found surely its ok to ask the reciprocal question, dont you think? i mean what self respecting gay person would want a straight child? :rolleyes: whats so difficult to understand?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how can you not know what im talking about. if one asks is it okay to abort if a gay gene is found surely its ok to ask the reciprocal question, dont you think? what so difficult to understand?
Gays can't get pregnant without some sort of donor... who is most likely (high percentage) straight. So, that's the confusing part.
But, as I said before, from my perspective.... yes, it's wrong.
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
That's the point of the thread.
That still doesn't answer the question of whether sexuality is something that should EVER be tested for. I don't understand why anyone would be bothered about their childs sexuality before it's even born.
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
That's the point of the thread.
THAT is quite an assumption!
if someone is pro-choice...they are pro-choice, and i am sure there are many homosexuals who are pro-choice. and you are making a HUGE assumption that just b/c a gay gene more than likely will be found, that it will actually be offered to women as a pre-natal test.
btw - do you really think it will come down to ONE genetic marker? it may well not.....
That still doesn't answer the question of whether sexuality is something that should EVER be tested for. I don't understand why anyone would be bothered about their childs sexuality before it's even born.
If you don't think some people out there may be concerned about this (as wrong as it is), you are naive.
if someone is pro-choice...they are pro-choice, and i am sure there are many homosexuals who are pro-choice. and you are making a HUGE assumption that just b/c a gay gene more than likely will be found, that it will actually be offered to women as a pre-natal test.
btw - do you really think it will come down to ONE genetic marker? it may well not.....
I don't know if it will come down to anything at all. I don't even know if there's a gene. That's why this was a hypothetical.
If you don't think some people out there may be concerned about this (as wrong as it is), you are naive.
i think were all aware of the high level of bigotry in the world.
but tis quite the dilemma isnt it? do i abort my gay foetus or do i give birth to it and then shun it? abortion is murder but gay is an abomination. hmm what to do what to do.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
If you don't think some people out there may be concerned about this (as wrong as it is), you are naive.
Not naive, much as I find the idea abhorrent, I know this will be of concern to some. What I'm asking is, is there ever a likelihood of something like this being routinely offered to pregnant women? I would hope to say no.
And even then, would someone seriously consider aborting because their child MAY show a marker that MAY mean they CONSIDER homosexuality?
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
That's the point of the thread.
You're falling into the same pre-conception that many conservatives do, which is that being pro-choice (i.e. women having freedom) is the same as being pro-abortion, and pro-every motivation that someone would have to have an abortion. You're saying pro-choice people would say it's "right" to have that type of abortion. No, it would not be 'right.' But it would be legal. Because who in the general public would ever know what the motivation behind the abortions was?
Therefore, your question doesn't make any sense. No one would say that was a right reason to have an abortion, and they would still likely all be pro-choice, since being pro-choice doesn't mean you agree with every motivation behind every abortion. So unless you're saying we have some kind of arcane 'motivation requirement' for every abortion performed, the question is still moot.
Yep, with someone other than thier partners sperm. As I said before, the chance of that person's sperm having the gay gene is slim.
Having been friends with MANY gay men and women in my lifetime I firmly believe that you are born either gay or straight..
BUT.. your post kind of indicates that you think a gay man will have a gay child? Sorry.. does not work that way. None of my gay friends kids are gay.. and one of my straight friends daughter just came out of the closet.. so that kind of blows your theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Yep, with someone other than thier partners sperm. As I said before, the chance of that person's sperm having the gay gene is slim.
Why would the chances of the person's sperm having the gay gene be slim? As you know, a child can ONLY be conceived with an egg and sperm. It gets half of it's genetic make up from the mother, the other half from the father. Statistically, the majority of gay people were conceived by straight couples. I get the feeling you are saying that the gay gene can only be carried by gay people? Every single person I know who is gay, has straight parents.
Why would the chances of the person's sperm having the gay gene be slim? As you know, a child can ONLY be conceived with an egg and sperm. It gets half of it's genetic make up from the mother, the other half from the father. Statistically, the majority of gay people were conceived by straight couples. I get the feeling you are saying that the gay gene can only be carried by gay people? Every single person I know who is gay, has straight parents.
Excellent point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
That's the point of the thread.
We are talking Hypotheticals:
Whats much more interesting is that a pro-life, anti gay person would know that their child is going to be born gay and not be making a "lifestyle choice" and then give birth to that child because they oppose abortion.
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
That's the point of the thread.
If you think that's the case, then you'd also have to assume that the pro-life camp would likely split with the Catholics if a gay gene can be detected pre-birth. It works both ways, so I don't really see the point. It's not like the whole abortion debate would be rocked if they made a discovery like that.
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
That's the point of the thread.
The overriding philosophical common ground is privacy for reproductive practice. Be it in the bedroom or the doctor's office.
Is it wrong to abort a gay child if a gay gene is found?
I think it's totally wrong, but I will defend the right to do it.
Edit: I think it's totally wrong given the current circumstances in the U.S. There are circumstances under which it may seem more reasonable. Who am I to judge?
Is it wrong to abort a gay child if a gay gene is found?
You'll go to hell if you don't. Matthew 5:29: "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Being gay is worse than just about anything else. Accepting anyone gay is almost a worse sin than being gay yourself. Go ahead. Cut that "eye" right out of your uterus (not to mention the uterus of the woman next to you) because it makes you "stumble." You've done the right thing.
Unless you're in China and you're a female fetus--gay or straight, it doesn't matter. Then *that's* the worst thing ever and any self-respecting parents should abort you to have a chance for an actually valuable human being...a male. He might be gay, but gosh darn it, it's a male.
The whole concept is: better dead than Red. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. It's a service. We should only have valuable human beings and human beings not offensive to any god anywhere. It's always good to kill anyone you don't approve of, especially if they offend your beliefs, be they religious or political. Thou shalt not kill, except for a laundry list of exceptions, in which you are actually encouraged to do so. Let's abort really short people, too. Like Randy Newman says, "Short people got no reason to live. They got little hands. And little eyes. And they walk around, tellin' great big lies."
And if your left eye offends, you...cast it out, too. And, after a while very little will offend us after we've cast off every useful part of the human race that happens to offend someone else. Welcome to nirvana...self-inflicted deafness, stupidity and blindness.
And on a serious note, there is no end to the extent and reach of human stupidity. And on a the same note, there's a reason people, short, female, gay, Mexican, Arabs and whites really respect musicians and lyricists. In a world afloat in insanity, sometimes they're like little islands of sanity.
If a gay gene is ever found (which would be likely according to those who believe gays are born that way) the gay community and the pro-choice camp will most certainly split on this issue.
How so? This question is similar to the one about whether it's okay to abort a fetus because it's a girl. Female chromosomes have already been found and I don't think it's caused much of a rift between the female community and the pro-choice camp.
("Pro-choice camp" cracks me up, by the way. Is that like a summer camp I can send my kids to? If so, sign me up! )
but tis quite the dilemma isnt it? do i abort my gay foetus or do i give birth to it and then shun it? abortion is murder but gay is an abomination. hmm what to do what to do.
Given that there's no shortage of abortions in the religious right "camp" anyway, I'd put my money on people having secret abortions to avoid their shame in having a gay child. (That's a total generalilzation, but if I had to wager a bet this would be it.)
That still doesn't answer the question of whether sexuality is something that should EVER be tested for. I don't understand why anyone would be bothered about their childs sexuality before it's even born.
Well, if the gay gene is found or it is found that conditions in the mother's body tend to promote homosexuality as an outcome for a child, then there should be few abortions, because that woman and her partner should be forcibly sterilized prior to the possibility of any pregnancy. Marriage, of course, would be out of the question for these sorts of people, as it was intended only for the procreation of valuable human beings that meet Judeo-Christian standards of soundness. Men and women should be hormonally and otherwise profiled starting at a young age. Anyone not meeting the criteria for likely producing a straight child should have their names and addresses posted in their local paper (sex offenders of the most base and basic kind, after all), and appropriate steps should be pursued so that at no time could it be possible for the gay gene to be passed along. All fetuses would be routinely tested for homosexual tendencies. If any tendencies were found despite our best efforts, then, of course, mandatory abortion & subsequent sterilization would be imposed. Living siblings would be monitored very closely and would be tested three times as often and the normal population. It would be for the good of society. This would end the horrible condition called homosexuality. If this should not end all of homosexuality, then we should reassess what we are doing wrong and take whatever other steps are necessary to root out this evil. No matter how harsh, no matter how seemingly monstrous. It is far more monstrous to allow people of the same sex to love each other than it is to do whatever it takes to stop them from doing so. Similar steps can be taken for people with other horrible conditions that should not be allowed to be perpetuated.
Not naive, much as I find the idea abhorrent, I know this will be of concern to some. What I'm asking is, is there ever a likelihood of something like this being routinely offered to pregnant women? I would hope to say no.
And even then, would someone seriously consider aborting because their child MAY show a marker that MAY mean they CONSIDER homosexuality?
I seriously doubt it, especially given the high cost of medical care in the U.S. It can be hard enough just to get all your medically necessary ultrasounds covered.
Comments
and obviously some people actually think people get 'upset' here by their words. i was typing in ALL CAPS for EMPHASIS...since you clearly missed my opinion offered 2x, and was saying i shared none....or didn't 'contribute' to the topic.
posts like 'chillax' add soooo much tho eh?
cate.....happy, glad and japanese?
abortion is legal. the 'reason's why one may choose to abort are their own. i think it was urbanhippie who best answered...suggesting should we be trsting for homosexuality in the unborn at all?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
how can you not know what im talking about. if one asks is it okay to abort if a gay gene is found surely its ok to ask the reciprocal question, dont you think? i mean what self respecting gay person would want a straight child? :rolleyes: whats so difficult to understand?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Gays can't get pregnant without some sort of donor... who is most likely (high percentage) straight. So, that's the confusing part.
But, as I said before, from my perspective.... yes, it's wrong.
i dont understand what youre talking about.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im not confused. many lesbians carry to term.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's the point of the thread.
Good job! You get a star!
Yep, with someone other than thier partners sperm. As I said before, the chance of that person's sperm having the gay gene is slim.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
hmm i was unaware thats what was in debate.
the question asked was if a gay gene is found is it okay to abort there was no mention of where the DNA came from.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
THAT is quite an assumption!
if someone is pro-choice...they are pro-choice, and i am sure there are many homosexuals who are pro-choice. and you are making a HUGE assumption that just b/c a gay gene more than likely will be found, that it will actually be offered to women as a pre-natal test.
btw - do you really think it will come down to ONE genetic marker? it may well not.....
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
If you don't think some people out there may be concerned about this (as wrong as it is), you are naive.
I don't know if it will come down to anything at all. I don't even know if there's a gene. That's why this was a hypothetical.
i think were all aware of the high level of bigotry in the world.
but tis quite the dilemma isnt it? do i abort my gay foetus or do i give birth to it and then shun it? abortion is murder but gay is an abomination. hmm what to do what to do.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
And even then, would someone seriously consider aborting because their child MAY show a marker that MAY mean they CONSIDER homosexuality?
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
You're falling into the same pre-conception that many conservatives do, which is that being pro-choice (i.e. women having freedom) is the same as being pro-abortion, and pro-every motivation that someone would have to have an abortion. You're saying pro-choice people would say it's "right" to have that type of abortion. No, it would not be 'right.' But it would be legal. Because who in the general public would ever know what the motivation behind the abortions was?
Therefore, your question doesn't make any sense. No one would say that was a right reason to have an abortion, and they would still likely all be pro-choice, since being pro-choice doesn't mean you agree with every motivation behind every abortion. So unless you're saying we have some kind of arcane 'motivation requirement' for every abortion performed, the question is still moot.
Having been friends with MANY gay men and women in my lifetime I firmly believe that you are born either gay or straight..
BUT.. your post kind of indicates that you think a gay man will have a gay child? Sorry.. does not work that way. None of my gay friends kids are gay.. and one of my straight friends daughter just came out of the closet.. so that kind of blows your theory.
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
Why would the chances of the person's sperm having the gay gene be slim? As you know, a child can ONLY be conceived with an egg and sperm. It gets half of it's genetic make up from the mother, the other half from the father. Statistically, the majority of gay people were conceived by straight couples. I get the feeling you are saying that the gay gene can only be carried by gay people? Every single person I know who is gay, has straight parents.
Excellent point.
As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but together we make a mighty fist ~ Sitting Bull
We are talking Hypotheticals:
Whats much more interesting is that a pro-life, anti gay person would know that their child is going to be born gay and not be making a "lifestyle choice" and then give birth to that child because they oppose abortion.
The overriding philosophical common ground is privacy for reproductive practice. Be it in the bedroom or the doctor's office.
I think it's totally wrong, but I will defend the right to do it.
Edit: I think it's totally wrong given the current circumstances in the U.S. There are circumstances under which it may seem more reasonable. Who am I to judge?
Excellent point.
You'll go to hell if you don't. Matthew 5:29: "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Being gay is worse than just about anything else. Accepting anyone gay is almost a worse sin than being gay yourself. Go ahead. Cut that "eye" right out of your uterus (not to mention the uterus of the woman next to you) because it makes you "stumble." You've done the right thing.
Unless you're in China and you're a female fetus--gay or straight, it doesn't matter. Then *that's* the worst thing ever and any self-respecting parents should abort you to have a chance for an actually valuable human being...a male. He might be gay, but gosh darn it, it's a male.
The whole concept is: better dead than Red. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. It's a service. We should only have valuable human beings and human beings not offensive to any god anywhere. It's always good to kill anyone you don't approve of, especially if they offend your beliefs, be they religious or political. Thou shalt not kill, except for a laundry list of exceptions, in which you are actually encouraged to do so. Let's abort really short people, too. Like Randy Newman says, "Short people got no reason to live. They got little hands. And little eyes. And they walk around, tellin' great big lies."
And if your left eye offends, you...cast it out, too. And, after a while very little will offend us after we've cast off every useful part of the human race that happens to offend someone else. Welcome to nirvana...self-inflicted deafness, stupidity and blindness.
And on a serious note, there is no end to the extent and reach of human stupidity. And on a the same note, there's a reason people, short, female, gay, Mexican, Arabs and whites really respect musicians and lyricists. In a world afloat in insanity, sometimes they're like little islands of sanity.
What if the "gay gene" was mistaken for something else. Then all those possible children would be terminated on a lie.
How so? This question is similar to the one about whether it's okay to abort a fetus because it's a girl. Female chromosomes have already been found and I don't think it's caused much of a rift between the female community and the pro-choice camp.
("Pro-choice camp" cracks me up, by the way. Is that like a summer camp I can send my kids to? If so, sign me up!
Given that there's no shortage of abortions in the religious right "camp" anyway, I'd put my money on people having secret abortions to avoid their shame in having a gay child. (That's a total generalilzation, but if I had to wager a bet this would be it.)
Well, if the gay gene is found or it is found that conditions in the mother's body tend to promote homosexuality as an outcome for a child, then there should be few abortions, because that woman and her partner should be forcibly sterilized prior to the possibility of any pregnancy. Marriage, of course, would be out of the question for these sorts of people, as it was intended only for the procreation of valuable human beings that meet Judeo-Christian standards of soundness. Men and women should be hormonally and otherwise profiled starting at a young age. Anyone not meeting the criteria for likely producing a straight child should have their names and addresses posted in their local paper (sex offenders of the most base and basic kind, after all), and appropriate steps should be pursued so that at no time could it be possible for the gay gene to be passed along. All fetuses would be routinely tested for homosexual tendencies. If any tendencies were found despite our best efforts, then, of course, mandatory abortion & subsequent sterilization would be imposed. Living siblings would be monitored very closely and would be tested three times as often and the normal population. It would be for the good of society. This would end the horrible condition called homosexuality. If this should not end all of homosexuality, then we should reassess what we are doing wrong and take whatever other steps are necessary to root out this evil. No matter how harsh, no matter how seemingly monstrous. It is far more monstrous to allow people of the same sex to love each other than it is to do whatever it takes to stop them from doing so. Similar steps can be taken for people with other horrible conditions that should not be allowed to be perpetuated.
I seriously doubt it, especially given the high cost of medical care in the U.S. It can be hard enough just to get all your medically necessary ultrasounds covered.