If scientists ID'd a gay gene, and your fetus had it, would you abort?

[eyesroll]

Poll question: If scientists ID'd a gay gene, and your fetus had it, would you abort?

This comes from a column by Jimmy Jeff (discussed in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=15299&mesg_id=15299), in which he wonders if pro-choice activists would suddenly do an about-face if a gay gene were ID'd, because most parents wouldn't bring a pregnancy to term if the fetus was likely to turn out gay.

I think this is a stupid argument, personally, and for me, aborting a fetus simply because it carries a gay gene makes about as much sense as aborting a fetus found to be left-handed, farsighted, freckle-skinned or with any other outside-the-statistical-majority characteristic.

What's your take? (And I am using the term "I'd abort" to mean if the decision was yours alone, and not literally, especially if you're male. I know in the real world there's often -- and always, if you're the impregnator, not the pregnant one -- the partner to consider.)

[sabra]

1. 3 2 1

:popcorn:

[grauch]

2. reproductive freedom

Abortion is legal, and no one has the right to tell someone else not to. If a woman decides to have an abortion because her baby will be gay, that's her choice.

[eyesroll]

I'm not asking whether someone should be allowed to.

I'm asking whether you would -- and, by extention, I guess, if there will suddenly be either an epidemic of people aborting gay fetuses or a reversal in the pro-choice movement to restrict abortion for this reason.

I honestly don't think identification of a gay gene will result in significantly more abortions (in the US, there hasn't been an epidemic of abortion based on the gender of the fetus), and while I think a law prohibiting such would be a touchy subject for many on both sides, I don't think a law would pass here, as we now don't require people to give a reason when they have an abortion anyway.

[Mr.Green93]

11. Wouldn't it be a hate crime and discrimination

to kill a gay person?

[grauch]

13. so the issue is...

hate crime vs. reproductive freedom

[mondo joe]

24. Who the hell said they'd deny a woman the CHOICE?

Please, who said it?

[Southpaw Bookworm]

3. A better question

Is how many of those hyprocritical and hate-filled pro-birthers out there would be inside the Planned Parenthood in a New York minute rather than picketing it if they found out their fetus was gay?

[felonious thunk]

4. It's irrelevant

Scientists could prove beyond a shadow of doubt that homosexuality is biological, and the pro-lifers would just not believe it. They clearly have no difficulty going against proven science when it doesn't fit their worldview.

[patcox2]

5. Here's a question: would you use abortion to choose gender?

Whats the difference?

[Javaman]

6. That's an excellent question for a freeper, their head would explode. lol

[Mutley]

7. I'm pro-choice, but personally wouldn't have an abortion

except in extreme circumstances. I would not have an abortion because my child had the gay gene. I would have no problem with my child being gay, period. I'd really like to see how the anti-gay/pro-life people would handle this. Would they suddenly become pro-choice? Pro-gay? Or would their heads explode?

[grauch]

14. seems like they have an easier position...

They oppose abortion.

[MostlyLurks]

19. Well of course their position is easier...

Their whole ideology is based on "easier".

It's easier to believe in creation than it is to take in the scope and possibilities of evolution.

It's easier not to care about others than it is to.

It's easier to distrust people than to trust them.

It's easier to outlaw behavior than it is to accept it.

It's easier to look out for yourself than it is to look out for others.

It's easier to do unto others than it is to be done unto.

Their whole fucking world is "easier" because they have no understanding (or appreciation of) nuance, empathy, etc. Democrats live in a difficult world. Republicans live in a simple one. I for one, prefer complexity.

Mostly

[dxstone]

8. I am by NO MEANS a Gannon-supporter...

...and I do agree that he's completely without legitimacy as a journalist...
Commentator, however?--maybe not so bad...
I think his question is a really good one to ask; how many raving pro-lifers WOULD choose such a course rather than bear the 'burden' (note quotations) of having to try to love a child they REVILE?
It goes directly to the question of just WHICH of these two choices would the average pro-lifer choose; it's really an interesting intellectual conundrum...
Most, I think, would probably find a happy workaround by saying something like, "All life is SACRED!--so I would simply start reading the Bibble to my child while still in utero, especially the Old Testament and Leviticus and the like.. and would be sure to harangue and harass it over its obviously SICK lifestyle choice from the moment it hit open air!... because I want to have my cake and eat it too, and MY child will be a cake-eater just like me; no kid of mine is going to be one of those nasty pie-eating monstrosities! I would raise my kid to be straight, even if it killed them!... and then let almighty all-merciful GOD toss the little bugger to the demons if it STILL wouldn't straighten up and fly right!"
d
ps: I'm a clown, and always jokin'... but I'm not kiddin' here... it's a damn good question...
And I'm not at all surprised we DUers all seeem to be falling on the correct side of this poll question; we are, after all, the best and the brightest!

[jokerman93]

9. When science discovers...

When science discovers a complex of genes that determine sexuality, there will be religious, social and psychological revolutions. In time, fear of other-than-hetero sexuality will be a laughable anachronism. I think the legal term for it would be "quaint".

:-)

[rbjensen]

10. If the gene were identified

it probably wouldn't be an issue much longer. People would get real about it. I think. I'd hope.,

[newyawker99]

25. Hi rbjensen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[DelawareValleyDem]

12. Wasn't this a TV movie with Garry Marshall? nt

[Stephanie]

15. this is offensive

I think this thread is way out of line.

[MalibuChloe]

17. 6 people selected "I would abort" answers!

:scared:

[Horse with no Name]

18. Hard to believe on a progressive board isn't it?

and you are right.:scared:

[Lisa0825]

22. I bet they were freepers just screwin' around....

They are just trying to get a rise out of us. Don't pay attention to it.

[eyesroll]

20. Why?

I think it's a legitimate discussion of an argument put forth by an (albeit idiotic) commentator. I tried my best to phrase it in an anti-inflammatory way, and people have, by and large, been respectful in their discussion.

Just because something is designed to get people thinking in ways that might make them uncomfortable doesn't mean it's out of line. Granted, I wrote this poll to try to prove my point -- that a fundamental point of Gannon's argument, that most people would be loath to knowingly bring a gay child into the world, is very flawed. And, yes, DUers are not most people, but still.

[Horse with no Name]

16. I think if there were a freeper gene I would abort

However, a gay child wouldn't bother me, but I'd rather kill myself than bring a freeper into this world.;)

[kweerwolf]

21. I'd only abort it if it was destined to grow up to be Jeff Gannon n/t

[Lisa0825]

23. As my bumper sticker says, 'I'm straight, but not narrow.'

I also liked the answer someone gave above, that it is no different than knowing the gender. Of course, it IS different, but basically only because currently society says so. But maybe someday, it will be looked at more objectively.