Gays on gay abortions... strangely pro-life

wired.gifWired pursued the homosexual community's response to points raised in my column yesterday:

Eschewing the eugenics question, Stanek seems more interested in another question posed by Mohler.
How can [feminists and political liberals who support a woman's right to choose] now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual?

Out of curiosity, I called the Equality Forum to ask their take on aborting a baby because he or she is gay. Communications officer Christopher Scoville said that the Equality Forum would not support the decision to abort a baby just because they're gay, anymore than they would support aborting a baby because they are left handed....

ef.gifWhen asked if the Equality Forum had an official position on abortions of babies with congenital defects, Scoville demured, leaving that question to bioethicists. He said that the Equality Forum is a civil rights organization and therefore the question is "not in our purview."

It will be interesting to see how various religious denominations weigh in. Some will suggest, as Mohler did, that altering a baby's sexual orientation is a way to protect a child from sin. Others will argue that this is nothing more than eugenics and should be forbidden.

One thing's certain: If such a prenatal test is found and women start aborting babies for being gay, pro-choice organizations supporting gay rights cannot argue against a woman's right to abort a gay fetus. If they do, other groups will fight for the same protections for their members and the right to choose will be so limited that it might as well not exist.

Wired also quoted an earlier EF press release:

Fetal invasion to alter sexual orientation is reminiscent of the Nazis. It reflects a theocratic and Taliban-like plan that should frighten all Americans.

"Fetal invasion"? How quickly gays are being converted on the sanctity of life.


Comments:

I would like to point out that as a pro-choice advocate, I support a woman's right to privately choose the course of her pregnancy. If this is termination of the pregnancy, I support her right to do so by the safest means available. For women who choose to abort late in their pregnancies, this often means that they can have a C-section and the baby can survive with preemie care. Since the sex of a fetus can usually not be determined until four or five months, these mothers who would choose not to have a homosexual child would be at or near that point. I dont foresee this ever being a problem, but if it is, perhaps we will have the technology to preserve both lives while still maintaining bodily autonomy.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 22, 2007 5:40 PM


Samantha,

You can have a CVS test between 8 and 11 weeks to find out the sex of your baby.

But knowing it's sex wont't tell you it's sexual preference.

If a "gay" gene was found, CVS could probably determine that also at 8 to 11 weeks.
MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 22, 2007 6:43 PM


SamanthaT:

You pretend to be wise..............

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 22, 2007 7:42 PM


His Man, if you insist on being uncivilized and rude, please refrain from further addressing me as I find your comments offensive, distasteful, and downright ignorant.

MK, in my research of chorionic villus sampling, it has been used to detect genetic abnormalities in the fetus. It is generally only carried out in women over the age of 35 or who have a high risk of passing on Down Syndrome or another genetic defect. It can be carried out at approximately 10-12 weeks from the last menstrual period, which is about 5-6 weeks earlier than amniocentesis. While I assume that genetic counselors will inform the mother of the gender of the fetus she carries, I also assume this testing is rather expensive as well as invasive. Given the hypotheses presented by others that male homosexuality may be linked to a mother's immunity to testosterone (whereas females are considered more likely to be homosexual if having been abused) I arrived at the 4-5 month marker. This was the time frame given to me by my OB/GYN when I found out I was pregnant in January. However, if you have more updated information about CVS, I would be interested in reading it. Thanks!

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 22, 2007 10:19 PM


SamanthaT:

If only an unborn child could talk she or he might say, "If you insist on being uncivilized and rude in ripping me, yes your gift from God, apart, please refrain from further addressing me as your child, as I find your desire or even willingness to contemplate killing me offensive, distasteful, and downright ignorant. And by the way, God and I talk in here and He say's that all will be OK, even with all the others this is happening to. He said something about the last days. Hey, what's a day? He says I'm going to get a body that won't die and never get old, and never be subject to someone else's collossal mistake. Hey what's death? Us babes, you know, we're kind of like a big fraternity or sorority, I haven't got a clue as to what those are. God says there's a special place for us in Heaven, something about innocence. But boy is he pissed, I think. You should see the look in His eyes. I kinda saw that look when my mom just thought about doing me in. I've never seen fire, but wow, that's really, really scary. Hey, what does fire do"?

What is civilized and polite about murdering an unborn child in your womb?

Sounds pretty barbaric and yes, a lot more unpolite than burping or farting in public or telling the truth on an anti-abortion web-site. Don't you think?

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 22, 2007 10:47 PM


Samantha T.
I may be wrong, but the debate here is if homosexuality is a genetic disorder. If so, then that disorder could be checked just as simply as other genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs disease or hemophelia. If it is found to be a genetic disorder it could be tested on someone who has a history of homosexuality in their family. Which means the results would be known before the second trimester. Just in time for an abortion if someone doesn't want to raise a gay child.

If homosexuality is proven to be a genetic disorder it will be treated just like Downs Syndrom is treated. Abort, then you won't have to deal with a 'defective' child.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is just going to get worse from here. Girls are being aborted at such an alarming rate in India that the government is trying to give family's bonus' to keep the girls. How does this help women's rights again? How can this be feminism if some contries are eliminating the female gene? Let us pray/hope/meditate that they never find a homosexual gene. I'd hate for that to be eliminated too.

Posted by: Valerie at March 22, 2007 10:52 PM


Valerie you are correct about the original debate. This is the second post in a week on this topic, and my post digressed to discussions in posts on the other article that you may not have read. I doubt that a gene will be found for homosexuality, however. The genocide of females is horrible; however, in reference to your question about eliminating the female gene: the condition of being female in humans indicates the presence (typically) of two X chromosomes, while males have an X and Y. In females, only one of those X chromosomes is expressed, and the other becomes a barr body and is unused in the cell. Which X is used varies from cell to cell. Theoretically, a female only needs one X chromosome to survive
(this condition is known as Turner's Syndrome) which could be donated from the father, but the female will be sterile.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 22, 2007 11:50 PM


SamanthaT:

You obviously have a lot of biological knowledge - praise God for that! But knowledge is not wisdom because while the Lord gifted you in that area you are using that gift for evil purposes as evidenced by your pro-death stance. You have no fear of the Lord, therefore, no wisdom.

Instead why don't you search for answers that would support a pro-life stance or a-d-v-o-c-a-t-e a pro-life stance? I mean doesn't biology mean the study of life? Maybe we should call you instead a mortologist because you seem to be more interested in the study of death. Ah, a rose by any other name..........

To debate whether or not an unborn baby should be killed in the womb because of his ABC's, I mean XYZ's is absurd.

Killing an innocent child for any reason is murder.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 23, 2007 12:32 AM


Samantha,

Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS)
This diagnostic test is usually performed between 8 and 11 weeks gestation, sometimes as late as 13 weeks. This is generally a test for people who have a high risk of genetic abnormalities. Test results are available within 7 to 14 days. Miscarriage rate from CVS is about 4%, recent studies indicate that if the CVS is done before 10 weeks gestation there is an added risk (.5% to 1.7%) of limb deformity, and about 3% CVS is associated with serious decline in amniotic fluid protection. There is a greater incidence of false positives because of the differences between the cellular genetic material of the choirionic villi and the fetus. There is a small chance that the sex they determine is wrong as well.


http://www.childbirth.org/articles/decide.html


Yes, there are risks involved, but by the time they find (if they find) a "gay" gene, CVS could very well be safer, or something else could have come along.

Also, if being gay is deemed to be as undesirable and being downs, then women may decide the risk is worth it.

Either way, an abortion can be performed at any point, for any reason, so even if you had to wait longer it shouldn't make any difference.

But it is interesting that you can tell if a baby has a genetic defect as early as 8 weeks, even 12 or 13, and yet it is still argued that it is not a human being (person). All these intimate details, like it's IQ and sexual preference, and it's only a "blob of tissue".

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 23, 2007 5:40 AM


Samantha - I understand all about XX and XY. I think everyone here does. When I said eliminate the 'female gene' I was being sarcastic not literal. What my point was: Females are being aborted at an alarming rate in countries like India and China. So quickly, in fact, that the government in India is trying to bribe families to keep the girls. If these countries, and others like them, continue in this path there will not be enough females for reproduction. And this would be all thanks to abortion. Because people want boys not girls.

Abortion is going to be the destruction of the female population. Governments are going to have to put a ban on abortion in order to maintain a balance of the male/female ratio. It is called survival.

Posted by: Valerie at March 23, 2007 11:09 AM


Valerie China is currently experiencing an unequal male-to-female ratio because it forced parents to abort babies unless they were male. In countries where abortion is forced, they have this problem. In countries where abortion is an option, such as the US, the population is about 50-50.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 23, 2007 11:57 AM


Samantha - I see you forgot about India. Where sex selection is illegal but Dr's, in mostly rural area's, are being bribed to do them. The government is trying to stop these abortions not advocating them. They have set up a system where parents can abandoned their girl babies to the government instead of aborting them. It is estimated that 10 million girls have been aborted in the past 20 years because the parents, not the government, have 'chosen' to do so.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252677,00.html

India is not an isolated case.

Just as the 'Choice' to abort a child with a genetic default is no longer isolated. Just as the 'Choice' to abort a deformed child is no longer isolated. In Italy there was a child whose mother 'chose' to abort because the Dr's said he had an esophageal defect. Oops, they were wrong. But by the time they discovered their error it was too late. They tried to save the baby that was forced to be born at 21 or 22 week gestation but he died. How many times is this happening that we don't know about? Tests are not perfect. Children are not perfect either, but they are human. They have rights. And they are being slaughtered in the name of 'choice'.

When will it end? When will society say enough is enough. At the moment of fertilization the human genetic code is intact. Medical science is improving every day. Let's say they discover that homosexuality is genetic. People Will test and they will abort instead of raising a gay child. Remember, it is the 'choice' of the mother to decide which pregnancy will be terminated and which will go to full term. It is not up to the government, churches or special interest groups to decide which 'faulty genetic' child is aborted and which one lives. Or are people who are homosexual going to be more important than a Down's Syndrom child? If you say they are, then welcome to a world of eugenics where only the perfect shall survive.

Posted by: valerie at March 23, 2007 2:05 PM


Valerie do you have children? I do not like to share personal stories over the internet but feel this is neccessary to make the point. Having been drugged and gang-raped, I found that I was pregnant. Because I would be forced to leave school to have the child if I raised it alone, my boyfriend proposed that we get married sooner than we had planned. Two weeks later he was killed in a car accident. At eleven weeks pregnant I miscarried. While I was pregnant, I was so sick that even drinking water made me vomit. I was facing emonths of extreme nausea that had forced me to undergo IV treatment for dehydration. I was suffering the grief of the loss of my fiancee and facing raising a child that I had found thru CVS would have a serious genetic defect. Had I carried this embryo to term, the prenatal care alone would have cost around thirty thousand dollars. The care for the child would have been incalculable.

While I do not personally agree with aborting a fetus because of its genetic defects, I feel that all women are entitled to determine privately what is the best decision. This right includes the ability to do so without your approval or anyone else's.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 23, 2007 6:09 PM


Samantha - I have 2 children. My son was born 9 weeks early (31 weeks gestation) and he was in the hospital for 35 days before I could take him home. We call him the $100,000 baby. My first day at the hospital cost $20,000. He has an autistic spectrum disorder and has to have speech therapy and occupational therapy. We are hopful that he will start kindergarden in the fall but he will need a special teacher (resource teacher) to help him through this. After my son was born I had 3 miscarriages. All early 2nd trimester miscarriages. I was tested to find out why this was happening but the Dr's had no idea. My 3rd miscarriage happened after my Mother committed suicide. My daughter was born almost 4 years after my son. During that pregnancy I had to give myself progesterone shots to help keep her attached to my uterus. With all 5 pregnancy the morning sickness was horrible. I was put on fenergan (don't know spelling) and reglan to control the vomitting.

All of this was extremely expensive. But I never put a dollar sign on my children. The care for my son is exhausting, and he has been in physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy etc. since birth. But every hug he gives me and every smile I see is worth it all.

I do have to say that I don't understand your point to all this. Think of this; In India there is not only a shortage of women, there is a shortage of feminine pride which is why the females are being aborted. 10 million females are dead because of their sex. If those ten million were alive, would India still have a problem with female discrimination? I doubt it. Some of those women would have been like Susan B. Anthony, Eliza Duffey, Hillary Clinton, Condolezza Rice. Get it? India is a repressed nation because of abortion. All those women dead. All because we are not suppose to tell someone else what to do with their bodies. Now we are faced with the possibility that behavior can be genetically linked. Can you imagine aborting a baby because the genetic testing has shown that he/she has a predisposition to alcoholism? Would it still be up to the mother then? Would you still be turning a blind eye to what is happening around you? An entire nation has been supressed and women can only say is "it's my body, I can do what I want."

We can no longer treat our children as disposable property just because we don't want to be inconvienced. If money is an issue there are tons of government programs to help, I know because I am using quite a few government programs to assist with my son. If convenience is an issue then there is adoption. The excuse of school just doesn't work because thousands of millions of mothers and mothers to be worldwide go to school and become successful.

Life is not perfect. Children are not perfect. And we should love both life and children. We should stop our love affair with 'choice' because all that gets us death.

Posted by: Valerie at March 23, 2007 7:19 PM


According to UNICEF, the reason for the infanticide in India is that poor families cannot afford the hefty dowry required for a daughter to wed. This is a practice that I personally consider barbaric; so in reference to you question, the infanticide is not inducing anti-feminism. Inequality has led to the infanticide. I feel that this custom is based on arrogance, ignorance, and the belief that ancient traditions are relevant in modern society.

My point in the previous post was just what I said: women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Having personally experienced the helpless feeling of being without the ability to control various aspects of my life, I cannot support a law that would remove a large part of what little control women actually have.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 23, 2007 8:15 PM


Exactly what is the difference between anti-feminism and inequality? Feminism came about because we were not treated as equals. It is the same thing. Now, let me see if I have this right; You consider their culture to be barbaric, therefore the female infanticide is okay? No matter the reason, 10 million aborted females are dead. I noticed you didn't address that issue.

What I am saying is that the tremendous amount of abortions being performed because of the sex of the baby has resulted in a gap in the female/male ratio. This also means that women are repeatedly told that females are not worthy of life. Talk about mental abuse! How are they suppose to be liberated if they are destroying all their women?

So, have you tried to get the laws on strip clubs changed? How about prostitution? Those women are doing what they want to do with their bodies. It is their choice. But there are laws in place that won't allow them to do everything they want to do.

Posted by: Valerie at March 23, 2007 9:41 PM


No, you dont have it right. If that inequality wasnt bred by mysogynistic fathers, there would be no need for the abortions because girls would be welcome. I dont consider the culture barbaric. I consider the practice of placing a price value on the daughter barbaric. I do not think that the infanticide is okay. I do think that if the government in India doesnt realize that 93 women per 100 men = big problem, they need a reality check. I do think that American children who are starving--physically and emotionally--should be of more concern to the public than the problems that might arise half a world away. I dont understand what topic you think Im avoiding.

As for the strippers-and-prostitutes analogy, I support those women in their endeavors to support themselves. I dont see how prostitution or stripping are any worse than homosexuality or adultery. And yes, as a matter of fact, I have contacted both my state and national representatives. However, the strippers and prostitutes dont seem overly concerned, so I dont think the laws are really hampering their business.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 23, 2007 10:45 PM


SamanthaT,

I just read your post... It made me cry. I'm so sorry for your loss. I can't even begin to imagine how hard that must have been for you.

Posted by: Danielle at March 24, 2007 1:16 AM


Samantha,

While I can never condone abortion, my heart aches for you.

As I said on the previous topic, everyone has a story and when it is shared, so many things come to light.

This is why even though I will say that abortion is murder, I hesitate to call people murderers. When you hear something like this you realize how very damaging it can be to throw accusations around like that.

It was very brave of you to share that painful story, and it shows us two things. You (et al) are not evil, just human, and once you know someones "story" they cease to be an abstract and become "real".

God bless you babe and if you ever want to talk offsite, I'm hear for you. Whenever you hear us get a little to intense with the name calling and you start to doubt yourself and your self worth, you remember, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. That guy on the cross I keep talkin' about. His arms are open for you too. Still, and always. He was there with you when you went through that terrible ordeal, and He is there right now. Arms open. There's always a way back.

"love"
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 24, 2007 5:35 AM


Samantha,

I just reread your post and realize that you didn't have an abortion, but miscarried. Sorry about that. The rest of my post remains valid. But I want to add something.

Your boyfriend (fiance) that stepped up to bat? An amazing fellow.

Take comfort in knowing that he and your little one are together and watching you from a good place. Name that little fella, and talk to him. Talk to you fiance too. They can still help, more than you know.

How wonderful to know that there are two people out there who care about you more than anyone in the world. It's a shame your boyfriend was taken from this world, cuz this sad, sad world could use heroes like him.

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at March 24, 2007 5:41 AM


Oh my God, Samantha, I'm crying. I would be emotionally irreparable if I was to be raped...you are one of the strongest people I've met. I can't imagine your pain. And I would be devastated if anything happened to my boyfriend (I hope he's the one I marry...I can't imagine my life being any better with anyone else). Things this terrible shouldn't happen to anyone, and I have so much respect for you that you could survive this ordeal.


You're a hell of a fighter. Best wishes forever.

Posted by: Alyssa at March 24, 2007 7:04 AM


I just read your post as well Samantha.Shocking.That was a lot for you to deal with at one time. I will second what MK said.I hope you are okay.

Posted by: momof3 at March 24, 2007 7:45 AM


OMG...now Im crying. Thanks guys.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 24, 2007 9:18 AM


SamanthaT:

I'm really trying to understand. Honestly, I can't see the logic. There's a disconnect. Let me explain.

We all have trials. I've got a few heart-wrenching ones myself that would make everyone cry too, and your story is tragic. To post your story as support for abortion choice is troubling, however, and not logical but rather, prejudiced by a women's right than the baby's right.

Bear with me before you call me a heartless bastard. I see how you went through a type of hell and I do feel for you.

Sounds to me that you wanted that baby and your boyfriend wanted the baby too, however, due to to your boyfriend's pre-mature death and surrounding circumstance, you got sick and the baby who had a defect died due to a miscarriage. Clearly, no fault of yours.

Let's say that the baby was a one year old and was slightly disabled. Then your boyfriend was killed and then you got sick, and then the one year old died due to no fault of yours, and that unexpectedly. Having experienced that, would that somehow been justification for you to support a women in the same circumstance to have the choice to kill the one-year old?

I mean we either believe the fetus is a baby or we don't. I think if you beleived that the fetus was a baby you would think it wrong to kill it, right, under any circumstance? So, the crux of this matter all comes down to whether or not a fetus is a baby? Are you so sure that a fetus is not a baby and would you be willing to take the reponsiblity for that stance 50,000,000 or a billion times over, because when you support abortion, you are supporting every abortion that ever occurred. Are you really that sure and if so what evidence can you give me in stone, that a fetus is not a baby and therefore, subject to justifiable homicide?

I mean we're cutting through all the hype here and if you could prove to me that a fetus was not a baby beyond a reasonable doubt, I would support your stance. I mean this is the standard our court system uses to send people to their deaths. However, I am absolutely convinced that you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a fetus is not a baby. And if it's just your opinion, sorry, that's not good enough because the stakes are just too high to let an opinion like that stand, and it won't stand.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at March 27, 2007 3:27 AM


HisMan you are wrong in that I did not want that child. It was a product of rape. I did not want a constant reminder of that horrible violation. I chose to continue the pregnancy and had not decided whether I would keep the child or not. When you say that I am prejudiced toward women's rights, you are absolutely correct.

You say that if I can prove a fetus is not a baby, you will take my side. Well, lets you and me sit down and have a conversation with a doctor. The scientifically, medically, anatomically correct term for a preborn is "fetus," and "baby " is used after birth.

Now, if you can prove to me that there is any logical reason why a woman, a living, breathing, contributing member of society, should have her rights suspended to allow for the rights of an unborn to be exalted, I will come over with you.

Posted by: SamanthaT at March 28, 2007 9:23 PM