It goes back way earlier than that, back to the founding of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. They have a great brochure on the potential for LGBT feticide: http://plagal.org/brochures/blue.pdf

The real irony is that gay people have expressed concern about the possiblity of a "gay gene" and the aborting of children for just this reason.

The real real irony is that gays have been supporters of the very liberal agenda that might in turn be used to destroy their future generations.

When the gods want to punish man they answer their prayers soooooo, be very careful what you wish for.......

Of course we would oppose aborting children found to have the "gay gene." We oppose aborting any child. It's not really a difficult concept.

In brighter (sort of related) news, I saw a great thing in a parenting magazine this month. There was an article about making Valentine's crafts and they used a model who had DS. The article didn't mention DS at all, it just happened to have her as the model. I thought that was so cool that it was just so normal. I think that it will go a long way to easing people's fears.

I'm so sick of the intentional mischaracterization and outright lies.

Being pro-choice and pro-gay seem to go in tandem (part of being liberal). Many of the homophobic comments that I have seen on various blogs are from the same folks who are also anti-choice. I don't think that liberal, pro-choice women would seek an abortion based on identification of a gay fetus because they don't have a problem with "teh gay." The ones who do seem to have a problem with gays are conservatives - particularly Christian conservatives who view homosexuals as "deviants," "sodomites," and so forth. The people opposed to gay adoption are not liberal. Those who seek to actually criminalize homosexuality are not liberal. If anything, it would seem to be those who are anti choice who would have the most problem with a fetus which has been designated as "gay." It would be great if a "gay gene" would identified; as that would blow the right wing theory of homosexuality being a "choice" right out of the water. Those who are pro-choice respect the decision of those women who choose abortion - the reasons for the abortion aren't our business. But a gay fetus might be a real problem for those who are anti choice and might actually cause them to rethink their belief system. Just saying...

Now go tell that to plagal.org

I'm sure they'll be delighted.

No, a gay fetus wouldn't change a thing about our belief system. Pro-lifers value life first and foremost. We don't care if the child will have X issue, we care that they are not killed by their mothers. This isn't complicated, Artemis.

Oh, and I love how you're equating "we don't approve" with "kill it!". You're giving us a window into the pro-abortion mentality. "I don't approve of being pregnant." = "Kill the baby." Not for us, sorry.

Even though many pro-lifers (not myself though, sorry to disappoint you) don't approve of homosexuality. That doesn't mean they want to have homosexuals killed. But thanks for that little peek into the mind of a pro-abortionist. Twisted.

Artemis, how can you have lived on this earth for longer than I have and yet managed to learn NOTHING? Its the feminists who want abortion rights and yet female babies are being singled out for abortion RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA and it ain't us "anti-choice", "women-hating" conservatives doing it.

you can bet your last dollar (which will undoubtedly be soon as Obama increases middle-class taxes) that if a gay gene is found, even liberal women will be off to abort their "gay" babies. I mean have a disability is an "in" thing with liberals, yet 90% of DS babies are aborted. Countless babies with Spina bifida (which is correctable a lot of the time) are being aborted despite the social acceptance of sniff, wiping a tear and having a fund raiser for such children. You liberals are the DEFINITION of hypocrites. I know because I am related to a couple.

Posted by: Sydney M at February 14, 2010 1:30 PM

Liberal pro-choice women don't think of homosexuality as a disability so why would they abort a gay fetus on the basis of the "gay gene?" And if they do - it's their choice. If women have abortion because of sex selection - it's their choice. Science now is able to identify if a fetus will be disabled and women now have the choice to give birth or not and that is a wonderful thing. Bottom line is that abortion is legal because not all scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and clergy believe that abortion is "murder." If anything, if a fetus is identified with a gay gene, a liberal women might think twice about an abortion. But again, if a woman wants an abortion, that's her business - not that of the church or the state - something that one would think "limited government" types would approve of. Actually, many fiscal conservatives from New England are also pro-choice. Think Christy Tood Whitman and John Chaffee (deceased) although his son, an independent, is pro-choice and is running for governor of RI. (Republican, anti-choice Carcieri will be replaced with a pro-choice governor be it Chafee or the democratic candidate.

And here you admit to pro-abortionists thinking that we should kill those with disabilities. Keep talking.

Posted by: xalisae at February 14, 2010 1:57 PM

No, I didn't say that. I said this: "Science now is able to identify if a fetus will be disabled and women now have the choice to give birth or not and that is a wonderful thing."

Note Bene that I did NOT say that people with disabilities should be killed. If you extrapolated that from my comment, you really need a course in remedial reading. What I said is that it's great that science has the techonology which can identify birth defects. Because abortion is legal, women can make a choice about carrying the fetus to term. That is, I (and many others) believe, a good thing. Quite simple, actually.

I wonder why the media thinks that, somehow, the pro-life movement is anti-gay?

Could it be because it is? Maybe if pro-lifers stopped coupling homosexuality with abortion every five minutes, there'd be less of a stereotype there.

Obviously I know that pro-lifers aren't in favor of killing gay fetuses, but do you think that makes us feel better when we try to engage in the pro-life movement, what being told every five minutes that us wanting to get married will bring down the wrath of God?

Maybe if the pro-life movement had a few more gays in it, it would be harder for the media to stereotype us in this way!

Artemis,

Please, tell me what fantasyland you reside in.

Certain people are just too enlightened and tolerant to abort a gay baby. Right, just like people are too enlightened and tolerant to abort a baby because it is female. Ya think sex selection abortion was ever anticipated? According to a 1982 nursing journal, 4 out of 5 babies aborted in the United States for being the "wrong" sex were female. You read that correctly, right here in this enlightened country.

Next you'll tell us that Planned Parenthood would never single out a black woman for abortion at the request of an anonymous racist. Nooooooooooo.

I recall that some of Hollywood's most "enlightened" liberals went beserk on being informed their children were gay. What happened to their enlightenment and tolerance? Gee, its fine for everyone else's kids isn't it??

Get out of your dream world Artemis. The people at plagal.org see the writing on the wall. Abortion is used to deliberately destroy women, why not gays?

As an atheist, I can see where you're coming from, Nate. A little more inclusiveness would go a long way.

And, Artemis, maybe you need to think about what you say before you say it.

"Liberal pro-choice women don't think of homosexuality as a disability so why would they abort a gay fetus on the basis of the "gay gene?""

You indicated that a liberal pro-choice woman would want to abort a child with a disability. That is killing the child for having a disability. That's what you're saying. My reading comprehension is fine, it's just your deplorable ideals that are the problem here.

For the record I have no strong feelings for or against gay people. I will point out I suspect a relative of mine is gay, and no finer man, as well as loving son, grandson, and nephew walks this planet.

Xalisae: have you seen SecularProLife.org? We have a nice active group of Facebook.

Artemis,

"Science is now able to identify if a fetus will be disabled and women now have the choice to give birth or not and that is a wonderful thing".

Let's replace "disabled" with "half-black".

Now am I suggesting that half black babies should be killed? Certainly not. No, just that it wonderful that those viewed as well, undesirable, you know like the disabled, can be detected in the womb and be legally aborted.

I'm not too off the mark here Artemis. I remember when biracial children were regarded as better of aborted or stillbirth.

"That is killing the child for having a disability"

"Killing the child" reflects your belief that abortion is murder. That is not what the law of the land states and it is not the belief of a good chunk of those who live in this land. Until abortion is criminalized, abortion is not "murder" - but a surgical procedure which is sometimes necessary to save the life of the "post natal" woman who is carrying the fetus - no more, no less. Sorry, but that's the present "RH Reality."

Artemis....this surgery is "sometimes necessary" to "save the life of the post natal woman who is carrying the fetus" 1.2 million times a year? So 1.2 million women would die every year if abortion wasn't there to save them.

You obviously don't know what reality is! Abortion is an ELECTIVE surgery done for mostly SOCIAL reasons...something like 93% of abortions are done for social reasons according to the Guttmacher Institute which is definitely not pro-life.

As in the case of my dear friend who planned to abort her daughter June 22, 2007 for SOCIAL reasons but ultimately gave her daughter life...all of those "reasons" she had for killing her little girl worked themselves out. She couldn't believe she ever thought murdering her unborn daughter was the solution, but that was the lie she was fed. That little girl is now two and her mother loves that child with all her heart and soul.

Artemis,

Get your facts straight. Murder is a legal term and killing is not necessarily viewed as murder.
You will note we have 1st, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc. The loved ones of a drunk driving victim may view the death as murder, the law may say otherwise.

Laws were already in place prior to Roe allowing women who's lives were endangered to have abortions. Some states even allowed for incest and rape.
Thankfully in this day and age it rarely comes down to the life of the mother versus the unborn.

@Artemis:

What You Say: Being pro-choice and pro-gay seem to go in tandem (part of being liberal). Many of the homophobic comments that I have seen on various blogs are from the same folks who are also anti-choice.

What That Means: "All that evidence you posted of liberal and gay women saying they'd abort gay children or that the gay unborn are at high risk of abortion if a gene is ever found? Yeah, I'm going to ignore all that because I don't like it."

The ones who do seem to have a problem with gays are conservatives - particularly Christian conservatives who view homosexuals as "deviants," "sodomites," and so forth.

"Instead, I'm going to build this straw man over here. See how awesome he looks? Just like I want him to!"

The people opposed to gay adoption are not liberal. ... But a gay fetus might be a real problem for those who are anti choice and might actually cause them to rethink their belief system. Just saying...

"Yay, I fought the straw man! WAT DO I WIN, U GAIZ?!?"

Liberal pro-choice women don't think of homosexuality as a disability so why would they abort a gay fetus on the basis of the "gay gene?"

"All that stuff you're afraid of? It's totally never going to happen. Why? Because."

And if they do - it's their choice.

"Actually, you know, it might happen. But that's okay, too! Why? Because!"

If women have abortion because of sex selection - it's their choice.

"No, no. Aborting children for the horrible fetal deformity of being too female is actually pro-woman! Why? Because, already! How is this not clear yet?"

Science now is able to identify if a fetus will be disabled and women now have the choice to give birth or not and that is a wonderful thing.

"Ablism. What a beautiful choice."

Bottom line is that abortion is legal because not all scientists, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and clergy believe that abortion is "murder."

"Okay, let's assume abortion actually is immoral. That doesn't matter! Why? Because! But also, because it's legal. Anything legal is written in stone forever. Can't be changed. Because."

You know, I've seen people coupling "traditional marriage" (no pun intended) with pro-life ideology way too often. That has to stop.

Guess what? My definition of a disgusting marriage is one between an adult and a child; family members; a human and an animal; or a polygamist union (yes, I don't agree with polygamy because it's primeval). Two men? Totally fine. Two women? Good for them. If they're in love, then they ought to be able to celebrate that; there isn't enough love in this world, unfortunately, and these people can adopt and care for those children we save from abortion. I have friends and family who are gay, and even if they weren't the extremely awesome people they are, they don't deserve to be alienated for things they can't control. I don't get what the big deal is.

And I certainly don't get why pro-lifers have to assume that the pro-life argument is tied to the anti-gay one. It might be, in your church, but if you want to save the unborn, focus exclusively on that and never tie in other issues. Abortion is the worst crime against humanity EVER, not some side-topic to tag on to your list of causes.

Don't agree with me? Then tell me how two men getting hitched is worse than, or even equal to, 50 million babies getting tortured to death every year around the world for reasons so small they aren't even mentionable.

Treat it like it is, people.

Oh and Artemis? You're a troll. You know some pro-abortion people can hold their own, arguing with absolutely no facts - but you lost it at "save the life of the mother."

Oh no wait, you lost it at "Science is now able to identify if a fetus will be disabled and women now have the choice to give birth or not and that is a wonderful thing."

You know what else science can identify? That a human being comes into existence at conception - or fertilization.

Answer this: Do all human beings deserve the same basic rights?

Keli Hu, you're awesome. All I'm gonna say.

I am opposed to both abortion and homosexual practice. Believe firmly that Scripture, nature and the maintenance of moral and cultural stability are all strong reasons for defending and working to maintain the right-to-life and the family unit of traditional marriage of male and female. (I am also opposed to fornication and adultery among heterosexuals.) Do not think there is a homosexual gene. In any case, I do not think that babies--preborn or postborn--should be murdered. Self centered pursuits--whether sexual pleasure, power, possessions or position--should not be our goal in life. And when these things become the goal of the majority of people everyone suffers.

Artemis,

You embarrass yourself without knowing it. If a gay gene were found, it would do nothing to orthodox or conservative Christian morality as you suggest. Here's why:

Homosexual sexual behavior is a free choice and not a compulsion-the same as heterosexual sexual behavior.

A gay gene would point toward a genetic etiology for the basis of same sex attraction, but not same sex behavior. Gays choose to sleep with person A, but not person B, the same as heterosexuals.

If gays are capable of choosing with whom, when and where they have their sex, then they are exercising FREE WILL, which is the necessary capacity required for moral decision making. In other words, they may not be able to choose their orientation, but they have the demonstrated capacity to respond to God's law in the affirmative or the negative.

Finding such a gene would guarantee the slaughter of babies in possession of it. You're a little optimistic about liberal women. Feminists find gays to be necessary for political alliances, but I doubt if given the choice many would care to raise one.

BRT, Nate. :D

Well, Artemis, why do women abort disabled children and other children that they find "undesirable" for whatever reason? Do you think it's just because they don't happen to want to be pregnant at that exact time all of a sudden, or because they want to put an end to that child that has that particular trait? Is that not killing their child because it has certain qualities? I never said "murder", not once.

A woman's fetus is her child; her offspring. I'm an adult now, but I'm still a child of Mr. and Mrs. Jones because they are my parents, and they were still my parents when I was inside my mother. I was their child then as well. Now, I have a deformity of my nose due to a birth defect. Let's say they caught that on the ultrasound one day and said, "Whoa, hey, wait a minute, there's something not right here with this kid. Let's get an abortion!" It's not as if getting an abortion would've had no impact on whether or not I lived, and it's not as if my mom having an abortion was unrelated to them wanting to end my life. Having an abortion so that I wouldn't live is killing me. Nice attempt at trying to disconnect the action from the consequence though.

Raymond Banner.... I totally agree with you. I am against the practice of homosexuality. And, I have gay friends, I love them as my friends and I don't think they should be killed. Same goes with unborn children...they shouldn't be killed for other's selfish purposes.

Abel--I agree with you that the pro-life "movement" should stay focused on the task at hand. I think its ironic though that you would pass judgement on polygamy and says its primeval. Thats kinda how I view homosexuality. Not that its "primeval" per se, but I don't agree with it. If you really think there isn't enough love in the world, and any kind of marriage of love is okay, then why not polygamy? If they are consenting adults and love each other...just saying!

I've got to share this. I know of a lesbian couple. They have been together for 10 years, and they both have grown children. "Mikey" knows about the sidewalk work I do at abortion clinics. She has a bit of a twang to her voice, as she is from Alabama. I was waiting for her to tell me off, but instead she said, "Heather, I like what you do, because my girlfriend and I both feel that if you lay down and MAKE THAT BABY, you need to lay down and have it!!" "I am against abortion too!"

Don't judge a book by its cover pro-aborts! Not all homosexuals are on your side in the abortion issue. As a matter of fact, a lot of gays and lesbians have made babies of their own! "Miss Jay" one of the judges on America's Next Top Model recently revealed that he has a biological son.

Hi Heather,

I understand that a wheelchair bound woman demonstrating against the starving of Terri Schiavo was a self described atheist, liberal, lesbian and Democrat who voted against George Bush.
She also described herself as an ardent disablity rights activist which was why she was demonstrating outside the nursing home where Terri was being starved.

You are right, people cannot be pigeonholed based on religion or lack of it, politics, or sexual orientation.

HI MARY!!!! It's a pleasure to see you. Thanks for the story. I was not aware of that one! Very interesting indeed. As you always say Mary, we are not always in lockstep!

Hi Heather,

Thank you. Always great to see you too. Drop me an e-mail when you can.

Mary, will do. I am on a friend's computer at this time. I'll e-mail you as soon as I get mine hooked up.

Artemis: Right from the top (1:24) you attempt to frame the issue as one where pro-lifers and so called "homophobics" are fellow travelers. Ergo any moral high ground that the pro-life movement might have is lost because some of the pro-traditional values they espouse is seen in your little world as something pernicious.

My friend, let me tell you what is pernicious. Dismembering babies inside of wombs is pernicious. Having an eugenic philosophy as the foundational principle of an organization (Planned Parenthood) is pernicious. Profiting from abortion is pernicious. Claiming oneself as "personally opposed" to abortion but at the same time absolving oneself of the responsibility to stop abortion is pernicious. Forcing those who in good conscience do not want to participate in abortion or fund it with their tax dollars is pernicious. A law that permits 50 million babies to be denied their God given right to life is pernicious, just as the unjust laws that permitted slavery in our country were pernicious.

Those who express traditional values are not the problem. Keli Hu did a great job of exposing your straw man argument, and Mary is someone you ought to listen to--you might actually learn something.

Artemis: "Note Bene that I did NOT say that people with disabilities should be killed."

No -- you just think people should have the choice to kill them, similar to saying, "Oh, I don't think anyone should ever be beaten by his or her spouse; I just think that people should have that CHOICE." A distinction with very little difference.

The number of women "save" by having an abortion is no where near 1.2 hundred, let alone 1.2 million. In fact most reliable surveys find that it is extremely rare.
I know of one women who might have been saved if she aborted her son. Her oncologist said that if she aborted they could start chemo right away. But there was no guarantee. She chose the sure life for her son. By the time she gave birth, the cancer was too advanced.
Pro-choice fanatics would more likely have gone to court seeking that she be declared incompetent and forced a court ordered abortion in the small chance that Pat could have been saved.

And Artemus, don't even try to say that "pro-choice" people in the Obama administration would not mandate "abortion" as the only covered treatment for pregnancies found to have a genetic defect like SB or DS. After all, even pro-choice commenters here say it should be mandatory because they think it is "cruel" to let a Downs child be born and become a burden on taxpayers.
And Obama appointees have written that health service should be restricted and limited where the elderly and disabled are concerned.
And it is the fact that genetic testing can be done before birth that makes this possibility very realistic ans frightening.
And it most definitely would be "pro-choice" people seeking laws banning aborting a baby if a "gay gene" is found. (But one never will be found.)

Dunno, beats me, but I thought people were just born male or female, and heterosexuality or homosexuality is just what you do with your sexuality once you have matured many years later.

The mixing up of immutable characteristics with behavior is a big cause of the controversy on this subject and I oppose homosexual behavior not just because Scripture does very clearly but also because it's unhealthy and infertile by definition. Like the beginning of life, the science on this is not going to change.

Never mind also, the fact that that there are people who no longer engage in homosexual activity... but they of course don't exist...

Well, ask yourself these two questions:

Why do people practice polygamy?
Why do gay couples want to marry?

Polygamists want to marry because they are greedy or have commitment problems or are weirdly religious, and most of them do it without the consent so much as the submission of their first, second, third or fourth (etc) partners.
Homosexual people want to marry out of exclusive love for one another, just like any heterosexual couple. Sure, it might not always work out, but to be honest heterosexual couples aren't doing a great job of staying together nowadays (I don't think they even tie the knot in Europe anymore), so really, nothing wrong with people wanting to make loyal commitments. I imagine some polygamists feel that way, true, but for the wrong reasons.

Posted by: Artemis at February 14, 2010 2:40 PM

------------------------------------------------

mechanemist,

There is nothing at all artful about your inane ramblings and self reflecting stereotypical strawpersons.

You are not even a technician.

At your best you are a clumsy shadetree mechanic.

But keep on trying. Practice makes permanent.

yor bro ken

Abel, I can't find it now, but I had wanted to link an article I recently read. It was either on lifesitenews or lifenews, or worldnetdaily....I just can't seem to find the article now but I read it about two days ago. Its about how homosexuals are polygamists. They are polyamorous or however you want to put it...promiscuous. And their partners know they are sleeping around but its part of the new homosexual culture and its supposed to teach married heterosexuals how to be better at marriage (I don't know, I think if my husband was sleeping with other women it wouldn't improve my marriage very much) It was interesting. I'd like to know what you think, but of course, can't seem to find the article. I will try again tomorrow.

I try not to get into the "why shouldn't gays marry" argument but I will say it again "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" technically anatomically and physiologically impossible. Marriage the joining together of the ONLY TWO REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS that are designed and meant to fit together physically, anatomically, hormonally and spiritually-the female vagina and the male penis. Research the sex practices and the astronomical health risk of homosexuals (more risky) and lesbians. Why won't the FDA accept blood donations from MSM (the blood donor intake form ask a man if he has EVER had sex with another man), he is asked to decline from donating blood. I will not type in the http:// or the www. but the link is
fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBankProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm The article gives medically researched facts. And then read the article by Dr. John Diggs Jr MD "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" I will not type in the http:// or the www. but the link is
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf Dr. Diggs gives a detailed description in his article of the dangerous sexual practices, the prevalence of STDs among those who engage in same-sex (men and women), the average numbers of partners, that countries that have legalized same-sex marraige have only devalued marriage and NOT promoted monogamy and stabilized homosexual relationships, he documents the astronomical rates of mental illness, depression and suicide even in societies where homosexuality is embraced and celebrated. Dr. Diggs gives 7-8 pages of documented works cited at the end of his article. Also read The Homosexual Agenda by Alan Sears. I know there may be some exceptions among practicing homosexuals and I do not want to malign homosexual prolifers. I do not fear or hate homosexuals God loves them and I love them too. Christ died for their sins and mine as well. Just as God hates my sins of pride, greed, selfishness, he would hate my sin if I committed adultery against my husband, he hates all sexual or any other sin. I pray that homosexuals will be healed and reconciled to God. I will continue to pray for everyone who blogs here and especially for innocent unborn babies to be saved from the holocaust of abortion.

ok...let's not learn anything.

Can we please keep stopping the legal killing of unborn children and any qualms with homosexuals separate from one another? Thanks.

Homosexuality is a sin, not a genetic disorder. God never condemned the sick to death. There is no gene that condemns a person. Homosexuality not abortion is a choice. God condemns the wicked to eternal death. BUT He will FORGIVE anyone for ANYTHING if they repent.

Of course we would oppose aborting children found to have the "gay gene." We oppose aborting any child. It's not really a difficult concept.

It is if you've turned your brain to mush.

Could it be because it is? Maybe if pro-lifers stopped coupling homosexuality with abortion every five minutes, there'd be less of a stereotype there.

Don't know what land you live in, but it's not the same place as me.

For all the pro-life secularists here who are tired of feeling left out or whatever your precious feelings are today, I'd just like to point out that it is largely Christians who have done the hard yards on this issue and still do so.

No, being pro-life is not an essentially religious position, just a humane one, but the fact is that it is mostly Christians who stick their necks out on this issue. Just saying.

Louise, I was tempted for a second to be rather too frank, but for the sake of not fighting amongst ourselves, I'll pass it up.

Sydney M., I imagine that article was a stereotype, like saying all sidewalk councilors throw holy water at people. I don't know a whole lot about polygamy statistics, to be honest - it was rather a sore subject in the church my grandparents attend, so I probably inherited some prejudice - and I understand homosexual marriage to be an entirely different matter. Do the two intersect on occasion? Perhaps. But like I said, throwing them all in the same bag isn't accurate.

I still say this is all considerably less serious than the quiet death going on in our hospitals and clinics. We can agree that this should be our main focus.

Xalisae, 9:42PM

Thank you. Gay people have always existed, always will, have raised children, have worked in all professions. Gay people also support PL causes like the woman I discussed in a previous post who is a disability rights activist as well as a lesbian who demonstrated in support of Terri Schiavo. Did anyone here do the same? Obviously this woman shares and actively takes part in living certain PL convictions. We need people like this, gay or straight.

Can we please keep stopping the legal killing of unborn children and any qualms with homosexuals separate from one another? Thanks.

Quoted for truth.

Regardless of whatever my feelings are on gay marriage--a subject I will not go into because it's not relevant--this straight gal would cheerfully walk alongside PLAGAL at the March for Life because there are over a million unborn children slaughtered every year. That's a big enough deal to get united on.

You're right, Louise. Xalisae, you just might as well stop posting and leave the pro-life cause to the Christians, since they seem to want to own it.

Reminds me of the Feminists for Life cartoon that shows one of their spokeswomen saying, "Yes, we would continue to oppose abortion even if a test were developed that could detect Democrats in the womb."

Yep. You're right, len. I guess I should just buy a NARAL membership, pack up my ball, and go home.

Oh, wait. I just remembered I don't give a flying flip what Louise says or who she is, and that many Christians might've STARTED this fight, but they're never going to END it on their own, and they just better get very freaking comfortable with that idea.

Too bad, so sad.

Artemis wrote:

Liberal pro-choice women don't think of homosexuality as a disability so why would they abort a gay fetus on the basis of the "gay gene?" And if they do - it's their choice.

Ah. So the fact that "it's their choice" means that the choice was "okay"? You'll need to explain that one to me...

Artemis,

Keep in mind that the liberals you speak of that heartily support abortion would likely have no problem aborting gay children as long as they use rhetoric like 'we are sparing him/her a tough life.' Don't even pretend that kind of stuff wouldn't happen.

Oh, wait. I just remembered I don't give a flying flip what Louise says or who she is, and that many Christians might've STARTED this fight, but they're never going to END it on their own, and they just better get very freaking comfortable with that idea.

It actually doesn't bother me in the slightest if secularists wish to join in the fight which Christians have initiated on behalf of the unborn. Indeed, I welcome all pro-lifers to the cause.

However, Jill is a Christian and this is her blog. Anyone and everyone is free to comment here as far as I can tell until they become completely uncivil. But in the first instance, the cartoon which set up this whole conversation was not from a religious paper. We are critiquing (or are supposed to be) this cartoon.

The cartoon is idiotic. But it was the cartoon which linked the anti-gay and pro-life beliefs in this idiotic way.

Jill and other Christians can discuss other areas of concern in society which may perhaps be relevant to abortion or the culture which condones and even promotes abortion.

So, if Jill thinks there may, for example, be some connection between contraception and abortion, it is relevant to discuss the concept.

If secularists don't like a broader discussion of possible influences on a culture which permits legal abortion, then fine. Have your precious feelings. But don't tell Christians we can't discuss these things.

Contraception and no-fault divorce have been disastrous for marriage, the decline of which in turn has been disastrous for society in general and all of it has only fuelled the abortion rate.

That's how I see it, anyway, and perhaps I'm wrong, but don't tell me I can't discuss these things on a forum which is run by a Christian.

To be a little more succinct:

but they're never going to END it on their own, and they just better get very freaking comfortable with that idea

applies as much to you secularists as we Christians.