Discussion pertaining to the subject of abortion and homosexuality

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by Xenamnes, Oct 7, 2019.

  1. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,248
    Likes Received:
    7,112
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A common statement on the part of homosexual individuals, and their legal advocates, is that homosexualism is not a choice, but rather it is simply how they were born. That they do not actually have a choice in who or what they are, or how they conduct themselves.

    For the sake of hypothetical discussion, let us assume that the science of genetics has developed a test to identify a specific gene, or a specific sequence of genes, that are present in homosexual individuals but not heterosexual individuals, and confirming once and for all that such is indeed the result of birth and not a personal or individual choice on the part of anyone. There is now a test to identify homosexuals before they are even born.

    Assuming such a test can be developed, what sort of repercussions would such a development and scientific advancement have with regard to the subject of abortion? Would such a test ultimately come to be used as a basis for terminating fetuses that possess homosexual genetics, simply because their parents do not wish to have a homosexual child?

    If the homosexual community could, essentially, come to be exterminated through homosexual fetuses being terminated, how would such play out in the field of civil rights? Homosexuals are regarded as a protected class with various hate crime laws, so would such protections automatically extend to fetuses that carry homosexual genetics, and thus those pregnancies could not legally be terminated, thus saying women do not actually have a legal say over their bodies? Or would the homosexual community be told that the future of their continued existence is of lesser importance than the right of women to have legal control over their bodies?
     
    robini123 likes this.
  2. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Looks like I might be the first here, unless someone slips in while I'm typing. So I'm putting $10 down that somewhere along the line, someone will change your premises in order to make arguments that have nothing to do with the scenario you laid out. Having done one of my own dealing with artificial wombs, I'm speaking from experience. I'll say by page 3 at the latest, and that's me just hedging my bet. It will probably be right here on page 1.

    With that noted, allow me to weigh in on the thought experiment.

    Ultimately, bodily autonomy has to win over, and the final decision is still the woman's. With that said, I don't think we would have to worry about the homosexual community. Had you asked this question 20 years ago, there might have been some initial worry. But nowadays, many people wouldn't care if their offspring were gay or bi (I would have to logically assume if they can detect homosexuality, they can also detect bisexuality). This would be especially so if one or both parents were gay or bi. Granted anti gay people will say that I'm wrong and all would want to not have a gay or bi kid. There might be an initial dip, but I'm pretty sure the numbers would come back to where they are.
     
  3. Diablo

    Diablo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,069
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought eugenics had been banned since the Nazis tried it? Maybe people like the OP should be reviewed to see if they should be allowed to live....
     
  4. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Eugenics is about manipulation of DNA, not the detection of it. Whether this is as bad or not as eugenics is a whole discussion in and of itself. But it is not eugenics.
     
  5. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,248
    Likes Received:
    7,112
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it a matter of eugenics for parents to terminate a fetus that has tested positive for down syndrome?
     
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,032
    Likes Received:
    31,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The premise of the OP is directed only at those who are BIGOTED against homosexuality.

    This bigoted subset of the population is the more or less the same subset that is ANTI-ABORTION!

    Ergo the conundrum would only apply to the anti-gay bigots who are also anti-abortion.

    They would be faced with having to deal with the STARK REALITY that they are CAUSE of homosexuals and that their OWN potential CHILD is someone whom they will SPURN even though the child was the spawn of their own loins.

    This DILEMMA will place them in the invidious position of having to CHOOSE between having an abortion or bringing another homosexual into the world. If they choose the abortion route they have committed a mortal "sin" and if they decide to put the infant up for adoption they will know that they are still responsible for the existence of gays. Yes, they might also try to INDOCTRINATE their own gay child to REJECT their innate homosexuality thereby ensuring that their own child will probably end up either on drugs or committing suicide.

    There is another possibility which is that they will renounce their own bigotry and join the rest of the sane and reasonable world in accepting that gays are as normal as everyone else. While this is a remote option because it would mean renouncing their faith and families it would be the best option IMO. Once the first parents are brave enough to put their love for their child over and above their bigotry there will be others who will follow in their footsteps. The best part of this option is that it will further marginalize and shrink the bigoted subset of the population.

    There will be NO "extermination" of homosexuality because the MAJORITY of the population are NOT bigots so there is no need to even address that inanity.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A couple of semantic clarifications which might sound minor but I think are important in presenting a fair and balanced perception; The term is homosexuality rather than homosexualism. This is important given that the “-ity” suffix implies a state while the “-ism” suffix implies an action (I do hope that wasn’t intentional on your part :( ). On a related note, sexuality means a person has no choice in who or what they are but we can obviously all choose how we conduct ourselves (or at least try to). Finally, I said sexuality there because all of this applies equally to heterosexuality and any other fundamental sexual orientation an individual may be.

    A fair hypothetical but it’s worth noting that this is highly unlikely given all the indications are that sexual orientation is influenced more than simple genetics. In practice, any such test would be more likely to indicate a likelihood rather than a certainly (probably making the hypothetical situation even more complicated and difficult to predict).

    I have no doubt it would be highly complex and controversial, just as abortion on the basis of characteristics that can already be identified in similar ways already is (notably gender and certain genetic conditions). I’m not sure why sexual orientation should be considered as a special case above and beyond any other example though. Abortion on the basis of genetically-defined characteristics (as opposed to specific inherited medical conditions) is a general issue that we’re likely to have to address in the future. Parents wanting their kinds to be tall, fair-skinned and straight are all essentially the same issue.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
  8. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,248
    Likes Received:
    7,112
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it being stated, or otherwise suggested, on the part of yourself, that anti-homosexual bias is not a real thing and in need of being acknowledged and addressed?
     
  9. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,248
    Likes Received:
    7,112
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Noted.

    Perhaps sexual orientation is not limited exclusively to genetics. But if there is a genetic link that can be discovered through the science of genetics, it would be something that would need to be taken into consideration for future discussion.

    Legalizing abortions for reasons outside of the life of the mother being threatened due to pregnancy has opened the door to such considerations, in the era where science has essentially made so-called "designer babies" a distinct possibility if not reality. So it becomes a question of how much freedom with regard to abortion and body anonymity is considered too much and in need of being restricted.
     
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,352
    Likes Received:
    2,524
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the existence of abortion as a concept opens the door. Criminalising it doesn't prevent it happening.

    You don't need your homosexuality hypothetical for this issue though. It's long been an issue with gender in various regions and communities and as genetic testing improves, more potential genetic defects and more general characteristics can be predicted before birth. In fact, I believe there are places where certain kinds of testing is restricted, even to the point of prohibiting doctors from telling parents the sex at the early stage. So, it's a valid question in it's specific context, though like a lot of abortion questions, not one I believe has any "right" answer.

    "Designer babies" is a different issue, specifically altering DNA to favour preferred characteristics. Probably best not to confuse matters even further. :cool:
     
  11. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    14,009
    Likes Received:
    9,457
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think there's enough homophobes left (at least in the US) for this situation to have any meaningful impact on the homosexual community. Given that the African American community by and large does not come out railing against abortion despite them being aborted more than any other demographic, I don't see gays coming out strong against it either. I think there would likely be as many (per capita, perhaps) gays aborting straight children as there would be straights aborting gay children (not many of either) and the debate around both issues would remain largely unchanged, with perhaps a small increase in anti-abortion gays and a small increase in pro-abortion straights.

    Additionally, it seems likely to me that artificial womb technology will have similarly advanced with this gene ID technology, allowing gays easier access to having children, which would further reduce homophobia among parents, given that at least some of the homophobia today is a result of parents resenting the fact that their gay children are less likely to 'carry on the family line' (genetically speaking).
     
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,032
    Likes Received:
    31,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??? :eek:

    That makes no sense whatsoever!
     
  13. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    19,167
    Likes Received:
    9,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The majority of the people that would want to nit have the child would be deeply religious individuals, the rest of the population is getting where it isn’t really an issue. It would probably be in the best interest of the child to not be born to these types of individuals.

    Which leads to an interesting outcome — if evangelicals do end up getting roe vs wade repealed, will they pull the “religious freedom” card to abort their gay embryos?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. Captain Obvious

    Captain Obvious Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    43
    So it’s a mortal sin to have an abortion if it is a homosexual? What happened to a woman’s right to choose? Since an abortion is a woman’s choice and hers alone what does the reason matter?
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,032
    Likes Received:
    31,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I recommend that you address your question to the OP since I have no interest in defending that inane hypothetical.

    Yes, ALL women do have reproductive rights and therefore the reasons for their choices are personal and private.
     
    cd8ed and Bowerbird like this.
  16. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    909
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    gayness is 100 percent genetic !!!
    This is fact !!!
    Sure in extreme situations a person can resort to anything
     
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    41,032
    Likes Received:
    31,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Given that BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in oral and anal sex for pleasure it is not restricted to either group.

    In essence the difference lies in ATTRACTION to either the same or opposite gender or in some instances both.

    So it isn't so much determining if there is a "gay gene" as it is a matter of understanding how sexual attraction functions. This is more complex than a single gene and it probably has more to do with how the genes controlling attraction turn on and off at different points just as the genes controlling gender turn on and off.

    This is a complex process and probably has many variations which is why some people are hermaphrodites with both sets of sexual organs.
     
    Quasar44 likes this.
  18. Quasar44

    Quasar44 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    909
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s many genes !!!
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. Michael Whitewolf

    Michael Whitewolf Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male

    That's not all eugenics is, manipulating DNA is not even the main concept, we couldn't do much with DNA until the 90's my man. Everybody practices a form of social eugenics when they pick a husband or wife for example, or a community having arranged marriage, another social eugenic effort. The z.o.g. media has absolutely smeared the Nazi's as horrible eugenicists. But their concept of making a better society with better people (gene-wise and such) makes a lot of sense. Social eugenics (and frankly gene-manipulating) would be bad why? Anti-Eugenics arguments never make sense.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2020
  20. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Eugenics is indeed, about manipulation of DNA, although, yes, in its early forms, it stemmed more from selective breeding that fiddling with DNA at that level. The difference between Eugenics and say your example of arranged marriage, is arranged marriages were rarely about breeding certain traits, per se', the concept of breeding among nobility aside.

    No I do have to apologise since I realized now, that I had painted eugenics as if it was universally bad. Eugenics is what we do when we breed plants and animals to get new breeds and such. In and of itself, it is not bad. It's a tool, and is only as good or bad as the wielder's intent and use.

    Regardless my point still stands. What the OP discusses is detection, not eugenics.
     
  21. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That was supposed to read "Now I do have to apologise...."
     
  22. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It would be up to the woman. Women have chosen abortion for lesser reasons. A woman's civil right to choose would out way the gay community's right to force a continued pregnancy against the woman's will. It would hardly extinguish homosexuality and someone that opposed to homosexuality probably shouldn't have a gay kid.
     
  23. Michael Whitewolf

    Michael Whitewolf Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male

    I think we're just talking semantics at this point but I'll bite again.

    Eugenics "earlier" form is the more widely practiced phenomenon that people engage in with dating etc although I would say picking the best people to mate with each other and selecting these people to breed more has been practiced and for some reason modern people don't like this since eugenics is a "scary" word. I have qualms about DNA manipulation but again, if the idea is to make people better and there isn't much damage, I'd probably still be for some genetic altering, though I prefer selection eugenics.

    Oh and arranged marriages weren't just for nobility, many times royalty were the healthiest and best stock of a society. I think that's all I got.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  24. Michael Whitewolf

    Michael Whitewolf Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2019
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually the homosexuals would be the more moral people at that point trying to stop whores from practicing infanticide.
     
  25. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    236
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You make a poor judge of morality if you do not know the definitions of whore or infanticide.
     

Share This Page