Salmon of Doubt

Hi, I'm new here. (waves)

I am bisexual, and possibly gay, and I would say that the issue here is complicated. A woman must always have the right to choose whether to have a baby or not, but I think that choice has to be made based on her own life. If she feels she is not ready to have a baby, she should be allowed to abort it.

Also, if the baby has a life threatening condition or will suffer from something like downs syndrome, I think she should also be allowed to choose to abort based on that. Something that has been proved to greatly diminish the quality of life of that child I think is grounds for abortion.

However, homosexuals do not suffer any decrease in quality of life due to being homosexual apart from some discrimination. Therefore I would liken abortion based on homosexuality to be no different from abortion based on eye colour, or the fact that the baby would be the wrong skin colour, or the baby would be female.

I don't think parents should know this type of thing before the birth, because discrimination has the potential to act very strongly. So basically I think this type of decision should be prevented from ever having to be made.

Psycho Economist

We'd like to interrupt this post for a message from Focus on the Fundy:

The Bible already answers this question for us: It's okay to be "a gay" until you lay with a man like you would a woman. Then. Only then, should you be dragged to the edge of town and beaten to death by the elders.


*shakes head*
We now return to our regularly scheduled atheist.

Mageth

I have serious doubts as to whether any single gene will ever be found that's a direct, and the only, cause for homosexuality. Thus, I doubt if a genetic test will be developed that can conclusively determine the sexual orientation of a fetus before birth.

But if it is ever possible to make such a determination, I would have to agree with Salmon of Doubt on this. While I support a woman's right to choose, I think there are some types of things that such testing should not be used to determine, even if the tests are available, and that thus should not be considered factors in a woman's choice.

Mad Kally

I have to agree with this too. What if I wanted my baby to have green eyes so I just kept aborting any fetus that had brown or blue eyes?

Novowels

While I find it personally repugnant that someone would choose to abort a fetus for the sole reason that it would not be straight if it had lived, I am not really sure I would take away the right of a woman to choose what to do with her own body.

I would despise this woman, but I daresay I wouldn't interfere with her right to be ignorant. After all, we let Missourri exist.

I can't quite imagine somene that hates gays so much to not want one as her child would be too keen on abortion either, though. Maybe I'm just being naive... again.

Salmon of Doubt, love the name btw.

[edit to add]
I'd also have to say, that if someone were to hate gays enough to want to abort their child for the sole reason that the child were not straight, and were not allowed to abort, that child would have a very hellish life growing up. Death might be preferrable [and the end result anways, in later years] in this case, anyways.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I don't see anything wrong with aborting a fetus for an eye color. I'm not quite sure why it's considered a bad thing to want certain things from one's prospective children. Do we criticize those who adopt and try to choose a certain type of child?

It's still a fetus, I don't care if it's aborted or not. It's up to the mother to go through the risks and costs associated.

If someone ELSE forced the mother to abort for something, that's when it becomes immoral. Until then, I don't care what she's basing her abortion on. Just like I don't care what reason she picks her scabs for. I definitely don't consider it immoral.

-B

Doubting Didymus

First, you'll have to catch the 'gene for being gay' and pin it down.

Good friggin luck.

Salmon of Doubt

Thanks
Anwyay, that's a very good point, and that child may well suffer. But on the other hand, if anyone with 'undesirable features' were aborted, how would anyone learn to be tolerant of others?

Well, doesn't it seem rather trivial? why would a woman go through all the trauma and stress of an abortion just because she didn't like the eye colour of a baby? Often it's stressful enough to abort even when the baby has a life threatening illness.

And what about gender? Is it ok to choose that? What if there's a fashion for having male babies and the entire population is thrown out of balance? No, I think mothers should not be given that kind of information in advance at all.

(And as far as I know, the most common theory for the birth of homosexuals is altered hormone levels in the brain while still in the womb)

Bumble Bee Tuna

Yes, it is trivial. But it's not wrong. The mother is free to do what she wants. I may think it's a bad idea to waste the money and go through the risks, but I'm not about to try to tell her it's morally wrong.

If there's a fashion for male babies, I'm not opposed to abortion due to gender. The mother has no obligation to provide society with the ideal child for reproduction. She can choose to have whatever type of child she can get.

I still don't see the difference between this and choosing what baby you adopt instead of picking one at random. Or with choosing sperm/ova from smart, healthy people (sometimes paying large sums to do so).

-B

Monkeybot

I think this is reversing cause and effect -- if society were more tolerant, we probably wouldn't even be asking "what characteristics make it OK to abort a fetus?"

I'm with Nvwls; while I would be personally repulsed by anyone who aborted a fetus just because it would become a gay human, it's not my place to choose for a mother what children she can and can't have.