I know many of the folks don’t watch enemy news programs so you may not have heard of the story presented on the Fox news O’Reilly Factor about a Republican legislator submitting legislation that would forbid the abortion of a fetus with gay genes. The story may be read at link: Maine bill seeks to stop abortion of gay fetuses

I found the lawmakers actions rather controversial and thought perhaps you would like to weigh in on the matter.

In previous posts on other topics I used an argument against late term abortion on a basis the gay community would split from the pro-choice party if a “purple light” came on offering parents to decide if the mother’s life was suddenly in danger after viewing the purple light.

I hold a stance abortion should be rare and apparently the republican lawmaker feels the way I do and is using this issue to provoke thought among the gay community. It seems according to the lawmaker’s interview he is getting traction within the gay community on his bill. Just to be fair and balanced, Bill, the O’Reilly guy challenged the representative on “using the gays” on the issue.

Question for debate

Is such legislation legitimate considering there is no scientific method to determine sexual orientation at this time?

If science did develop a purple light similar to Downs Syndrome to identify gay fetuses would you support singling out a specific sex preference as basis for legal protection?

*Edited to fix link

Is such legislation legitimate considering there is no scientific method to determine sexual orientation at this time?

If science did develop a purple light similar to Downs Syndrome to identify gay fetuses would you support singling out a specific sex preference as basis for legal protection?


I have an issue with this topic. I am a bit at a loss. I think the first question that needs to be asked is:

Is it possible for science to ever develop a means to determine if an unborn child will become gay? Or for that matter, a Mechanic, or a Republican?

Are you suggesting that science may one day be able to test for Homosexuality as they can currently do for Down's Syndrome?

Right OLS. This thread is like a ballgame on a rainy day. The propositon that we can determine the sexual orientation of a fetus is something best left to science fiction.

What are we supposed to be debating--a hypothetical?

Either homosexuality is genetic or it isn't. If it is, it will eventually be testable in the womb. If not, either it is developed primarily before or after birth. If before, then it has a high probability of being somewhat testable. In addition, if the father of the child should "come out" after the conception, or if the father is bisexual, it is possible for the mother to consider this an early warning sign and use it as justification for an abortion. In addition, a bisexual woman, or a lesbian impregnated in experimentation or rape might not wish the child to have the same hardships as she, and thus have an abortion for this reason. (However, the third case is a non-issue because rape is generally societally considered adequate justification.) As such, this legislation is legitimate in that sense. The constitutionality of the legislation in regard to right to privacy is questionable.

And I would support singling out a sexual preference for protection, if for soley political reasons, to declare an ultimatum towards the Democratic party and the false dichotomies it offers in grouping unrelated planks.

This sounded so goofy that I had to hunt up some evidence that this wasn't just a hoax. Here it is:

Bill would ban abortions of "gay" fetuses



Oh, really? Duprey has a history of introducing bills with a hidden motive:



There are many good arguments to be made on all sides of the abortion debate. This isn't one of them. It's just another politician doing something stupid -- hardly news.

I can't answer the debate questions directly because they make no sense. The best I can do is to say that abortion is a very serious matter, and should certainly not be done for silly reasons.

A few comments in general:

All sane people want abortion to be rare. The question is, do you want it to be rare, safe, legal, and properly regulated, or rare, unsafe, illegal, and unregulated?

Like all aspects of human sexuality, heterosexuality and homosexuality (and everything in between and outside these two generalizations) are much too complex to claim that they are either genetic or not genetic. And it doesn't matter anyway, since they are both exactly the same ethically.

This is an often-repeated argument, and it contains a fallacy in that it can be applied to any illegal activity. The purpose of illegalizing something is to make it rarer by making it both harder to obtain (and usually of resultant lower safety, reliability, and/or efficiency) and obtainable only with fear of legal repercussions.

Also, there are those who want abortion to be an acceptable form of birth control, as condoms cheapen copulation and the pill can weaken natural immunity to STD's.



Ethics are not universal. While from a strict harm principle standpoint they are exactly the same, the harm principle is not always the centerpoint of ethics.

Is such legislation legitimate considering there is no scientific method to determine sexual orientation at this time?

The legislation is a trick to get the debate into whether sexual orientation is genetic or not. It may not be genetic -- it might be developmental -- or it might have something to do with reincarnation. Just as a homosexual gene hasn't been found, the heterosexual gene hasn't been found. We simply know that XX is female and XY is male, usually. Yet development in the womb can get confused even though the chromosomes are supposed to control this.

The reincarnation thing is impossible to demonstrate scientifically. Nevertheless, some thinkers consider this possibility outside of science, just as other thinkers consider the existence of God.

So the legislation is a trick to get the gay community to admit that sexual orientation is not genetic. I don't think it'll work to this end.

If science did develop a purple light similar to Downs Syndrome to identify gay fetuses would you support singling out a specific sex preference as basis for legal protection?

Interesting proposal. I'd be more inclined to leave the decision to the parents, and my thinking is that most parents won't care. I'm basing this on the observation that the heterosexual parents of a homosexual child still love the child. With Downs Syndrome, there are other issues to consider like health care -- who's gonna pay for all that? Certainly not the government, eh?

This question is tied to the question of whether sexual orientation should be considered when drawing up laws and guidelines against discrimination, or to put it into this context, laws and guidelines that protect homosexuals from discrimination.

And that goes back to whether homosexuality is a choice or inherent. Or maybe developmental, and maybe from reincarnation.

Ah well, I don't know why homosexuality is -- just that it is and has been around for a very long time. I also know that irrational discrimination against homosexuals has been around for probably as long. If the parents of the child feel strongly against homosexuality, then it'd be better for the baby to be aborted rather than subjecting it to the tortures to come from unloving parents, possibly leading to homicide.

Bottom line: Let the parents decide. It's none of our business. If this were to be my child in question, I'd bring him or her into the world with the strength of knowledge that life is gonna be tough due to the anti-homosexual crowd.

Since we're speculating here, what if science figures out how to adjust the physical sex before birth?

Is such legislation legitimate considering there is no scientific method to determine sexual orientation at this time?

I do like the idea of introducing a bill to prevent something that 'may' happen in the future. THink what else might happen in (say) 50 years time, that a simple piece of legislation NOW might stop.

Prevention is better than a cure, after all!

I suggest you also legislate against the advent of genetically enhanced supermen. They may try to rule the world and instigate a war.

And the developement of cyborgs. That needs to be stopped now.



No, because there is no reason to treat homosexual people any differently to heterosexual people. Either abortion is legally allowed for any reason, in which case it isn't an issue or abortion is only allowed for very specific reasons, in which case there would be no reason to give additional protection to 'gay babies' over 'straight babies'.

Is such legislation legitimate considering there is no scientific method to determine sexual orientation at this time? If science did develop a purple light similar to Downs Syndrome to identify gay fetuses would you support singling out a specific sex preference as basis for legal protection?

This legislations is to gay rights what the anti-abortion activist amendment in the bankruptcy bill is to abortion rights. BTW, the amendment was voted down.

There's no consensus for a gay/alcoholic/rapist/etc. gene from what I could pick up in a quick search. Basically, scientists can identify the way we look (blue eyes v. brown eyes) and diseases like Downs Syndrome, and perhaps they may even be able to tell you when your baby will develop Cancer, but traits that require social interaction are hard to pin down. People may be genetically predisposed to alcoholism but it doesn't mean they'll end up being alcoholics.

It seems some of this depends on whether you believe people are born gay or develop an attraction for the same sex. I have no idea. I think characterizing myself as being "born heterosexual" is silly, yet there is no other option for me.

Anyway, here's what I found.



If mothers are guilty for gay men, are fathers guilty for lesbian daughters?





And so on. Although I question Dupry's motivation I don't think his bill is without cause. If we want to eliminate homosexual discrimination why don't we start by giving the born equal protection under law?



Has abortion become more accessible over time?

Is such legislation legitimate considering there is no scientific method to determine sexual orientation at this time?

No, because it is premature. Being that no gene has been found that shows a predisposition for homosexuality, the legislation makes no sense.

If science did develop a purple light similar to Downs Syndrome to identify gay fetuses would you support singling out a specific sex preference as basis for legal protection?

I would classify sexual preference along with eye color, hair color, skin color. Apart from some possible social difficulties, the child will lead a normal life. I don't believe that we should create some sort of eugenics program where we can choose what type of child we have. Genetic disease is a different story, however. I'm not quite sure how I feel about that.

[

That is the problem though isn't it? If science supports that there is a "gene" for homosexuality, you run into the same issues as with other "genetic" determinations like down syndrome. Some will not want to have a gay child as will others not want a down syndrome child.

Personally, I think the legislator's motives are pretty transparent. He is pushing the legislation to make a point and put Liberals in an awkward position. He is abusing his position and role as a legislator.

What are these same issues apart from the desire not to have a gay child and the desire not to have a down's syndrome child? There are quite different reasons beyond a simple desire to have a child be "perfect", by our own subjective definition, and not to raise a child with a genetic disorder like Down's Syndrome or spina bifida.

That said, after doing some thinking, I'm going to have to state that the idea of aborting any fetus simply because of a genetic disorder should not be the aim of genetic research. Any such information should be used for the development of therapies to help those with the disorder and to prevent such disorders from occuring in a fetus, not the termination of a fetus that exhibits the disorder, or shows a pre-disposition for the disorder.

Just making the point that people may make the decision to abort in both cases. They may be unable or unwilling take on the extra medical cost or time necessary to raise a child with Downs or may seek to avoid any perceived "social stigma" in either case.




I agree. Unfortunately, I believe as genetic research advances, this will become an issue and we should take measures to guard against it.