LJ: Touchy Topic, Scary Thought

Listening to episode #71 of polyweekly, a listener called in with an interesting theory, as voiced to him by his mom. What if (and this is a big what) if/when it is determined that homosexuality is a genetic trait, people begin testing for it before a child is even born? And from that, what if the parents, pending the results, decide they don't like their child's orientation, and decide to get an abortion?

I am, obviously, not against homosexuality in the slightest. I'm not against abortion either, though there's all sorts of "ifs" and "ands" in there that I won't get into. This would be a big giant clause on that argument though; to me, that is simply *not* a good reason to abort. To some, it would surely be par with aborting a child who would be born with a defect. And what of pro-life/conservative/whatever people who dislike homosexuality but are against abortion as well?

Isn't that a scary thought? That we could be headed to not only a GATTACA-like future, but one full of choosing your child's sexual orientation, or aborting them pending this. I can't decide which would be better: proving that homosexuality is in the genes, putting gays and lesbians on this long-sought plain of equality with "straight" people (because while you can discriminate against someone based on their choices, the American way frowns against discrimination based on scientific fact), OR would it be better to live in ignorant bliss of the genetics of homosexuality, to save the plethora of fetae who/that could be aborted based on a positive result of  homosexual genes?

Putting aside what could happen to adults if/when a genetic link is found, the sheer concept of sexual orientation-based abortions is... frightening.

Comments (ctrl+c and ctrl+v in order of appearance):

thelilipages:
"In some countries women already abort based on sex, they want boys not girls, so orientation, even if it can't be proved fully accurate, would be the next step in a seriously sad cycle."

Merrick:
"Good point; at the time of posting I'd completely forgotten that. It's sad and scary, and we're so close to doing it already. :P /depression"

arynsylverfox:
"Certainly it would happen, but if you're already not opposed to abortion, why would that make much difference?

I'm not opposed to abortion with only a couple exceptions: 1. It is not birth control. If you're a dumb cunt who keeps getting knocked up b/c you can't use wrappers, you need to just be fixed instead of giving responsible people a bad name.
2. Partial birth abortions. You've had long enough to 'think about it' after a couple months. By that time, you can definately give birth and let someone adopt the child.

Abortion based on orientation is a logical step, but the people who would do this would probably be shitty parents to their gay kids anyway. Period. Especially if- since it could be proven genetic- odds are one of them has thoughts or tendencies, so if they're playing as breeders, they might well be very bitter and homophobic... sour grapes, as it were. Why let their kid have what they've long denied themselves "because God cries everytime a girl dons a strapon for her ladyfriend?" ... just rambling thoughts. I'm pissy cuz I'm at work ;)"

Makal:
"Think about this:
Homosexuality is a genetic trait.
God is soley resposible for the creation of mankind. After all, we are created in his image.
Abortion is immoral, because it is an affront to god to take life that he granted.
If homosexuality = genetic
then homosexuaity = God's plan
Just a thought."

Anon.:
"1st off. I've discussed this at length once before with Abby.
Abortion is immoral because it's an affront to take life that he granted, BUT
Homosexuality would then, even if proven genetic, would be a god-given CHALLENGE for the righteous to overcome. God isn't upset that people are gay or have gay tendencies... he gets upset when people act on them instead of going off somewhere and having more righteous christian babies.... or just not having sex."

Makal:
"Horray for the power of christian denial."