A Nightmare Scenario for Homosexuals

[Satyr]

After reviewing several research documents, I've come up with a very sinister scenario that could make some pretty strange bedfellows of both liberals and conservatives. Here it is:

What if homosexuality is 100% genetic as the gay-rights community hopes to prove? What if the genetic composition can be identified before birth? What if parents perform DNA testing on the unborn, and then decide to abort any child that has the gay gene?

The majority of the gay-rights advocates are also pro-abortion. In america, fetuses have no rights, therefore it's legal for parents to discard them for any unwanted trait. Ask yourself: Do parents typically want to have a homosexual child? Under this scenario, homosexuality could be eliminated through genetic selection, if all parents don't want gay children, and if all parents agree with abortion.

So I have a poll. Please treat others with respect.

This poll compares sanctity of human life vs. the right for a woman to choose (abortion) vs. the right for people to collectively (though not purposefully)eliminate a minority through genetic control based on the cumulation of individual decisions. It is not purposeful, but under the conditions it could very well result that homosexuals are eliminated this way, or at least their numbers reduced. It's like a scenario from hell that could happen if gayness is indeed genetic. How could anyone justify protecting unborn gay children through government intervention and allow others to be aborted? It's a terrible paradox.

I voted that no fetus should be aborted gay or otherwise, because I am a Christian that believes in the sanctity of life. I take what I am given, and if I receive a gay child, I will do everything I can to love it and help it. It is God's issue to deal with the gayness himself, if He indeed creates people to be gay, and commands them not to be what he created them to be -- that is his job. My job is to be the best parent I can be. I do not agree with the behavior that could result, and the only christian option for the child would be celibacy. At the same time I would question why God created someone to be genetically predisposed to do this, but then we are all born sinners not of our own choosing.

It’s difficult for me to understand how confronting and shaping and changing nature in every other way is justified, yet when it comes to genetic-engineering then we are forced to consider the ramifications morally.

What gives us the right to dam rivers and produce electricity?
What gives us the right to domesticate animals and harvest them?
What gives us the right to take up space or to live?

Nothing.
We take it.

I say if a parent does not want to raise a fag then he/she should not have to.
Maybe before we consider the moral implications of tampering with nature we should consider the implications of giving birth to a new life, whether homosexual or not.

 

[Satyr]

After reviewing several research documents, I've come up with a very sinister scenario that could make some pretty strange bedfellows of both liberals and conservatives. Here it is:

What if homosexuality is 100% genetic as the gay-rights community hopes to prove? What if the genetic composition can be identified before birth? What if parents perform DNA testing on the unborn, and then decide to abort any child that has the gay gene?

The majority of the gay-rights advocates are also pro-abortion. In america, fetuses have no rights, therefore it's legal for parents to discard them for any unwanted trait. Ask yourself: Do parents typically want to have a homosexual child? Under this scenario, homosexuality could be eliminated through genetic selection, if all parents don't want gay children, and if all parents agree with abortion.

So I have a poll. Please treat others with respect.

This poll compares sanctity of human life vs. the right for a woman to choose (abortion) vs. the right for people to collectively (though not purposefully)eliminate a minority through genetic control based on the cumulation of individual decisions. It is not purposeful, but under the conditions it could very well result that homosexuals are eliminated this way, or at least their numbers reduced. It's like a scenario from hell that could happen if gayness is indeed genetic. How could anyone justify protecting unborn gay children through government intervention and allow others to be aborted? It's a terrible paradox.

I voted that no fetus should be aborted gay or otherwise, because I am a Christian that believes in the sanctity of life. I take what I am given, and if I receive a gay child, I will do everything I can to love it and help it. It is God's issue to deal with the gayness himself, if He indeed creates people to be gay, and commands them not to be what he created them to be -- that is his job. My job is to be the best parent I can be. I do not agree with the behavior that could result, and the only christian option for the child would be celibacy. At the same time I would question why God created someone to be genetically predisposed to do this, but then we are all born sinners not of our own choosing.

It’s difficult for me to understand how confronting and shaping and changing nature in every other way is justified, yet when it comes to genetic-engineering then we are forced to consider the ramifications morally.

What gives us the right to dam rivers and produce electricity?
What gives us the right to domesticate animals and harvest them?
What gives us the right to take up space or to live?

Nothing.
We take it.

I say if a parent does not want to raise a fag then he/she should not have to.
Maybe before we consider the moral implications of tampering with nature we should consider the implications of giving birth to a new life, whether homosexual or not.

If we consider it our right to reproduce, as most of us do, then why is not our right to reproduce what we want and in the manner we want it?

Does a creator ask the creation for its approval?

 

[Bells]

I say if a parent does not want to raise a fag then he/she should not have to.

And many don't. Many throw their homosexual children out on the street to fend for themselves. If a parent does not want to raise a child that may or may not be homosexual, then they should not have children. Why bring another child into the world only to be rejected because it somehow does not fit the social or moral norms of the parents?

Maybe before we consider the moral implications of tampering with nature we should consider the implications of giving birth to a new life, whether homosexual or not.

That's the whole point isn't it? As a parent I can tell you now what matters the most to me about my 10 month old. What matters is that he is healthy, happy and knows that he is loved and cherished by his parents. Everything else takes a back seat. Do I lie awake at night worrying that he might be homosexual? Hell no. What I do lie awake at night worrying about are things like his falling ill with a disease that could kill him or make him sick for the rest of his life (eg childhood cancers), that some pervert could snatch him and do things to him that I don't even want to name, that he could be hit by a car while playing in his own yard, etc. That is what keeps me up at night.

If we consider it our right to reproduce, as most of us do, then why is not our right to reproduce what we want and in the manner we want it?

I guess because we are not show animals bred for perfection.

 

[BSFilter]

I believe abortion is perfectly acceptable up to a certain point in the embryo's developement. I do NOT believe that getting an abortion just because the child will be gay is acceptable.

Parents just have to suck it up, and try again.

 

[hug-a-tree]

Generally people who are against gays are against abortion. They would more then likely have the child and try to make him/her...ungay. = /

 

[SnakeLord]

Got any statistics concerning that?

 

[Tiassa]

Perhaps I simply need to read through the topic more carefully, but has anyone asked about the morality of aborting the fetus that appears to lack gay indicators? You know, where lacking some future social trauma, the resulting human will be heterosexual? Given the "war of the sexes" and the tortures of love, and considering how it seems that many people just plain don't like their kids, why not spare a developing soul from a future of hurt and anguish and frustration?

Really, I'm thirty-three, and it's still difficult sometimes to decide when to respect a woman's womanhood, and when to respect her humanity. They are, after all, two separate things.