Being gay might be genetic

[justoh]

Uh yea, a gay gene could be relevant to abortion rights.

Does a womans right to choice trump a communities right to thrive?

I would really like to see a gay persons opinion on this thread.

Yes, because the right is based on privacy grounds. It has nothing to do with anything other than the pregnant woman. If you aren't trolling, then why do you keep on ignoring this as well as the, "potential people aren't people line?"

If you aren't trolling, explain why do you think a gay person who supports a woman's right to choose views would be different to those of a straight pro choicer. It's impossible that you are this stupid. I remember you calling me out on that "pro abortion satanist" thread, so i have to do the same to you here.

 

[shira]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-share-genetic-similarities-study-claims.html

You pro abortion liberals, how do you feel about a this gay gene being added to fetal genetic screening? Doctor tells the mother and father there is a 90% chance their child will be gay, so the parents opt for an abortion.

How far does your tolerance go?

A woman has control of her body, but society should not discriminate against gays either.

I think some of the members here are gay. I do not remember their names but some of yall have posted that there are some gay people here. How do yall feel about a gay fetus being aborted? How do you feel about genocide on the fetal level.

I'm all for allowing women to freely choose to abort pre-viability for whatever reason they want. That would of course include gender-preference, genetic diseases, low-intelligence (aren't you glad no genetic tests for intelligence were available to YOUR mother?), and, yes, sexual orientation. But since it's actually nobody's business why a woman is getting an abortion, your question is moot.

But let's take this issue back a step: Since you're now accepting the science that homosexuality probably has a strong genetic link, can we assume that you wholeheartedly support all non-discrimination initiatives/agendas involving gays? I mean, since it's now obviously "not their fault," it clearly isn't fair to allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So you're now a proud member of the gay rights team, correct, and you strongly approve of access to same-sex marriages for gays?

 

[Texashiker]

Yes, because the right is based on privacy grounds. It has nothing to do with anything other than the pregnant woman. If you aren't trolling, then why do you keep on ignoring this as well as the, "potential people aren't people line?"

In case you missed my first post about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.

If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.

The government and the international community has a responsibility to protect certain groups. Gays are a protected group.

Aborting a child due to sexual orientation is a form of genocide and cleansing.

Or would you rather eliminate a certain percentage of the gay community before they are ever born? How much of a percentage is acceptable? 10%, 25%, 50%,,,, 75%?

Would a 50% reduction of the gay community over the next 50 years be acceptable to you?

 

[momeNt]

Thank G-d I don't believe in the state, because I think Texashiker has a winning argument if you are indeed a statist.

 

[DrunkenSano]

If the woman is not breaking any abortion laws, then she is free to abort for whatever reason she chooses. Also, comparing a human fetus to an bird fetus... wtf?

 

[Texashiker]

If the woman is not breaking any abortion laws, then she is free to abort for whatever reason she chooses.

Give me an acceptable number the gay community can be reduced by before you change your opinion.

The passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction, and it was legal. It was not until the passenger pigeon was wiped out that states started looking at conserving its status, and then it was too late.

Give a number - 25%, 40%, 50% of children (fetuses) who test positive for a possible gay gene to be aborted?

Who is going to continue the fight for gay rights when mothers abort gay babies in droves.

 

[soulcougher73]

In case you missed my first post about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect



The government and the international community has a responsibility to protect certain groups. Gays are a protected group.

Aborting a child due to sexual orientation is a form of genocide and cleansing.

Or would you rather eliminate a certain percentage of the gay community before they are ever born? How much of a percentage is acceptable? 10%, 25%, 50%,,,, 75%?

Would a 50% reduction of the gay community over the next 50 years be acceptable to you?

For you to ever make a dent in the argument youll have to wrap your head around the fact most of us dont concider a fetus a child. Thus no genocide can occur. You repeating it over and over again isnt going to make it true.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The government and the international community has a responsibility to protect certain groups. Gays are a protected group.

There is literally no one to protect. Therefor there is no responsibility.

Aborting a child due to sexual orientation is a form of genocide and cleansing.

You are beating a dead horse. Until you can show that there is someone to protect, you can't claim genocide based on a non-existent person.

Let me ask you this. If the test could be done on the mother and father before they even get together and it can be determined that they would have a gay child, would you consider it to be genocide if she decided not to have sex with him?
Perhaps you are committing genocide right now by not having sex with someone!

 

[justoh]

In case you missed my first post about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect



The government and the international community has a responsibility to protect certain groups. Gays are a protected group.

Aborting a child due to sexual orientation is a form of genocide and cleansing.

well your answer ignores, again, the potential people aren't people line, making it more of a non-answer.

People who support a woman's choice, gay or otherwise, would or should realize that the right is based on privacy and limited only by viability.

no state could or would argue that it has a legitimate police power interest in preventing gay people from being aborted

 

[Texashiker]

For you to ever make a dent in the argument youll have to wrap your head around the fact most of us dont concider a fetus a child. Thus no genocide can occur. You repeating it over and over again isnt going to make it true.

You are beating a dead horse. Until you can show that there is someone to protect, you can't claim genocide based on a non-existent person.

Without a certain birthrate a community can not thrive. I think it is like 2.1:1? Or something around there?

What about that dont yall understand?

What happens if the birth rate of gays decreases by 25%? Even 15%, GOD forbid a 50% reduction in gay birthrates.

In just 2 generations you are looking at the gay community disappearing.

 

[alzan]

If the woman is not breaking any abortion laws, then she is free to abort for whatever reason she chooses. Also, comparing a human fetus to an bird fetus... wtf?

Thus, the fail of 99.9999999% of TH threads.

What happens if the birth rate of gays decreases by 25%? Even 15%, GOD forbid a 50% reduction in gay birthrates.

You'll still be creating anti-gay threads?

 

[Texashiker]

no state could or would argue that it has a legitimate police power interest in preventing gay people from being aborted

We as a race have a duty to protect certain groups.

With the discovery of a possible gay gene, we should all be concerned about the future viability of the gay community.

 

[Texashiker]

You'll still be creating anti-gay threads?

No, if anything this is a pro-gay thread.

Just because I dislike something does not mean I want to see it wiped out.

My concern is that genetic testing for a possible gay gene will be added to the usual test. Parents who want grandchildren, or only children who are concerned about their bloodline or family name will opt to abort gay children.

I can see a long list of reasons that people from all walks of life would abort a gay child.

The gay community makes up a very small percentage of the population. They simply can not take a 25% reduction in birthrates and maintain their push for civil rights.

 

[justoh]

Thank G-d I don't believe in the state, because I think Texashiker has a winning argument if you are indeed a statist.

Statism is defined as basically the opposite of anarchy. from wiki

statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree

So it's what you have now. So no, he doesn't have a winning argument, since the government has already said that viability outside the womb is the only thing that trumps her privacy rights? Are you and texas in on this troll together?

 

[justoh]

We as a race have a duty to protect certain groups.

With the discovery of a possible gay gene, we should all be concerned about the future viability of the gay community.

lol. now you're not even trying to be even a little bit subtle anymore.

 

[Texashiker]

So it's what you have now. So no, he doesn't have a winning argument, since the government has already said that viability outside the womb is the only thing that trumps her privacy rights? Are you and texas in on this troll together?

And the state also has the right to protect certain groups.

Privacy and religious rights all fall to the side when it comes to protecting the viability of a certain group.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Without a certain birthrate a community can not thrive. I think it is like 2.1:1? Or something around there?

What about that dont yall understand?

You are wrong about this.

 

[Texashiker]

You are wrong about this.

How am I wrong?

What is it, 2.1 births to ever couple?

lol. now you're not even trying to be even a little bit subtle anymore.

Give me the number I asked for

 

[SMOGZINN]

How am I wrong?

You are thinking limits for genetic viability of a species. Homosexual is not a species. No matter how low the birthrate of homosexuals was there would be a gay community as long as there were at least 2 of them.

 

[Texashiker]

You are thinking limits for genetic viability of a species.

No I am not referring to genetic viability.

I am however referring to the birthrate needed to maintain a population.

Nobody as of yet has given me a number. How much does the gay population need to be reduced by before the selective abortion of gay babies (fetus as yall call them) becomes an issue?

10%, 25%, maybe 50% over the next few decades?

HIV is still killing gay men in droves. Lets add another 15% on top of that HIV number. Do those numbers sound appealing to you?

Personally I find them appalling.

 

[justoh]

I'm just wondering how long before other people realize you're a huge troll. i never paid enough attention before. plus it's hard to tell the difference between stupid and troll sometimes.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm just wondering how long before other people realize you're a huge troll. i never paid enough attention before, plus it's hard to tell the difference between stupid and troll sometimes.

Give me a number.

The only person trolling this thread is you, and maybe a couple of others.

With genetic testing for a possible gay gene we should all be concerned if mothers start selective abortions based on the test results.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Interesting, if you're a moron. Where's the conundrum for pro choice?

Just wait to watch the religious right have a conniption over this - I guarantee it is coming.

 

[TreVader]

As trite as it sounds sexuality is way more complicated than finding a gay "gene". Where do you fine the gene that makes people sexually attracted to balloons?


Its really stupid that our society finds a behavior, and then decides to find the gene for it. There are probably thousands of genes that influence sexuality and myriad more social influences too.

 

[justoh]

As trite as it sounds sexuality is way more complicated than finding a gay "gene". Where do you fine the gene that makes people sexually attracted to balloons?


Its really stupid that our society finds a behavior, and then decides to find the gene for it. There are probably thousands of genes that influence sexuality and myriad more social influences too.

well, yeah, it does seem rather dubious. the study itself acknowledges these problems.

If there are male-loving and female-loving alleles of tens or hundreds of genes battling it out in the population, everyone will inherit a mixture of different variants. Combined with environmental influences, it will be hard to detect individual genes.

It’s a bit like height, which is influenced by variants in thousands of genes, as well as the environment, and produces a “continuous distribution” of people of different heights. At the two extremes are the very tall and the very short.

In the same way, at each end of a continuous distribution of human mating preference, we would expect the “very male-loving” and the “very female-loving” in both sexes.

Gay men and lesbian women may simply be the two ends of the same distribution.

What i've always thought. Not binary, and most people are bisexual in a sense.