Let me begin by saying, the purpose of this topic is NOT to debate abortion. This topic came up in the abortion forums and I thought it would be interesting to debate here.

The question is, if a gay gene were discovered, such that the presence of the gay gene could be detected in a zygote, embryo of fetus (or by amniocentesis, for example), would you support a woman's choice to abort solely due to the presence of the gay gene?

I argued yes I would support that choice, even though I am gay. Why? In order for us to be gay, we must have the freedom to make our sexual choices, even though others in our society disagree with out sexual choices. Likewise, if a woman is to have freedom to make the choice of abortion, she must also have the freedom to make her choices, even though others may disagree with her choices. The minute I restrict her choice to abort a gay unborn, I open the door for others to restrict my sexual choices with respect to homosexuality.

So for me, I argue aborting due to presence of the gay gene is a freedom issue, even though I personally find it to be appalling, just as some in our society find my homosexuality to be appalling. The opinions of others, including myself, is not a valid reason to restrict freedoms.

Do you agree, yes or no?

[QUOTE=BetteTheRedde;35919]
It's also a legitimate freedom to abort by gender, and look at the mess that China is getting themselves into over THAT.[/QUOTE]

That is due to China's insane policies. I am sure you agree forcing abortion is ridiculous as forciing birth.

[QUOTE=ToujoursDan;35951]I think homosexuality is biological in origin, but I don't think they'll ever find a single gay gene they can use as a marker. It's probably similar to left-handedness.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but then, I am left-handed too. However, IF such a gene were discovered and it did become possible, would you support the freedom of choice should a woman choose to abort speficially for the presence of homosexuality? Not that you would find it morally proper, but would you support her freedom of choice, even if you did not agree with the reasons behind her choice?

I guess I'm going to be the first person to emphatically disagree. :D

Respectfully, I think the OP's reasoning is rather appallingly self-serving.  This seems to be one area where humanism is a miserable failure (and I say that as someone who is generally about as liberal as they come).  I think of myself as pro-choice, but this forces me to come out on the side of being against unrestricted abortion rights.  When it comes down to it, I suppose I think of legalized abortion as the lesser of evils instead of something that should be championed as a right.

I guess I'm going to be the first person to emphatically disagree. :D

Respectfully, I think the OP's reasoning is rather appallingly self-serving.  This seems to be one area where humanism is a miserable failure (and I say that as someone who is generally about as liberal as they come).  I think of myself as pro-choice, but this forces me to come out on the side of being against unrestricted abortion rights.  When it comes down to it, I suppose I think of legalized abortion as the lesser of evils instead of something that should be championed as a right.