GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

GP Guestblogger: Shouldn’t Gays Be Pro-Life?

by

Here is a good piece written by Nick, also to be known now as “ColoradoPatriot”.

================

So I knew there was something, but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was. Something was telling me there was a reason gays and lesbians should be Pro-Life instead of Pro-Choice. Finally yesterday it dawned on me:

“Pro-choice advocates” aren’t as much pro-choice as they are pro-abortion. Now, either side of this argument (or whichever shade of grey) you fall on, you have to admit that the leaders of this position (NARAL, NOW, etc.) aren’t merely concerned about making sure the procedure is “safe and rare.” No, these groups are for on-demand, anytime, anywhere abortion for all, no matter what. This, to be fair, does not necessarily represent the entire population who identify themselves as “pro-choice”. But it is who is representing them. (And it is who the gay ‘leaders’ are associating with.)

That being understood, it’s those “advocates” who want absolutely no restrictions on abortions who cannot bring themselves to condemn partial-birth abortions or abortions of “inconvenient” babies, such as those with birth-defects or even of an undesirable sex. As this drives the debate, let’s think about that in a different context:

What’s the most commonly held medical/scientific belief in the gay and lesbian community these days? We’re born this way, right? There’s a gene maybe, or at least something that happens during gestation that makes us gay. For some reason (and I’ve never been able to understand why), this is a crucial part of the psyche of the collective gay community. For whatever reason, just think for a minute how that belief matches the pro-abortion advocacy:

It’s only a matter of time before some industrious biologist or geneticist or whatnot comes along and says: Here! is the gene that causes homosexuality, or Here! is the chemical in the amniotic fluid that leads to gay babies (a la the hypothalamus)! So if the drive-by Walgreen’s abortion proponents don’t want any restrictions on abortion, what’s to keep the following scene from occurring:

“Well I’ve run all the tests, and I’m sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Your fetus is perfectly healthy except he’s going to be a queer. Luckily, since the Supreme Court has allowed it, we can take care of that right now and then you can get on home and give it another shot making another, hopefully heterosexual fetus. What do you say?”

Now, this isn’t to say we’ll devolve into some Huxley/Orwell/Darwin world wherein the government or science decides which “defects” are “viable” and which are not. But it does leave open the door for any parent who might not want a gay baby to have the option of aborting it for that reason alone.

Ultimately, here’s the question the gay community needs to ask HRC and other pro-choice gay organizations: Would you advocate, and (more importantly) would you lobby NARAL and NOW (etc.) to advocate restrictions on abortions of convenience such as this? If they can’t honestly answer that question in less than 3 seconds, I think we know where their loyalties lie. And that’s kinda creepy.

Comments

  1. Fantastic observation! I couldn’t have said it better, and I completely agree with Colorado Patriot that if NARAL and NOW can’t respond to the question of whether or not they will promote restrictions on abortion based on convenience, the gay community should question their loyalty to pro-choice advocates.

  3. Excellent thought experiment.

    I doubt we’ll actually ever find a single, simple unitary cause for being gay — but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be a “medical fad” in which countless anti-gay abortions are performed. Just imagine how screwed up the gay kids of those parents will be.

  4. The argument that “you can’t have kids, therefore you don’t have any right to oppose abortion” is as annoying and cowardly as the “chickenhawk” meme.

    “Chickenfetus”, perhaps?

  6. Exactly.

    The best candidate for a “biological cause for homosexuality” that we have right now, is gestational events during pregnancy that lead to brain differences.

    Meaning, you will one day be able to abort a late-term pregnancy if it scans positive for the “gay brain”.

    Late-term abortion is a crime of general social interest (not “the woman’s choice”), for this among a great many other reasons.

  8. There is a plucky little gay pro-life group named “Plagal” that I used to be involved with several years ago. It isn’t as active as they used to be when Joe Beard was alive, but some of GP’s readers might be interested in it

    They tend to get flack from everyone, as one would expect.

    http://www.plagal.org

  10. #4- I don’t think the argument is based on the fact that gays can’t have kids/abortions (since they can…note the number of lesbians who go to sperm banks).

    Instead this simply points out that, insofar as ‘on demand’ abortions are concerned, it is extremely unlikely that a gay couple will accidentally get pregnant so therefore it makes little sense to have the right to an abortion as a litmus test for gay groups.

  13. Hi … I see a lot of ‘high-fiving’ going on here. While I am not trying to ruin the party here, I would like to give everyone something to think about.

    Before reading this post, how many of you who thought this was a great post were pro-choice (or though if a woman wanted an abortion, for whatever reason, it was her choice alone) ? If so, why was that ? Did you not think it was your fight ?

    They have been aborting unborn girls in India and China for a long time, simply because of anatomy. The parents want a boy, and the status that goes with having sons. How many thought this was wrong and said so ?

    I am reminded of something from Martin Niemoller …

    When they came for the Communists, I did not stand up, because I was not a Communist. When they came for the Jews, I did not stand up, because I was not Jewish. When they came for the Catholics, I did not stand up, because I was not a Catholic. When they came for me, there was no one left to stand up.

    (hat tip to Becky Allison’s website for providing the quote)

    ColoradoPatriot’s post is a goodie for many reasons. The one I think best is that it reminds us all that sometimes someone else’s fight may turn out to be our own as well 🙂

  15. Thanks, GCB. I’ll have to check it out.
    With this audience, at least, I’m glad to see it’s created a conversation that so far is respectful.
    What I was hoping to hear was a logical and respectful rebuttal. Not that I’m not buttressed by all the agreement

  17. Here same as Clint. I am opposed to late-term abortions. Officially I support early-term (but with parental notification for the underage). I haven’t given much thought to the rightness or wrongness of “designer baby” abortions on purely genetic grounds, and aborting based on gender would sure be one of those. So, I am not going to say I have some great position to defend. You were right to ask me to think more about it.