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.