Gay Patriot Header Image

Are “Gay Abortions” Around the Corner?

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 5:24 pm - June 27, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Gays / Homosexuality (general)

Dan alluded to this study in a post a couple days ago, and now the BBC is reporting a more complete picture.   I have to admit that when I first read Dan’s post, I assumed it was a sociological connection, not a biological one (even though Dan does quote the doctor saying it is biologic).  But this BBC report is much more clear about the biological implications behind how a man becomes gay.

Womb Environment Makes Men Gay – BBC (h/t – Polipundit)

Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.  But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely down to biological rather than social factors.  The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either “biological” brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or “non-biological” brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.

He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.  The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.

Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: “If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men’s sexual orientation, but they do not.

“These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men.”

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a “maternal memory” in the womb for male births.   A woman’s body may see a male fetus as “foreign”, he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child. The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

Hey, this is pretty fascinating stuff… if only still a theory since there was no biological study done here. But it sure does make sense.

Now… and here’s the fun part… how does the Gay Left now reconcile its historic, increasingly vocal and unavowed support of “abortion-on-demand rights” as also being intertwined with “Gay Rights”? 

Speaking as someone from the Gay Left would (or should if they had principles):  If a mother knew there were a biological increase in her baby being born gay…why not have the right to abort that baby?  Or treat the suggested “antibodies” with a pre-natal genetic therapy to “cure” the gayness before it is born?

That seems to be the only intellectually honest position the Gay Left could have.  Otherwise the Gay Rights movement should become stridently Pro Life in order to stop the soon-to-be Gay Abortions-On-Demand.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

60 Comments

  1. “If a mother knew there were a biological increase in her baby being born gay…why not have the right to abort that baby?”

    Certainly she should have that right. If I were her doctor, I would counsel against it but the ultimate decision would remain hers.

    Comment by Ian S — June 27, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - June 27, 2006

  2. Are you familiar with a Broadway (?) play, later a movie with Brendan Fraser and Faye Dunaway called Twight of the Golds? It deal with this same issue. Fraser plays the gay son whose brother-in-law is a research scientist/doctor who discovers a way to determine ‘gay’ in the womb. His wife, Fraser’s sister, is pregnant and is carrying a gay child. She’s considering abortion. Her pro-life gay brother is appalled. Fascinating, intelligent movie. And did I say it has Brendan Fraser?

    Comment by P. Craig Russell — June 27, 2006 @ 6:46 pm - June 27, 2006

  3. Jeez…’TWILIGHT’. Sorry.

    Comment by P. Craig Russell — June 27, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - June 27, 2006

  4. … and when the religious right pushes through a law requiring all pregnant women to submit to mandatory treatment to “cure” their gay fetuses, maybe the Gay Right will decide government shouldn’t be able to force its way into anyone’s womb whenever it pleases–that is, unless the Gay Right, like one of its exponents (Chandler Burr), is so completely assimilationist that it believes that, if possible, homosexuality should be eradicated like small pox.

    I know gay conservatives like this wedge argument that touts the possibility of abortion of gay fetuses. The problem, however, is that the women who are so vehemently antigay that they would have an abortion are the same right-wing nuts who oppose abortion in all cases, with the possible exception of abortion to save a woman’s life. Of course, given the willingness of antigay conservatives to betray basic Christian principles–like the proscription against lying or duty to love one’s neighbor–when doing so advances their antigay agenda, perhaps religious zealots would find some biblical exception allowing them to murder their gay “babies.” There has certainly been the allegation over the years that antiabortion activists don’t protest quite so loudly when the pregnant woman seeking an abortion is non-white.

    At any rate, the simple solution is to prohibit prenatal testing for homosexuality. If the mother doesn’t know whether her fetus is gay, she can’t decide to abort it because it is gay. There is no legitimate reason for her to have that piece of information.

    Another solution, of course, is to criticize the scientists who engage in studies seeking to discover the mechanisms that give rise to homosexuality. If ever there was a piece of information that the world is too immature and irresponsible to possess, it is that. The certainty of eugenic misuse of that information outweighs the valid interest in pursuit of knowledge, a pursuit that may be resumed in the future, when humanity recovers from its malignant homophobia.

    And lest I be quickly stereotyped as a left-wing nut, I think Roe v. Wade itself rests on a flimsy constitutional foundation, which is not to say it necessarily should be overturned. And while I am definitely pro-choice, I am also tired of gay groups trying to turn abortion rights into a gay issue. How exactly will either gay men or lesbians be getting pregnant accidentally so as to need a non-therapeutic abortion? Pro-choice groups certainly don’t return the favor.

    Comment by Steve — June 27, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - June 27, 2006

  5. Now… and here’s the fun part… how does the Gay Left now reconcile its historic, increasingly vocal and unavowed support of “abortion-on-demand rights” as also being intertwined with “Gay Rights”?

    They don’t have to be aborted Bruce, a family could simply choose to have fewer children, based on a perceived increased risk.

    However I think you are being a bit too smug in your denouements of the gay Left. As if the gay Right are not going to have any problems with their own Party on this.

    You have outlined the dilemma for the Left on abortion. But the second idea is more complex.

    If there does become a “treatment” for “curing” embryos of being gay, do you think it qualifies as a eugenics program? For those on the Right, I don’t think so.

    If you subscribe to the view of the majority on the Right, then there is no such thing as gay “identity”. In their view its a mental disorder. So therefore, its not only OK to “cure” the embryo’s, its a moral obligation.

    They would not view it as I would, as a possible form of genocide, but as curing a disease.

    Remember Bruce, this is the traditional stance of your Party and those that it has aligned itself with (the Christianists). “Gay” does not exist. We are only warped, or at best sick, straight people in their eyes. Therefore prenatal annihilation of this kind is not only permissible, its desirable.

    Incidentally, I do recall articles in the National Review that do indeed casually propose enacting such a “cure”. By Jon Derbyshire for example.
    I remember being “aghast” at the time I read it. Not simply that he was so flippantly proposing such a thing, but that no real Conservatives called him on it or seemed to have the slightest problem with it.

    This is a very complex topic, and the answers are not going to be easy or simple. Such a thing even puts certain religions, such as the Catholic Church in a very tight spot, theology-wise. Especially with many of its teachings not just on abortion, but contraception.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 27, 2006 @ 7:25 pm - June 27, 2006

  6. Patrick, see also the Weekly Standard piece by Chandler Burr, in which he described in idealistic terms just how it would feel for him to take a curative pill and experience opposite-sex attractions gradually arise and his same-sex attractions gradually vanish. That he is gay made it tragic but also positively freakish.

    Comment by Steve — June 27, 2006 @ 7:42 pm - June 27, 2006

  7. Let’s say someday they do develop measures to counter-act/eliminate gay fetuses, and the extreme religious right starts using it to their advantage. Doesn’t this mean that they are openly admitting gay is genetic and therefor not the fault of the child? That contradicts all their ‘warped mind’ theories, doesn’t it? If anything, this study will prove that gay is something no one can control, outside of unethical procedures. I see good and bad.

    I do agree that this world is too immature to accept such information. I can see a mother at her first ultrasound receiving the ‘devastating’ news that her fetus has a 60% chance of coming out homosexual. It’s disgusting to think she would abort, but there are already mothers out there who abort children who will someday have clubfeet and other minor, alterable disfunctions.

    I wonder if pro-Lifers are actually saving us(gays) in the long run by trying to outlaw abortion, and therefor the practice suggested above.

    Comment by Derek — June 27, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - June 27, 2006

  8. Derek, the hypothesis of the study is not that being gay is genetic; it is that being gay is the result of biological processes in the womb. The religious right can easily label that a “dysfunction” in need of a “cure.”

    Even if it were genetic, I think you’d see “unethical” (re)defined so as to allow the eradication of gayness. The religious right already compares being gay to being an alcoholic, for which there may be a genetic predisposition.

    Comment by Steve — June 27, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - June 27, 2006

  9. At any rate, the simple solution is to prohibit prenatal testing for homosexuality. If the mother doesn’t know whether her fetus is gay, she can’t decide to abort it because it is gay. There is no legitimate reason for her to have that piece of information.

    Given that the Left has defined the fetus as a part of the woman’s body for purposes of abortion, on what basis would you arge that it is not her right to know if she has a defective/diseased piece of tissue in her system? What about Downs Syndrome? Does she have a right to know about that defect? If so, why that one and not the “H-Factor”

    Comment by Rhymes With Right — June 27, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - June 27, 2006

  10. As a first-born son with a younger straight brother, I am still trying to figure out what to make of this study. Maybe I helped right the womb for my brother? It does seem to open a potentially ugly can of worms that could be used to cull out homosexual children in utero in future years.

    Comment by Scott — June 27, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - June 27, 2006

  11. Well, once again, you can’t talk about a topic that would have relevance to all gays….you talk about it in a way to attack people who disagree with you politically. Instead of Gay Left, why don’t you just call us “gay, left, intellectual, traitorous, etc, etc”?

    But, as Sophia used to say, I digress.

    The point is, as it always has been, a woman who is pregnant has the sole right to terminate her pregancy if she so wishes. Period, end of story. (PS – I grew tired long ago of *men* deciding whether women should be able to have an abortion or not.)

    It would have been interesting if you had presented this topic as how it would affect all gays (and lets not forget lesbians) instead of just using it as a red herring to attack people who don’t agree with your own political views. How about discussing other, illogical reasons women have abortions? Sex of a child is a major one: studies show that after tests which determined sex of a child came on the scene, the ratio of girls to boys aborted after taking a sex test was 9 to 1. Seems that’s something right out there in the open no one is discussing it. Also, what do you propose to do with women who want to have an abortion and our governmental, jack booted thugs work to stop them? House arrest? Strap them down for the entire term of their pregnancy? Put them in an iron maiden? Would the government pay disability as they incarcerate these women during this time? Or how about true GWB Texas style: execute the mother while keeping the fetus alive?

    As you say in your post, there is no scientific proof to this theory. Until the day arrives that someone discovers the true basis of sexual preference (if it indeed is 100% biological) then this is all meaningless anyway. Unless of course, someone just out of the blue decides to start aborting males after having 3 or 4 sons…

    Comment by Kevin — June 27, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - June 27, 2006

  12. Dr. Watson of DNA discovery fame actually advocated that should the “homosexuality gene” be discovered, women ought to be allowed to destroy their unborn children.

    Ain’t eugenics grand?!

    Comment by Damian G. — June 27, 2006 @ 10:44 pm - June 27, 2006

  13. #4

    The problem, however, is that the women who are so vehemently antigay that they would have an abortion are the same right-wing nuts who oppose abortion in all cases, with the possible exception of abortion to save a woman’s life.

    Nice try…but you’re assumption is wrong.

    You don’t have to be ‘anti-gay’ to not want to have a gay child.

    Remember, most women who have abortions because of the health of the fetus are thinking NOT of killing a child, but instead view it as giving their child a second chance at being born healthy.

    Besides, I can think of at least 1 gay friend whose mother (very liberal) who, at the beginning, was quite uncomfortable with the idea that her son was gay. She is friends with gay people and has no problem with them but when it was her child, she had a difficult time. Had she been offered an abortion and a second chance at a normal son…well, I don’t know what she would have done, but I’m sure she would have had to think about it.

    Gives me chills just thinking my friend might not be around.

    #10

    The study did not say that all men with many older brothers were gay, nor did it say that ONLY men who had older brothers were gay. Obviously, that is not the case. It just says that there is a statistically valid correlation between having several older brothers and an increased likelihood of being gay.

    There are probably several ‘mechanisms’ for causing ‘gayness’; this study only helped illuminate one.

    Comment by DinaFelice — June 27, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - June 27, 2006

  14. #7 “I wonder if pro-Lifers are actually saving us(gays) in the long run by trying to outlaw abortion, and therefor the practice suggested above. ”

    That may be a fringe benefit for us, but that damn sure wouldn’t be the purposeful intent of any of those wrongwing religious psychos.

    Interesting point and post, though.

    Comment by ndtovent — June 28, 2006 @ 12:20 am - June 28, 2006

  15. ah i see bruce hasa sense of humour

    Comment by ralph — June 28, 2006 @ 1:57 am - June 28, 2006

  16. 14: Why would I bet the answer there is no? History shows that the more organized the religion, then the more hypocritical the beliefs. There are many christians out there who use things like the 10 commandments (thou shalt not kill) as a basis for beliefs, yet many of them are the same people who advocate war and the death penalty.

    Then again, for those who oppose abortion for any reason (even if it means the death of the mother), then there is a marvelous opportunity to get these kids into those “gay cure” programs from day 1. Hmm….we all could have been members of Exodus, Jr!

    Comment by Kevin — June 28, 2006 @ 5:38 am - June 28, 2006

  17. History shows that the more organized the religion, then the more hypocritical the beliefs.

    Then there are those who claim to hate religion, but openly embrace Islam. The truth is, though they never admit it, is that they hate Christianity and Judaism but spooge themselves over those they think they should embrace so they appear to give a rotten damn.

    Figure that one out.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 28, 2006 @ 5:44 am - June 28, 2006

  18. […] Are ‘gay abortions’ around the corner? GayPatriot […]

    Pingback by MattHillNC.com | The Q-triad Blog » Blog Archive » I’m leaving on a jet plane… — June 28, 2006 @ 6:29 am - June 28, 2006

  19. You don’t have to be ‘anti-gay’ to not want to have a gay child.

    There is a great difference between being disappointed at having a gay child–a widespread feeling among heterosexual parents–and being so vehemently antigay as to be willing to undergo an abortion, with its attendant medical risks and psychological burdens. The women I know who have had an abortion did not make that choice so flippantly.

    Given that the Left has defined the fetus as a part of the woman’s body for purposes of abortion, on what basis would you arge that it is not her right to know if she has a defective/diseased piece of tissue in her system? What about Downs Syndrome? Does she have a right to know about that defect? If so, why that one and not the “H-Factor”

    (1) Because I’m a grown-up, able to have a discussion without caricatured sloganeering about “tissue.” The fetus is obviously more than mere tissue. That’s what makes the abortion issue so hellishly difficult. Again, this is more right-wing stereotyping of women who have abortions or of pro-choicers.

    (2) As I said, simply, there is no legitimate reason for having access to information about the probable sexual orientation of one’s child in utero. None. And the risk of eugenics if the information is available is great.

    (3) I am would be inclined to say women have no business knowing whether their fetus has Downs Syndrome either. The idea of aborting fetuses because they have disabilities strikes me, frankly, as kinder gentler genocide, not because I think abortion in general is murder but because that particular decision is designed to eliminate a group of people based on a personal trait. If the chlid would be born suffering great pain and/or have only a brief life because of the disability, then maybe. That’s not the case with Downs Syndrome.

    Comment by Steve — June 28, 2006 @ 7:21 am - June 28, 2006

  20. From the post

    I have to admit that when I first read Dan’s post, I assumed it was a sociological connection, not a biological one (even though Dan does quote the doctor saying it is biologic).

    The researcher is saying it’s biological. The paper does not appear to be up on the NAS Proceedings web site, but the speculation (I hesitate to call it a working hypothesis, much less a theory) has gone along the lines that male fetuses in the womb trigger the development by the mother of an antigen (essentially, this is suggesting that mothers’ bodies are allergic to their male fetuses, but not to their female fetuses), and that, for each successive male fetus, the level of the antigen increases. The antigen is presumed to affect brain development in the fetus, and, if the level gets high enough, it affects sexual orientation.

    As far as I can tell, it would be very difficult to obtain evidence to substantiate the speculation, much less to quantify it, particularly in humans. Further, one might seriously wonder whether the antigen level affects other traits in the offspring, and, if not, why not.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 7:23 am - June 28, 2006

  21. #18 Steve — June 28, 2006 @ 7:21 am – June 28, 2006

    I am would be inclined to say women have no business knowing whether their fetus has Downs Syndrome either. The idea of aborting fetuses because they have disabilities strikes me, frankly, as kinder gentler genocide, not because I think abortion in general is murder but because that particular decision is designed to eliminate a group of people based on a personal trait.

    Um, maybe. The fact is that there are a whole slew of genetic-related diseases–Downs syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, probably multiple sclerosis, and others–the likelihood for which could be detected using genetic testing. The problem in the US is that, if a child is born that actually develops Downs syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, etc., virtually the entire burden of caring for the child rests on the parents, not the community. In more social (shudder: “socialist”) societies, the burden is shared among the members of the community. It strikes me as a bit unfair to refuse to allow the parents the facts with which they could determine whether they want to take on the possibly substantial financial and psychological burden of raising a child with such conditions.

    Note that there is no similar burden when raising a child that may become gay. The only thing that might be denied the parents is that they might not become grandparents by that child.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 8:02 am - June 28, 2006

  22. Fair point, raj, but I’d still oppose making the info available to parents, except within the parameters I mentioned. Lack of social support is not justification for genocide. Of course, I’m not a right-winger and would be in favor of greater social support for parents of children with disabilities instead of endless tax cuts for the rich.

    As to your final point, it would make no sense to abort a gay child on the (mistaken) assumption that the gay child won’t make you a grandparent. Actually, he or she very well may. Of course, an aborted gay child will definitely not make you a grandparent.

    Comment by Steve — June 28, 2006 @ 8:10 am - June 28, 2006

  23. Does Rosie getting rid of Star qualify as a gay abortion?

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — June 28, 2006 @ 8:43 am - June 28, 2006

  24. Bruce, shame on you for falling for this junk science! The conclusion in this researchers statement is replete with “may” statements which are clearly inconclusive. Furthermore, the convoluted research he has conducted only possibly weakens support for the “nurture” origin argument for homosexuality. It does nothing to bolster the biological (nature) argument. Only conclusive research into the biological origin of homosexuality will weaken or strengthen that theory.

    It’s unfortunate that we have all become so accustomed to seeing “conclusions” drawn in this way and trumpeted by the press as fact. Just because certain statistics may occur within a certain test group does not mean that there is a cause and effect relationship, or inferred lack of one. For example; Imagine a group of one hundred orphans was studied for a year and it was found that they had a 10% lower than average incidence of catching a cold. It would be more than a hyperbolic conclusion to state that non-orphans are at greater risk of catching a cold. There is no evidence to support that! Why? Because there are countless conditions other than orphan-hood that could account for such findings but which have not been explored.

    This sort of junk science is, unfortunately ubiquitous. We all need to be on the look out for such non-sense. Sometimes it’s easier to spot like Al Gores terrible movie. If you’re not familiar with the scientific method get a good book from the library and read up. There are simple standards and rules that guide good science. The article you sited and quoted is a terrible foundation upon which to base any kind of rational argument.

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2006 @ 10:30 am - June 28, 2006

  25. #24 Dave — June 28, 2006 @ 10:30 am – June 28, 2006

    Furthermore, the convoluted research he has conducted only possibly weakens support for the “nurture” origin argument for homosexuality. It does nothing to bolster the biological (nature) argument.

    The problem that you have with this argument is that nature vs. nurture is not an either/or switch. It should be obvious that nature begets nurture, and that nurture begets nature. It’s a feedback mechanism, one that is probably impossible to completely disentangle.

    BTW, I’m quite familiar with the scientific methods (there are more than one). I haven’t seen Gore’s movie or read his book, but the reviews that I’ve read of them more than suggests that they are pretty much correct.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 10:58 am - June 28, 2006

  26. Dave: are you and Steve creations of DSH, trying to nail Bruce again with sock puppets?

    You know, like in the past on Malcontent (and this blog), when “David” and “Stephen” have been DSH sock puppets?

    Comment by Calarato — June 28, 2006 @ 11:30 am - June 28, 2006

  27. #24: “the “nurture” origin argument for homosexuality”

    Can you please provide links to peer-reviewed papers from the past two decades that provide the evidence for the “nurture origin argument”.

    Comment by Ian S — June 28, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - June 28, 2006

  28. #26 – P.S. You can do your shtick now, where you unveil with a flourish the full name of DSH / Stephen / David / Steve / Dave.

    The problem would NOT be in the use of anonymous monikers per se. (Thus, credibility isn’t really gained by stepping out from behind them.)

    The problem, rather, would be in any use of sock puppets – i.e., multiple handles to set up a misleading appearance of multiple independent voices… to try to whale on someone I admire. (Bruce)

    ——————————

    While I’m here, I want to reinforce Dina’s point about the likely role of multiple factors in causing sexual orientation.

    An important point about the new study is that the biological (mother) environment is “a factor” in causing male homosexuality – not “the factor”.

    I read that the author believes in 3% as the rate of definite homosexuality in the general male population, and believes his “womb” factor ups it to 5%. That means 95-97% of younger brothers are still turning out to be straight-or-bi.

    You can argue with his percentage numbers, but the bottom line is: an awful lot of younger brothers turn out straight. So, whatever factor he’s identified must be “in addition to” other significant factors, as yet undiscovered.

    Sexual orientation, as a product of the human brain etc., is extremely complex. I am sure we will never find a “gay gene”. I also have no doubt that complex genetics – subtle brain development / protein differences, arising from complex interactions in a person’s genetic makeup as a whole – will one day be identified as an additional factor in in causing sexual orientation.

    —————————————

    #11 – Kevin – Here’s the emptiness of your position on abortion as *solely* the woman’s choice.

    If it ought to be solely the woman’s choice – if the man is to have NO role, not even one of being notified passively, in her “choice” to terminate the life of the child he genetically co-created – then let women get all sperm from impersonal sperm banks, and raise all children soley on their own. Or, since that won’t work, have the State raise them. You know, _Brave New World_ or _1984_.

    Wait – that’s the general direction you lefties are always headed with these things, right? (Leninist abolition of the family, anyone? Nice way to get emotional / symbolic revenge on one’s own estranged family.)

    Comment by Calarato — June 28, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - June 28, 2006

  29. There are many christians out there who use things like the 10 commandments (thou shalt not kill) as a basis for beliefs, yet many of them are the same people who advocate war and the death penalty.

    That is because they understand the context.

    A better translation of the Ten Commandments is “thou shalt not murder“. If someone makes of themselves an enemy of the state by their actions or behavior, the power of the sword can be brought against them.

    The difference between the death penalty and abortion is this; with the death penalty, you are taking the life of someone in response to their crimes.

    In abortion, you are taking the life of an innocent in response to your own irresponsible behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - June 28, 2006

  30. Calarato, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I only post under the name Steve.

    By the way, plenty of progressives have a problem with the idea that a pregnant woman can conceal her pregnancy or affirmatively mislead the biological father and thereby deprive him of any say when she places her child for adoption. Plenty of progressives also insist that the biological father have equal say in what is done with frozen embryos. There is no anti-male crusade here.

    But because the physiology of pregnancy doesn’t involve equal physical burdens on the man and woman, the biological father can’t expect to have a veto over the biological mother’s abortion decision. He would be requiring her to endure medical risks and potentially significant health burdens without her consent. If he didn’t want his fetus aborted, he should have been made sure the woman was opposed to abortion before he has sex with her. Asking him not to have sex with someone if he’s uncomfortable with her potentially having an abortion is much less of an infringement of his dignity than requiring her to be his unwilling gestational servant for half a year is to her dignity. It’s a tough choice, but as long as abortion is legal, he loses if he doesn’t pick his sexual partners carefully.

    I second Ian S’s question about any peer-reviewed studies in the last two decades validating a nuture theory. I haven’t heard of one.

    Comment by Steve — June 28, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - June 28, 2006

  31. #30 – Of course you don’t… Steve. 😉

    Comment by Calarato — June 28, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - June 28, 2006

  32. If it could be determined whether a person is gay in the womb there are a lot of Republican’s and/or Christian Fundamentalists who would change their stance on abortion to support the right of women to abort that child if they so choose. I’m sure there are Democrats who would be down with that as well. It’s not fair to say that all of us are all the same or are all Pro-Choice or anti-religion. I’m against abortion except in the case of rape, incest or health risk to the mother and/or child. And I don’t think that study is particularly accurate anyway.

    Comment by Turk — June 28, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - June 28, 2006

  33. Oh for Pet’s sake! I am Dave and only Dave. And my comments in #23 are merely a warning about junk science, not an attack on Bruce personally. I believe a biological origin for sexual orientation exisits. However, I will not use junk science or poor reasoning to support it.

    And by the way Raj, movie critics are not scientists and their approval of Gore’s nonsensene movie does not make it correct.

    Comment by Dave — June 28, 2006 @ 2:34 pm - June 28, 2006

  34. #30 Steve — June 28, 2006 @ 1:09 pm – June 28, 2006

    Calarato, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I only post under the name Steve.

    Just ignore the taunts of the peanut gallery.

    But because the physiology of pregnancy doesn’t involve equal physical burdens on the man and woman, the biological father can’t expect to have a veto over the biological mother’s abortion decision. He would be requiring her to endure medical risks and potentially significant health burdens without her consent. If he didn’t want his fetus aborted, he should have been made sure the woman was opposed to abortion before he has sex with her.

    Actually, it appears that the major issues of the “daddy’s rights” movements nowadays seems to be that the “daddies” don’t want to be obligated to pay child support for their children, after they have impregnated the females. The “daddies'” arguments goes along the lines of, if women can abort and bail out at any time after conception–and avoid any obligation if the child were to be brought to term–why can’t we avoid our obligations? If memory serves, someone has actually filed a suit in Michigan–of all places–along those lines.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - June 28, 2006

  35. #33: “And by the way Raj, movie critics are not scientists and their approval of Gore’s nonsensene [sic] movie does not make it correct.”

    Scientists pretty much agree that Gore’s movie is soundly based. http://tinyurl.com/gke7d What are your scientific credentials to argue otherwise?

    Comment by Ian S — June 28, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - June 28, 2006

  36. rajj u are the peanut gallery *g*

    Comment by anonymous — June 28, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - June 28, 2006

  37. #33 Dave — June 28, 2006 @ 2:34 pm – June 28, 2006

    And by the way Raj, movie critics are not scientists and their approval of Gore’s nonsensene movie does not make it correct.

    Thank you for telling us that, but what led you to believe that I was referring to movie critics? Some of us actually do read material from–what to they call them? oh, yes–scientists. You know what scientists are? Scientists appear to be people who actually work in the area.

    As far as I can tell, movie critics don’t work in the area. And I suspect that you don’t work in the area, either.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - June 28, 2006

  38. Someone on the conservative blog/website Redstate has a diary up about “treatment options” for babies who might be more likely to be gay. Words like “disease” and “congenital defect” and suggestions that homosexuality can be treated like jaundice or a cleft palate:

    http://redstate.com/story/2006/6/27/10711/8436

    There are a lot of people on the left as well as the right who would probably go along with something like this, sadly.

    Comment by Carl — June 28, 2006 @ 4:43 pm - June 28, 2006

  39. the day is coming soon where the gay gene(s) will be discovered. that will mark the end of homosexuality. the religious “right” will suddenly change their stance on abortion to allow for it in the case of a gay fetus. then, it’s only a matter of time before gay people go the way of the dodo…extinction.

    Comment by rightiswrong — June 28, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - June 28, 2006

  40. […] The mainstream media and bloggers have been responding to a recent study that adds further support to the idea that sexual orientation is determined before birth. Among those considering the impact of the study is GayPatriot, who wrote a post claiming that people may abort gay babies if scientists are able to determine the origins of homosexuality. He blames this possibility on people from the “Gay Left”: Now… and here’s the fun part… how does the Gay Left now reconcile its historic, increasingly vocal and unavowed support of “abortion-on-demand rights” as also being intertwined with “Gay Rights”? […]

    Pingback by All the News That’s Fit to Post » Aborting Gay Babies Conflicts With the Right and the Left — June 28, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - June 28, 2006

  41. It looks like this post has sparked conversation beyond GayPatriot. I just found this posting on a gay liberal blog.

    Comment by Jon W. — June 28, 2006 @ 6:09 pm - June 28, 2006

  42. The idea that the religious right will suddenly decide to be pro-abortion just for the chance to kill gay fetuses is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of those making that claim. It’s just that *important* to believe they want to *kill* you. Try to “cure” the little fellas, maybe, but kill them? I suppose the idea that pro-life people don’t *really* care about fetuses (because who would) and are *really* about oppressing women is something that sounds true as well.

    I also find it very interesting that the huge and serious burden and possible medical issues of having an abortion is supposed to make women who are merely uncomfortable with having a gay child decide to keep it, when the whole feminist abortion “thing” is predicated on the *absolute fact* that having an abortion is no more significant than having some unwanted tissue removed. Medically safe. Emotionally irrelevant.

    Comment by Synova — June 28, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - June 28, 2006

  43. Synova –the line “emotionally irrelevant” nails the PlannedParenthood types to the wall. “Honey, after we take care of this probelm, just give it 3 days of rest and go out the bar… you’ll feel a whole lot better”.

    RIW –“…the religious “right” will suddenly change their stance on abortion to allow for it in the case of a gay fetus. then, it’s only a matter of time before gay people go the way of the dodo…extinction.”

    OK, you were kidding, right? That assinine nonsense HAS to push the whole gay concentration camp thing off the table… RIW, you’ve written some real real real dumb things but now your fingers are writing checks your brain can’t cash. Damn, that notion is two steps inside StupidVille.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 28, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - June 28, 2006

  44. -the day is coming soon where the gay gene(s) will be discovered. that will mark the end of homosexuality. the religious “right” will suddenly change their stance on abortion to allow for it in the case of a gay fetus. then, it’s only a matter of time before gay people go the way of the dodo…extinction.-

    Not everyone in the world is going to be having babies in facilities where you will be able to tell whether your child has the gay gene. Not all parents will want to abort a child based on this factor. But yes, I do think that a lot of people will try to push for gene therapy or for abortion of children who might grow up to be gay, even those who claim to be pro-life.

    -Try to “cure” the little fellas, maybe, but kill them?-

    The problem is what is the definition of cure? As in the link I posted earlier in the thread, some people are already talking about homosexuality as something that can be fixed at birth. Do we really want to open the door where homosexuality is treated like that? Who knows what kind of consequences could come from fiddling with genetics or from trying to find a “cure”.

    Comment by Carl — June 28, 2006 @ 7:46 pm - June 28, 2006

  45. #43 Michigan Matt, have you any friends? you’re an idiot.

    Comment by rightiswrong — June 28, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - June 28, 2006

  46. Carl, I was just noting that, yes, there will be people who view homosexuality as something to be cured. Do we want to go there?

    Science fiction is good for stuff like that… what if we could choose all the details about our children… taller than me, a bit faster metabolism, skip the kidney weirdness, keep the hair and eyes, skip the family tendancy to diabetes and joint problems… avoid deafness or blindness.

    If people can choose… they could choose to have homosexual children. If you could, would you?

    If it weren’t for the HUGE success (NOT) with “fixing” the sex of children born with some mix up (and I forget what that is *called*) I’d probably say that the person wouldn’t know the difference so why not? (Like curing deafness, which there is a strong lobby against for some reason.)

    That sort of manipulation of genes is… almost unimaginable. Far more likely are in-vitro screening and tossing the rejects… or else in-vivo screening and abortion. I oppose those for anything that doesn’t qualify as a horrific degenerative disease.

    Comment by Synova — June 28, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - June 28, 2006

  47. 28: Yeah, stop living in a fantasy and come back to the real world. Women have been getting abortions for how long? centuries? millenia? So far we’re not in “brave new world”, we’re not in a state where the government controls procreation (at least not yet). The truth is, it’s women who bear the psychological and physical burden of bearing children, not men and not other people. It’s a completely personal, individual choice.

    And let’s get real…even if outlawed, abortion will alwasy be available to the rich and powerful. Wonder if Barb or Jenna ever got impregnated during one of their drunken binges…

    Comment by Kevin — June 28, 2006 @ 10:49 pm - June 28, 2006

  48. RIW #45, friends? What’s that got to do with your stupid idea that the religious right is going to reverse its stance on abortion just because it might net a few pre-term gay babies and, of course, you know that their hatred for gays tops their revulsion to abortion and principled pro-life stand.

    You may not like the religious conservatives in this country, but guess what RIW, they are part of the majority and we ain’t getting jack on gay rights progress as long as flamer-Lefts like you take pot shots at them.

    I called it right, rightiswrong… that flamer-Left flank notion of yours is two steps inside the city limits of StupidVille.

    Let’s stick to the thread’s topic rather than try to prove you’re a religious bigot AND Citizen of the Year in StupidVille, ok?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 12:34 am - June 29, 2006

  49. and Kevin at #47 writes: “Wonder if Barb or Jenna ever got impregnated during one of their drunken binges… ”

    Move over RIW, Kevin just arrived from SleazyLand and wants to stake a homestead with you in StupidVille.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 12:36 am - June 29, 2006

  50. -If people can choose… they could choose to have homosexual children. If you could, would you?-

    I wouldn’t want to make such a choice for a child’s future. I would just leave that up to nature, nurture, whatever. But there are many out there who would want to try to use these gene therapies or “cures” on kids, and I think people should be concerned about that, instead of just using the issue as a political cudgel against the left or the right.

    Comment by Carl — June 29, 2006 @ 5:47 am - June 29, 2006

  51. #39 rightiswrong — June 28, 2006 @ 5:06 pm – June 28, 2006

    the day is coming soon where the gay gene(s) will be discovered. that will mark the end of homosexuality. the religious “right” will suddenly change their stance on abortion to allow for it in the case of a gay fetus.

    Highly unlikely. Even if a gene or genes are discovered that indicate a propensity for homosexualty, that doesn’t mean that, if a fetus has such genes, after birth it will actually grow into a homosexual. Example: in twin studies involving mono-zygote twins (they have the same genetic structure), even if one of the twins is homosexual, the likelihood of the other twin being homosexual is only on the order of 50%. The likelihood that dual-zygote twins–which do not have the same genetic structure–will both turn out to be homosexual is somewhat less, on the order of 30%, which is not in the “noise.” Obviously, a number of things are going on that determines sexual orientation, not just genetics.

    Comment by raj — June 29, 2006 @ 10:20 am - June 29, 2006

  52. #50 I was thinking of reasons someone might choose to have homosexual children on purpose, sort of in a science fiction mindset… It probably isn’t a story I’d try to write but it suppose someone took the stereotype of homosexals as being more creative, artistic or musical, and basically be trying to create artists. The obvious POV character would be the boy who fails to conform to expectations.

    In real life, though, I definately agree with going with nature. (GATTACA ?) Part of the fun, actually, of reproduction, is discovering who that new individual is and the more kids you have the stronger the feeling of discovery because you realize just how different each child is.

    Comment by Synova — June 29, 2006 @ 4:48 pm - June 29, 2006

  53. #47 – “The truth is, it’s women who bear the psychological and physical burden of bearing children, not men… It’s a completely personal, individual choice.”

    Kevin accuses me of living in a fantasy world? after saying/believing the above? ROTFLMAO 🙂

    #42 – Synova, exactly so. What we’ve seen in this thread is a lot of hysterical “The Right would gladly kill us!!!!!” from the usual suspects. (And, per my previous entries, let me emphasize: the USUAL suspects. Certain characteristic language in this area was/is another part of the “Steve” tipoff.)

    Such commentors are in denial, as ever, as to where our true peril lies. Secular leftists already believe in abortion and “the woman’s right to choose”, already judge people by group-identity concerns (rather than individual character) and already show lots of hypocrisy on all these issues. They will be the ones who have no qualms about terminating gay fetuses – once that test is available.

    Christian conservatives will be the ones, I predict, who continue to maintain their principled objections to abortion in any form. I belong with neither camp. But, if forced to choose, I would gladly deal with a Christian conservatives over soulless, narcissistic and unprincipled secular leftists, any day of the week.

    Comment by Calarato — June 29, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - June 29, 2006

  54. 49: Name calling….that’s a good, intelligent arguement.

    Comment by Kevin — June 29, 2006 @ 8:27 pm - June 29, 2006

  55. Ummm, Kevin if the shoe fits, wear it 😉

    Comment by Calarato — June 30, 2006 @ 11:35 am - June 30, 2006

  56. 55: Interesting how you people on this sight blather on constantly aobut how the gay left is full of hate, but any time you’re ideas are challenged, you (and some of your little friends here) end up stooping to name calling because you have nowhere else to go in the arguement.

    Comment by Kevin — June 30, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - June 30, 2006

  57. Sexuality runs along a continuum. It is not a static “thing” but rather has the potential to change throughout one’s lifetime and varies infinitely among people. In reality, most people are neither completely gay or straight. We will never find anyone one cause that make a person gay.

    Comment by Nick — July 1, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - July 1, 2006

  58. #57 Nick — July 1, 2006 @ 12:56 pm – July 1, 2006

    This is a misstatement (or misinterpretation) of what has been observed. For men, there appears to be a fairly strong bi-modalism: most men are either strongly heterosexual (Kinsey 0 or 1) or strongly homosexual (Kinsey 5 or 6) with far fewer men being bisexual (Kinsey 2 through 4). It’s similar to handedness–most people are either right-handed or left-handed with very few being ambidexterous.

    With women, it appears that the curve is a bit flatter. Otherwise stated, the percentage of women who appear to be bisexual, in relation to the hetero/homo extremes, seems to be a bit higher than with men.

    Comment by raj — July 2, 2006 @ 9:32 am - July 2, 2006

  59. Raj, I am not misinterpreting anything. The simple truth is that most men have at least incidental same-sex attractions throughout their lives. Most men are not going to admit to that fact.

    Comment by Nick — July 2, 2006 @ 10:23 am - July 2, 2006

  60. #59 Nick — July 2, 2006 @ 10:23 am – July 2, 2006

    The simple truth is that most men have at least incidental same-sex attractions throughout their lives.

    I’d be interested in knowing how you know this.

    Not really, because it’s pretty much irrelevant. Kinsey’s 5 acknowledges the fact that some men who were predominantly heterosexual actually did have incidental sex since they reached adolescence. On the other hand, Kinsey found that approximately 50 per cent of all males have neither overt nor psychic experience in the homosexual after the onset of adolescence. HOMOSEXUALITY: WHAT KINSEY REALLY SAID Make of that what you wish in regards your assertion that “most men have at least incidental same-sex attractions throughout their lives.”

    Comment by raj — July 3, 2006 @ 9:07 am - July 3, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.