One of the constant frustrations I’ve expressed here at GayPatriot is how the Gay Left can be so much in bed with the pro-abortionist crowd with chilling facts right in front of their faces?
Advances in genetic science, ignorance among many segments of our society and gay leftist ideologues content with silence are rapidly converging to put unborn gay children, and perhaps a whole generation of gays, at risk. This latest story only reinforces my concern.
Brave New World – Kathryn Lopez at The Corner
An Italian doctor who aborted a healthy twin by mistake and the obstetrician who performed a sonogram ahead of the bungle are under investigation for negligence by a Milan court, a report said Tuesday. The operation, carried out in June, was intended to remove the other twin, who tested positive for Down’s Syndrome.
The foetuses reportedly changed places after the sonogram and before the procedure.
If tried and convicted, the doctors face between three months and two years in prison, ANSA news agency said.
K-Lo further points out….
What’s most infuriating is that it’s only an outrage because the “healthy” baby was murdered. If the child with Down’s did, it would all be in the name of choice.
It is of course, all an outrage.
Substitute “Down’s Syndrome” with “gay” and we are on the verge of a serious problem, folks.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
hello,
i am not gay but it does,nt surprise me anymore anything the left does these dyas. tell everyone you know and maybe they will tell someone else, good luck and god bless you.
pamela
I once conducted an ethics panel on this very topic with an added dimension. The results of the Human Genome Project are staggering and science is wading its way through the information. Gene splicing is a reality. If homosexuality is gene based, then we have to question whether it is also an anomaly which a parent might wish to “correct.” There is even the possibility that adults could undergo the gene therapy. The science is so far along on this that we are now exploring the technology for making it happen.
This is a huge issue that is not in the hands of the gay population. Heterosexuals will not have to kill the unborn, they will just have to decide if they want the child altered.
The brave new world of designer children is not far off. Since forever in this world cultures have discarded unwanted babies. Now we are nearing the age when we can cut to the chase early in the fetal development. Even if the US were to enact laws restricting the choices, there will always be a Switzerland where anything goes.
“Substitute “Down’s Syndrome” with “gay” and we are on the verge of a serious problem, folks.”
Aborting a baby with and because of Down’s is already serious.
Indeed. I could be wrong, but I don’t think he was implying that it wasn’t.
I figure (but could easily be wrong) that if homosexuality were based on a tiny number of distinct genes – or on a single gene – it would have been identified by now. So, when anti-gay types say – “Come on, there is no ‘gay gene'” – I agree with them.
Then I go on to explain that it’s nonetheless *biological* – very likely rooted in brain structures, possibly due to fetal development, possibly due to very complex interactions with large stretches of genetic code. So yeah, we are in trouble because someday, they will figure out how to scan a late-term fetus for ‘gay brain’.
The only time the Left would have a problem with abortions is if the fetus was tested for “leftist gene” and were aborted.
Wow. Amazing. It’s like the “healthy” one switched places with the Down syndrome one.
I found out in my sociology class that ~70% of the population of the United States thinks it’s okay to abort a baby if it has a major “defect” (like Down syndrome, for example). This statistic weighs heavily on me to think about – that 70% includes people who, if the child were “normal”, would not condone an abortion at all unless the mother’s life is at risk.
Sigh.
Imagine if the “healthy” child had lived and turned out to be gay – that’d be an almost intolerable amount of pressure, knowing his parents couldn’t handle people for who they are, instead demanded an arbitrary set of standards that they define as “perfection”.
It’s also saying, on the parents’ part, that they require the people in their lives to be a certain way or they’re not worthy of love.
It’s also saying that the parents require each other and themselves to be a certain way or else not be worthy of love.
It’s all around very anti-human.
Since abortion is so commonplace these days, one doesn’t need a medical excuse anymore. Most people I have spoken to say: of course I’d abort or change the orientation of a gay baby. I don’t want my child to have those additional burdens and problems that society will put on him – if he is indeed gay.
Once again, I’m doing this because it is someone else’s fault.
So where will the next generation of gays come from? From the third world, where no one has access to prenatal testing, and of course from the conservative world. Since they are much more unlikely to abort even for medical reasons. If anyone thinks that spells the end of a portion of the population being gay, they are delusional, but it will definitely change what such a population will look and behave like.
As you’ll see if you peruse my blog, I’ve got a strong opinion about homosexuality that most bloggers here won’t appreciate. At the same time, I’m able to respect homosexuals and try to love them like Christ would.
The reason I say all that is because I don’t want anyone to think I’m being sarcastic or a jerk when I ask the question that this post made me think of. This is my question: If you suggest that “Down’s Syndrome” could be exchanged for “gay” and it would lead to gay abortions, what genes, exactly, would the medical professional test to come up with a conclusive diagnosis that the fetus was gay?
Furthermore, I’ve personally known gay men and lesbians who have stopped being gay and have become heterosexual. Yet I have never known a Down’s Syndrome person to become “not Down’s Syndrome” or a woman to become “not woman” (artificial sex changes don’t count) or an African American to become “not African American”.
Homosexuality is not immutable. Gender, race, and many handicaps (such as Down’s Syndrome) are.
Help me understand how “Down’s Syndrome” could be substituted for “gay”.
MTR: do you believe in evolution? do you believe the world is round? sorry, but NO ONE can change their sexual orientation. those “friends” of yours are either liars or were never gay to begin with.
Hey, rightiswrong, just exactly how has the theory of evolution been proven? Theories are useful, but “believing in evolution” is more religion than science. Facts on evolution would be of interest here. More than a century and a half should be sufficient time to come up with just one piece of evidence that the theory works. I am “right” so I must be “wrong.” Edjamacate me.
#12 –
Are you kidding?
Hope so as genetic evidence is rather compelling
– The only thing that makes you different than a mouse is the way your genes are arranged!
When humans mapped out our genome, the relationship between our species to others became quite evident. Its quite compelling stuff if you can get past the science talk.
Further the fossil record of reptiles changing to birds is becoming more and more compelling
Go Science Go!
#12 – Heliotrope, here we have a difference. Evolution is a proven fact. Just look at the evolution (there’s that word again) of super-bugs in response to antibiotics, such as super-TB or super-gonorrhea. That is evolution in action. There’s no other word for it. Scientists have reproduced (i.e., witnessed) it in the laboratory, in “real time”.
Perhaps, by disputing evolution, you mean to dispute other scientific issues such as the age of the Earth, or whether humankind and other species evolved from earlier, common ancestors? I should imagine we disagree there too, but my immediate purpose is only to call out such issues as distinct from the scientifically observed fact of (some) evolution.
On to MTR:
I’ve already addressed this at #6. Please see there.
MTR – I’m sure you’ve known gay men and lesbians who have stopped BEHAVING homosexually, i.e., who have become celibate and/or entered a heterosexual marriage. Behavior and orientation are 2 different things.
Orientation is: which gender is the person honestly and consistently attracted to, on the inside? If – note if – that is mutable for some people, well, it isn’t mutable for most. Studies measuring a person’s orientation via physical responses (such as penile dilation) show that a person can be in a heterosexual relationship while retaining – and overtly denying – the basic orientation of a homosexual, or vice versa. And very many “ex-gays” later become “ex-ex-gays” who testify that, when they claimed to have changed in basic orientation, they were lying. (To themselves first.)
I won’t say orientation can “never” change for anyone. If you do know folks who say their inner orientation has changed, as well as their behavior – who am I to contradict them? But then, by the exact same token, you should be in no position to contradict those others who says theirs hasn’t, and/or can’t. And finally:
To approach it from a different angle: Even if that were true, for sake of argument: how on Earth could it matter, or make a difference, to any political or moral issue? People’s lives are their own.
slight correction – I see the difference you have in mind for the present topic, “designer abortions” (shall we say). Your argument (I believe) is that since homosexuality simply isn’t innate or immutable (in your belief), then science never can or will discover a fetal test for it.
Hybridization and mutation are not evolution. I was involved in agriculture for years and Mendal and Bromfield showed how to bend the characteristics of plants with clear science. Unfortunately, the “niche” evolution of Darwin’s finches has not progressed an inch.
If evolution were half of what it is cracked up to be, there would whole hosts of animals and insects that survive on pine needles and the the products of the pine forests that cover so much of the earth. But nothing has come along in the eons that pines have been on the planet.
Adaptation and change are the stabilizing forces of the natural world. But the Darwin theory of evolution is dependent upon finding the “missing link” between family trees. None has been located yet. And there has been a whole lot of looking.
The Human Genome Project has revealed a great deal, but it has not formed any bridge to the theory of evolution. The great natural history museums have back-peddled their displays radically as they have discovered the theory to be more and more elusive.
This is not a religious issue with me. It is an issue of science, not unlike man caused global warming. However, the proponents of evolution seem to treat it like a religion, particularly in attacking “intelligent design.”
Now you’re just arguing semantics. What is evolution, if it isn’t generational change via mutation, and often also via inter-sexual hybridization? Let’s talk about sports, or something.
Who’s to say there won’t be? You could as well say the following. If evolution were all it’s cracked up to be, there would be whole hosts of animals and insects that breathe oxygen… survive on various kinds of carbon product…. Oops, there are.
In other words: Don’t confuse your own inventive recognition of an un-exploited ecological niche with disproof of evolution. No one says evolution works “perfectly” by any human standard, or instantaneously. Only that there is a host of facts for which it is the best explanation.
Ah, now we come to it. It is *Darwin’s* theory of evolution that you object to. But I don’t care about that. There are many others. Again, “evolution” as a word, describes (1) the general fact that species and genomes change over time – or “evolve” – together with (2) a set of competing, specific theories on the exact nature and mechanisms of that process.
Of course one would attack intelligent design.
It’s a theory based on this premise:
“Science, by definition, can be questioned, therefore the science of evolution has questions, so a god/an Alien is the creator”
Ludicrous!
If you accept that evolution causes inter-species variation, how can you not accept that this variation leads to new species?
Compound this variation by billions of years, and you have Me! – the pinnacle of evolution 🙂
I suggest you check out the rDNA and other molecular research that has done a good job of tracing things back to our blue-green allege ancestors. I believe, but am not certain on its progress they are making a tree of life that shows all relationships based on that and other data.
ILC, I take your point. We really are not disagreeing. Lamarckism was entirely too sudden for the academy, so they were relieved when Darwin posited the theory which included “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection.” The problem there is the mechanism at play in “selection” and what makes it “natural.” That is all heady stuff that leads to circular arguments and never helps to provide the facts necessary to prove the theory.
One other point. Darwin was caught up in the existence of human races and the application of the Linnaean classification to mammals. His prejudice held until the Human Genome Project blew the science behind his assumptions to dust.
Yes, things evolve. Is there an evolutionary force that caused birds to fly or fish to swim? We have zero scientific facts. We also have “true believers” that we are only a “few fossils” away from the proof. Fine. Keep searching. Meanwhile, it is just a compelling theory and not science.
Re: Your first two paragraphs: Fair enough.
Re: Your third… Again, we appear to mean entirely different things by the word “evolution”. For the record, science is all about “compelling theories”: proving or disproving them; which is the most compelling, and why (or why not).