Posted on 11/19/2014 8:23:01 AM PST by Morgana
Lately, “pro-choice” has been “evolving” into “pro-abortion”–including support for sex selection abortion.
But what if we find there is a gay gene that could identify fetuses who would have a propensity to be homosexual? That may be on the horizon.
From the New Scientist story:
ultrasound3d22A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay twins has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay. The study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.
The finding is an important contribution to mounting evidence that being gay is biologically determined rather than a lifestyle choice.
The story notes that the gene factor would not be determinative, but one factor in sexual orientation as a biologically-caused phenomenon.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
So, if a test became available to determine such a propensity–as is currently available for sex or Down syndrome–should we permit abortion to eliminate babies likely to be gay from being born, e.g.,–or for that matter, straight–e.g., eugenic abortion?
Or, will we allow likely orientation to be used as a factor in determining whether to implant an embryo after IVF?
I hope not. But I do sense the potential for a real cultural clash.
There is no gay gene. They cannot reproduce so it is never passed on. Duh......
Liberals, on the other hand ....
I’ve seen Barack Obama in some pretty gay jeans.
I predict that the liberals would want to outlaw abortions done on homosexual embryos if there were a gay gene discovery.
On the other hand, liberals are ok with the fact that most Down syndrome fetuses are aborted nowadays. It all comes back to who is favored under liberalism. Homosexuals are an officially recognized grievance group per liberals, so we are supposed to be shocked that anyone would abort a gay fetus.
On the other hand, Down syndrome people are NOT a recognized grievance group, so liberals are ok with aborting them for that reason.
Way to make Leftist heads explode!
Actually, I’ve really lost count on what the prevailing popular Gay culture argument for perversion is. Is it genetic, something one can’t help but do? Or is it a choice?
Do culture, upbringing and life’s experiences rule the roost, or can you be a queer just by being born?
I see and her examples of the effect and the import to the ‘richness’ of acceptance and diversity in society, but I don’t see much about the root cause. Perhaps that could have been explained by the American Psychiatry Association but it seems they drank the Koolaid long ago and decided that it (homosexuality) was ‘normal’
I remain unconvinced of the naturality.
Yes
And gays will become pro-life
And democrats will actually look at curtailing abortions
the story of the gay bull the other day, is supposed to convince us that homosexuality is normal. Finding a gay bull is supposed to show us that there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and is thus normal and natural.
Irrelevant question. A desire gene does not make sense. Physically all humans are heterosexual — or there would be no future humans. It is unarguable that human biology is designed that way. A desire to do what is wrong or immoral is called a sin nature. But that’s not what people looking for the so-called gay gene mean. And just because a person grows older and more enslaved to their particular sin of choice does not mean it is good and normal or that they were born to do it.
Maybe the bull has an enlarged prostate and just doesn’t feel the urge anymore....I think we should dissect him and see what’s up.
Be more specific, ya mean when he was riding the girls bike, throwing out the 1st pitch like a girl or when he was hanging curtains like a girl?.......my vote is for all three. :)
While I don’t think there is any “gay gene”, the field of epigenetics is showing that some genes can become active, or become suppressed to the point of being active or being inactive in some way, due to conditions that are encountered.
Yes, gene’s can be “turned on” or “turned off”, environmentally; so it is not always a given that you either “have a gene or you don’t”, because in some cases a gene is present but dormant - unless some environmental trigger activates it, or some gene that is normally active is dormant, because of a reaction to something.
Epigenetics is showing that the way genes are used, or not, is more than simply having a particular genome; it is dependent in some cases on more than just having certain genes to start with.
What would the abortionists say about a “gay gene” if there was one? They’d be the hypocrites that they are. They’d think it was wrong to abort a baby with a “gay gene” but think it O.K. to abort babies for other genetic reasons.
Yup, I’ve said for a couple decades now that the discovery of a gay gene will be the day “abortion on demand, without apology” ends.
It’s, theoretically and figuratively anyways, a wonderful connundrum for the Left to be placed in. Gay rights is predicated on it being genetic and something born with, not a lifestyle choice. Yet should a gay gene be found it allows both “treatment” of homosexuality and the prevention of it (abortion)
It opens a very, very nasty door for Liberals. Because their support for abortion is based on access to it being unfettered, with any restriction constituting a slippery slope towards eventual banning. But if they make an exception for homosexuality they admit that restrictions are, indeed, ok. They surrender their absolutism and the debate shifts from whether there should be restrictions at all, to where on the continuum they should be located.
....Oh wait you mean China forces abortions? You mean the many women abort baby girls before they are born in developing countries? You mean more black babies are aborted than born in NYC? Oh my, well then....maybe the gay-rights movement should be concerned!
Indeed it’s a learned issue.
Would they get gene therapy?
This particular gay gene theory using twins is weak science. You have to look for that gene in gay folks who have no twins. Also not every identical twin “set” which has a gay person in it has an equally gay sibling. The article says the gene might be contributory but not determinative to a person becoming gay. Well that is such a mish mash because if folks exist with that gene who aren’t gay at all, how can they tell if the gene has anything to do at all with gayness. The fact that there are gays who DON’T have the gene kind of dampens the research!
I suppose they can try to do a numbers search....of a certain number of folks with the gene.... how many in that gene group are gay. Now take the same number of persons known not to have the gene and query again, asking how many of that group are gay!
If the percentages are similar then the gene probably has no impact on gayness. If there are greater numbers of gays in the “gay gene” group vs’s the number of gays in the “non gay gene” group...then the “alledged gay gene” may indeed have effects on folks becoming homosexuals.
If there is such a thing as a “gay gene”, then it must be a genetic defect. It seems to me that any genetic condition that would prevent procreation would have to be a defect.
I could see “gay rights” being justified under the A.D.A., however offensive many may consider that notion.
Next question, if it is a genetic defect, would a “cure” be justified?
Yeah, if you apply genetics and common sense,
any “gay gene” would have disappeared from the species long ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.