It was about a scientist who had found a gay gene. Which has not and will not happen, but I digress. He was testing babies invetro, to see if they carried that gene he had supposedly found. It progresses to a woman who had a gay brother in law, and was persuaded to have the test. She is the victim of a bomb intended for this scientist. But it was the gay brother who sent the bomb, as part of some activism. And the really hypocritical thing was, the family of the expectant Mom, who was in a coma, were going to terminate the pregnancy because this scientist had told her the baby was gay, and the lawyers were trying to PREVENT the abortion! On the grounds that “this is what caused the bombing, and the activists are terrified of the identification of this gene. The fear a “gay genocide”!!!!
So, if it’s just a baby who’s mother wants to be rid of the inconvenience, that’s her right, but if it is somehow shown the baby is gay (ridiculous claim) then it’s genocide???
Like I said, you had to wonder if this was a show pointing out absurdity by being absurd, because the whole program was so absurd.
Like I said, you had to wonder if this was a show pointing out absurdity by being absurd, because the whole program was so absurd.
Wow, that's incredible. Chances are the liberal writers of Law & Order never even saw that coming because in their minds, it makes perfect sense.
Your post made me think of what radio host Jim Quinn out of Pittsburgh often says - "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
For instance, many pro-abort feminists are troubled by sex-selective abortions where it's the girls who are being killed.
At the Nuremburg War Crimes trials 60 years ago, no objection was made to abortion "in general," but Nazis were convicted of war crimes, not only for the crime of the forced abortions of Jews, but even for the crime of merely "encouraging" the abortion of Slavs.
Many liberals would be profoundly upset by the selective abortion of, supposedly, genetic gay babies (but not, strangely enough, about the selective abortion of Downs babies.)
There's even a certain sub-species of FReeper who never gave two hoots about abortion per se, but now finds him/herself worried about the abortion of white born-in-Americans (as opposed to, say, swarthy Muslim immigrants.)
Strange. And ugly.
For instance, many pro-abort feminists are troubled ny sex-selective abortions where it's the girls who are being killed.
At the Nuremburg War Crimes trials 60 years ago, no objectionw as made toabortion "in general," but the thre Nazis were condemned, not only foir forced abortions of Jews, but for merely "encouraging" the abortion of Slavs.
Many liberals would be profoundly upset by the selective abortion of, supposedly, genetic gay babies (but not, strangely enough, about the selective abortion of Downs babies.)
There's even a certain sub-species of FReeper who never gave two hoots about abortion per se, but now finds him/herself worried about the abortion of white ASmericans (as opposed to, say, swarthy Muslims.)
Strange. And ugly.