Abortion and the Gay Gene
There is potential that some day, we will be able to identify a "gene" that indicates whether someone is gay or not. It is also possible that this gene could be identified prior to birth.
I think this possibility opens up an interesting question, which is whether it would be okay to abort children based on whether they have this gene.
It seems to me that in order to support abortion at all, one would first have to believe that the fetus is not a person and has no rights. If so, the reason one aborts is essentially immaterial, and selecting kids based on health, sex, or eye color is perfectly rational. I suppose there are some who would argue there are some children so deformed or sick that abortion is the humane answer, but I think that is only a rational answer if you also support euthanasia for after birth. Regardless, the majority of Americans support abortion during the first tri-mester for any reason or no reason, so choosing at that time based on orientation would presumably be permissible in the eyes of most.
But there are some who are against abortion in all situations. Generally, these people are very religious, and often conservative. Presumably these people still would not abort "gay gene" kids anymore than they would abort any other kid.
I think that if a gay gene is identified, there might be many people who believe abortion is okay who might selectively abort gay children, much the same way that Chinese parents abort their females.
I wonder if we would have a situation where mostly conservative religious families would be raising gay children, because many less conservative parents chose to select their child's sexual orientation?
And would those conservative families still try to "cure" thier kids, even when faced with a "gene" that causes the behavior? Still better than losing the ability to exist, I would bet.
posted by Jrudkis @ 7:45 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
You don't have to believe that a fetus has no rights at all to support abortion under certain circumstances. You only have to believe that the rights of the woman carrying the fetus have greater weight than the rights of the fetus under the conditions of the pregnancy.
Therefore, one could argue that abortion for convenience is wrong, because in such a case the woman's right not to carry a fetus because it's not convenient does not trump the right of the fetus to occupy her womb.
In cases of rape, incest, medical danger, etc., abortions may be arguably acceptable because the burden on the pregnant woman is greater than in cases of inconvenience to the point that the fetus' right to occupy her womb are lesser than the woman's right to abort.
So it's arguably a matter of degree and not absolute in nature. Virtually no right is absolute in that one's right may infringe on another's. How loudly can you play your stereo and at what time of day?
Furthermore, the notion that there is a gene for homosexuality is questionable. Prenatal conditions, mainly hormonal exposures, are far more likely to impact the future sexual orientation of a fetus. There may be some genetic predisposition involved, but the factors that determine sexuality are far more numerous and complex than a single gene.
Your premise is humorous none the less.
I agree that you can have a nuanced belief in abortion such that deeply damaged babies could be aborted, but I think that same person would believe in euthanizing a baby that was born with the same damage. If not, than I don't understand the nuance.
But my main point is that most americans support abortion for any reason including inconvenience during the first trimester. It is this group that I suggest would include orientation as a valid reason to abort, at least in the early stages.
Whether it would be possible to find a single gene rather than other environmental factors is questionable, so I agree with that, but I think it alos creates another problem: Do you tell your kid he has a gay gene if the gene may not be dispositive, but the kid might be struggling internally and not know why he is attracted to the same sex?
Oh, and for the issue of right to ocupy the womb, the fetus did not choose being conceived, whether by rape or incest or passion. So the steroe argument is not valid. The woman's right to abort a living person for anything other than her own life can not trump that person's right to exist. The woman's right can only be greater if that person has no rights at all, and is simply at the whim of the woman.
Whether or not a fetus is a living person is constitutionally questionable. It is most certainly living. It is not certainly a person, or at least not one with the equal legal weight of someone who has ever had to sit though an episode of American Idol.
Post a Comment
<< Home