If they could know the sexual orientation of a fetus

[Ksandra]

Do you think it should be legal to let the parents know?

Mommy boards is having a debate about this, and I thought it might be something to see how BG feels about this.

Opponents say no because it isn't something medically necessary and are worried parents would abort if they knew their kid would be gay or treat the kid poorly from day one without getting to know him/her. They are also worried about people trying to obsess over "fixing" the gene.

Proponents say yes because parents have the right to know whatever they can about their child and some may feel they would want to prepare the child while growing up. As well, while the general consensus is that aborting over this is disgusting, it is still their right to do so.


What say you bg?

[chazzyphizzle]

i would like to know if my unborn child was going to be a millionaire and keep abortin' until i get a yes

[kuronosan]

And how exactly would you determine this?

[Aristio]

Nope. Honestly, it would be the small minority of assholes that would abort gay fetuses that would ruin it for the rest of everyone else. The intention is good; I could definitely see the advantages of knowing in advance. But in reality, I don't think I could stomach anymore hate for people who would abort gay fetuses just for the fetus turning out gay.

[Cantih]

Disclosed information should only include serious medical quality of life factors. (Downs, Tay-Sachs, etc.) Even if homosexuality is genetic (something I'm not particularly on board with), it's not a medical quality of life issue, it's a social one.

As such, the only thing that makes it an issue in the first place, is society. People with disabilities will have difficulties regardless of what anyone does.
The difficulties gay people have are because there are some people who create those difficulties. The onus is on those people to stop being assholes.

[Ksandra]

And how exactly would you determine this?

It's hypothetically speaking obviously. . It is sort of a spin off from a convo about how in china and a few other countries, doctors are not telling parents whether they are having a boy or a girl because of the trend to abort it if it's a girl.

Now in that case it is a little different because of the social problems of having way too many males and not enough females in society.

So this example was brought up to see just how far a woman's right to abort should go. Most pro-choice on that board (everywhere?) feel a woman should have the right to abort for any reason, whether others are disgusted by that reason or not. So then, does that mean they have the right to know information that could cause them to abort? Remember not every women aborts for medical reasons, and that is their choice to do so.

I should have also asked in the OP, if it is something doctors should not be allowed to do, is it something that should be illegal altogether. There are outside companies that can give you the child's gender, so should outside companies be allowed to do the test?


Note: Just so you don't think I am on one side, I actually don't know how to answer this myself. I see both sides to the argument and don't like either of them (the thought of aborting over this makes me sick to my stomach tbh). So I am really just playing DA for w/e side is the opposite.

[Cantih]

So this example was brought up to see just how far a woman's right to abort should go. Most pro-choice on that board (everywhere?) feel a woman should have the right to abort for any reason, whether others are disgusted by that reason or not. So then, does that mean they have the right to know information that could cause them to abort? Remember not every women aborts for medical reasons, and that is their choice to do so.

I should have also asked in the OP, if it is something doctors should not be allowed to do, is it something that should be illegal altogether. There are outside companies that can give you the child's gender, so should outside companies be allowed to do the test?

This is a legitimate tricky bit.
You could take the route of attributing the child's genetic code to be their personal information, and thus subject to privacy. You could allow out some violations to privacy for cause (like some of the medical confidentiality exemptions), but anything outside those exemptions would be a crime.
BUT
Using this path you give the fetus a right to privacy, then it opens up a route of attack for anti-abortionists to go full right to life, and then you have every woman required to carry every child to term.

[Koul]

No. I don't think doctors should let the parents know if the child is gay or not. I got into a similiar discussion with a friend in regards to genetic engineering of fetus's. She's totally up for taking out genes that can be a hindrance (she cites her poor eyesight). I'm extremely against any sort of genetic tampering with fetus'. I don't trust humanity enough to use it with integrity. Nor do I trust us to do the same with this

Personally, I feel there is a "gay gene" out there but social interactions come into play too. My only reasoning with it being partly genetic is because having been exposed to adult material when I was young I always thought boys should be with girls. But then you get to know more about yourself and you get put into situations and you find out it just doesn't work.

[ronin sparthos]

If a parent would be so petty as to abort on grounds of sexual orientation one could only imagine what type of dumbfuck parent they'd be and thus what type of environment that child will be born into. I stand by the right for a woman to abort as being a parent isn't just about pushing babies out of a vagina but a *lifelong* commitment to the nurturing and development of offspring.

Any human not up to task shouldn't be forced to raise offspring. We have enough children running around with parents who couldn't give two shits about them. Tragic really.

[Senji]

With ability to pay, parents should have the right to as much of a genetic printout as med tech allows. They shouldn't need to provide a reason for a legal abortion either; wrong eye color, sex, developmental problem, whatever.

Comes off as loaded though, with a side of abortion. Like starting that obesity is genetic instead of environmental and would one abort a fat kid, or passing blame off of other parenting fails.

[ronin sparthos]

Oh God, offspring will become like Pokemon breeding in the future.

"Nope, not 31 IVs. Junk it."
"Blue eyes? Nope, reroll."
"Max height of what? Nope nope NOPE."

Which will segue into the new trend of having babies the "old fashioned way" with a hidden dice roll! You never know what you're gonna get. Like those early 21st century idiots did.

[BaneTheBrawler]

It's hypothetically speaking obviously. . It is sort of a spin off from a convo about how in china and a few other countries, doctors are not telling parents whether they are having a boy or a girl because of the trend to abort it if it's a girl.

Now in that case it is a little different because of the social problems of having way too many males and not enough females in society.

gay babies are now a trend. similar social problems arise. not really that different after all.

honestly i hope that by the time this becomes possible no one gives a fuck. or, better yet, we'll have entered a post-scarcity Trek-era where people have no reason to abort ever no matter what (not counting acts of Q) and we can support all the babies we could ever pop out. because you KNOW there'd be those assholes who abort for this, and then everyone else would ban it, and then the supreme court would take that down the slippery slope of precedent because they're fucktards and we'd end up with an all-or-nothing abortion war.


edit: oh, also, you guys should read The Forever War. Homosexuality as population control. Very interesting.

[Senji]

Oh God, offspring will become like Pokemon breeding in the future.

"Nope, not 31 IVs. Junk it."
"Blue eyes? Nope, reroll."
"Max height of what? Nope nope NOPE."

Which will segue into the new trend of having babies the "old fashioned way" with a hidden dice roll! You never know what you're gonna get. Like those early 21st century idiots did.

I fully expect both happening, with a segue of tweaking gene variables in there too. "Oh you wanted green eyes instead of blue? Done." Etc

edit: oh, also, you guys should read The Forever War. Homosexuality as population control. Very interesting.

Oh, it won't be able to read GoT and a poly sci thriller at the same time mid season? Abort!

[thetruepandagod]

Abort everything until we can master genetically engineered super babies. Everything else is just trash compared to that.

[Rocl]

i would like to know if my unborn child was going to be a millionaire and keep abortin' until i get a yes

a millionaire guaranteed to love and dote on their parents i.e. me

[Cream Soda]

Assuming this could be done, here's food for thought.

If you say no, but claim to be pro choice. Guess what, you aren't pro choice

[Cantih]

If you want to be particularly pedantic, you'd become "pro uninformed-decision abortion" in that case.

[AidenCarby]

Would be thge ultimate catch 22 for the Christians lol, since they're all against abortion but also hate the gays which would they pick?

[Blubbartron]

Assuming this could be done, here's food for thought.

If you say no, but claim to be pro choice. Guess what, you aren't pro choice

This is the right answer. Either women have the right to choose, or they do not. Putting artificial limits on it based on something that's easily lied about (why you want an abortion) is just begging for abortion to be completely banned. It doesn't matter how heinous the reasoning behind the decision is.

[RKenshin]

I don't think it's so cut and dry, black and white.

I see them as different topics. One is about whether or not a woman can have an abortion at all, period; regardless of the reasons behind it. The other is whether a women can or should be able to abort for X specific reason.

Just because they both use the same verbiage (to choose), doesn't make them the same.