My god that is just ridiculous, how in the world they are going to find out if the fetus has a "gay gene" not that i believe in such a thing.

Unless the mother is actually testing the fetus for his or hers genes I don't see how in the world she will be able to find out.

It seems that our politicians has nothing better to do but to play around with unproven scientific data.

Yeah, marg, the bill pre-supposes that a gay gene will someday be discovered. I personally am very skeptical that there will be.

I wonder if this will be a crack in the pro-abortion left wing liberal Democrat armor. If the gays demand protecting their own fetuses, this will change the whole political abortion equation in the U.S.

Jsobecky, do you thing is some religious agenda behind this, against gays or perhaps to stop abortions?

It may be some hidden agenda.

Because if it was about a gene well, how about a criminal gene or a unfaithful gene or something alone the line.

There certainly is a agenda behind this, marg, although I don't know if I'd call it strictly a religious agenda. Think about it: it supposedly protects gays rights. But is that the real reason? Or is it really an anti-abortion push disguised as a pro-gay rights motion?

"Duprey received the idea for his bill when listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show. He said, 'I heard Rush saying that the day the gay gene is determined to be real, that on overnight gays would become pro-life.'

[edit on 9-3-2005 by jsobecky]

I think so Jsobecky I think that it will not stand due to the fact that is not proven data that such a gene exist.

But I will not rule out some type of religious meaning behind all this.

Djohn, a republican introduced the bill, not a democrat.... so you are off the mark.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Djohn, a republican introduced the bill, not a democrat.... so you are off the mark.

Wow that even makes it more juicy as a conspiracy theory. Maybe the Republicans are trying to split the liberal coalition.

You have to hand it to the guy, it was a pretty slick move. If we accept this legislation, what's next? No abortions for near-sighted blondes?

Pretty soon, abortion could be a very rare occurence...

Originally posted by jsobecky

Pretty soon, abortion could be a very rare occurence...

Is that a bad thing?

Some would say that's a matter of choice.

Some would also say that Rocky V was the best of the Rocky series, but anyone with a brain knows that Rocky V was horrible.

For some reason I think pro-gay, pro-choice liberals will have a slightly better time seeing through this one than the "conservative lawmaker's" own constituents (unless of course Rush explains it both well and frequently enough). This is ripe for backfire.

And...

Anyone that sought an abortion based strictly on sexual orientation is a bigot. It's hard for me to imagine any pro-choice person being remotely upset about those people choosing not to reproduce. It's further disturbing to me that some lawmaker would even toy with forcing children into those households.

And...

It's sad to see the recent forced eugenics discussions from some literal neo-nazi factions seeking to eradicate "the homosexual gene" (not anyone in this thread) find an actual life in supposedly real politics. Even if it is just more deceptive and insincere Republican posturing.

One for the record books all around though. A banner Republican day.

Wait, what's that Neo-Jesus? You... you... want to say something? Okay.

And Neo-Jesus says I'm wrong and going to hell. He co-sponsored the bill with State Rep. Brian Duprey, R-Hampden. Not because he loves gays. He hates gays. But this kind of political posturing is exactly the sort of thing he had in mind for the heart's of man all along. That and capitalism.

RANT
You crack me up man! I assume Neo-Jesus is diametrically opposed to traditional Jesus, who expicitly encouraged men to love each other...

As to the issue, this is truly bizarre. I can't begin to fathom the motivation behind introducing this sort of legislation, other than the obvious; it gets publicity.

The actual issue, the meat, is whether prospective parents should be able to engage in selective breeding. I don't see any problem with individuals making decisions about the life of their unborn children, as repulsive as I may find it personally. There is precedent in the animal kingdom, and has proven an effective (if morally inexcusable) way to direct the evolution of one's own species.

Lions eat the offspring that are born to their current mate, if those cubs are from another mate. They do this to insure that no parental investment is wasted on the offspring of another male. It's a sensible (in evolutionary terms) way to manage parental investment and encourage fidelity. Of course, human beings aren't lions, and we don't necessarily have to follow their example.

Many animal species choose not to breed when faced with adverse environmental conditions. In a few cases, this decision is purely biolgical, and happens inside the animal due to a change in biochemistry. In other words, the animals are still getting frisky, they're just not getting pregnant. That might be a nifty avenue to explore, since it might conquer some of the objections from the right.

I wonder if this is a gay issue, or an abortion issue. I'm having a really hard time figuring out exactly what the congressman hopes to gain by introducing this bill (other than increase the already pronounced polarization between idealogical opposites in the constituency).

There may be one more side to this discussion that wasn't mentioned in the article. That is - is being gay a choice? If someone feels that this is a choice and not an inborn trait, then aborting a gay or lesbian fetus would be obsurd.

But what if there is a gay "gene" or pre-natal testing could show changes or sizes in the brain that seem to correlate with homosexuality? Would this guy change his story? It's an easy bet to push for this legislation now, but might be much more touchy and difficult when this type of diagnostic technology exists.

And for the record, I personally don't think being homosexual choice thing, and I don't think abortion is the right thing to do, but I'm not the boss of you. My daddy can beat up your daddy. Aborting gay or lesbian unborn fetuses is downright crazy though - it implies that its a horriffic condition that is worse than death and it implies that parents would not want to raise gay children. Puhlease.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
RANT
You crack me up man! I assume Neo-Jesus is diametrically opposed to traditional Jesus, who expicitly encouraged men to love each other...

As to the issue, this is truly bizarre. I can't begin to fathom the motivation behind introducing this sort of legislation, other than the obvious; it gets publicity.

Neo-Jesus is both a curse and a gift.

But in a moment of feeling especially big and clever He let his guard down and revealed His master plan behind all this Defense of Gay Fetuses nonsense.

In creating a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, He's pre-purchased the moral high ground in a debate of His own framing. This is especially useful to Neo-Jesus as His marketing of hypothetical ethics based on undiscovered science will turn on the ad hominem of being able to accuse anyone that doesn't support Him as an anti-gay eugenic Nazi. In fact, it is His will that all of mankind be wedged into the following divisive political camps by angry pundits turning phrases on the Defense of Gay Fetuses bill:

Anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gay fetus, compassionate conservatives...

And eugenic Nazi liberal bastards.

His genious is revealed in the following examples of prophetic future debates:

Alan Colmes: Ann, don't you think all this "defense of gay fetuses" nonsense is a bit of insincere posturing?

Ann Coulter: No. No I don't Alan. I think what's insincere are liberals taking the gay vote for granted. How can you not defend gay fetuses? How can you be pro-genocide of gay fetuses and call yourselves liberals?

Alan Colmes: Ann...

Sean Hannity: Good point Ann Coulter. How about it Alan?

Alan Colmes: Wait...

Sean Hannity: Why do liberals hate gays Alan? Little defenseless gay fetuses?

Alan Colmes: Sean...

Ann Coulter: What is this 1942 Germany?

Alan Colmes: Ann...

Sean Hannity: I'll let you think about that while we break.

Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I don't care if someone is born gay or they simply make the choice to be gay, they have that right. It's in the constitutuion of my country.

I'll weigh in on the abortion debate when i find myself pregnant.

Love and light,

Wupy

Reminds me of the Chinese choosing to abort on basis of gender. Should people be denied the right to know about what kind of child they are carrying so that they don't make a wrong decision?

Shouldn't the only decision to abort a baby be based on if the mother and father just choose not to have 'a' child. Not a 'gay' child or 'girl or boy child'?

No, this can't be right, it's flawed. We need more and more information about the fetus in this day in age with all the cancer, disease, deformalities and so on...

What we do need is an educated public with strong moral leaders to guide us in our growth, to promote strong values and then we will see little cases of such abortion based out of fear. There is room in this world for all of us, whatever color, shape, size, sexual-orientation, religion, fears, pride and such...

A gay gene would be a mutated Gene and should be aborted or cured with genetic therapy in the Womb. There is no reason for the continuation of self destructive mutations within the genome. Now if gays are not genetic, which is my belief, they should be accepted and tolerated, as that is their choice in lifestyle. But a defective Gene should be fixed. Think of how many people have had their lives destroyed if this gay disease.

Perhaps the gays in Maine came across a thread I started on numerous message boards concerning this topic and are in a mad scramble to perpetuate the sin.