Friday, January 14, 2005

Aborting Gays - This Author's Opinion

Laurent Moss wrote an incredibly thought provoking piece over at the Western Standard under the title Aborting Gays. The article explains part of the history behind the notion that people are born gay. This argument is widely used in the gay community to explain why homosexuals should receive the same rights as people born of a certain race or gender, things which people have no control over.

The question then arises. If scientists actually do identify the gay gene, will this lead to more abortions?

Certainly some members of the gay community think so and they have rallied behind a gay and lesbian pro-life group to prevent homosexuals from becoming extinct. The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lebians wrote a January, 1997, op-ed on this subject. In it they wrote, "If gays and lesbians want to object to aborting the gay and lesbian unborn on grounds that we are persons of worth and dignity who have a right to grow up and lead productive and fulfilling lives, then we have another issue to confront. Because if we have a right to life, doesn't every other unborn child have that same right?

Certainly, this argument can be made in America where their constitution affirms that all men were created equal with certain inalienable rights, but this is Canada. Canada is not about equality. Canada is about protecting the rights of minorities through affirmative action. Canadian lawmakers increasingly reject creation based moral values as they grope around in the dark for an intellectual version of morality.

With that in mind, there are two options. You can make it illegal for doctors to tell mothers that their fetus has the gay gene, which would not stand a challenge under free speech laws, to say nothing about enforceability, or you can make it illegal to abort a fetus where the doctor has advised the mother the fetus has the gay gene.

It is conceivable that a fetus could be protected under section 318 of Canada's criminal code, now that Svend Robinson's Bill C-250 has amended the law to protect homosexuals from possible genocide. There would be no need to protect the unborn without the gay gene since there is no fear straight people will be completely eradicated.

All you would need for this to happen is for one liberal activist judge to uphold a woman's right to choose, but restrict that right where the judge perceives it promotes genocide of a protected group, in this case homosexuals. The judge could make this ruling and use both the criminal code and charter of rights to back him up.

The idea that mothers could abort everyone but gays may sound far fetched, but who would have thought moral relativism would have gone this far?


At 12:07 p.m., Blogger selutha said...

I think poeple need something to do...

Think about it now we have people saying "If poeple can identify who has a chance of being gay they will abort in effect killing us as a people." Now personally I dont think it has much to do with genes. Thought and control over ourselves is what sets us apart from the animals. In other words even if you have the gene to become an alacholic doesn't mean you will become one. If you do it was a choice, don't blame it on your genes it was your weakness... Now saying that even if you have the gene to be gay doesn't mean the child will choose to be gay. Yes, its a choice don't lie to yourself.


Post a Comment

<< Home