A gay fetus killing hypothetical

[Jackalope]

move forward with the pregnancy

^^^ this ^^^

[Grundy]

Odd how not a single theist has chimed in on this.

Yeah...I figured the nonbelievers would move ahead with the pregnancy, like myself. Theists probably don't want to answer because they have to choose the lesser of "two evils" and they don't want to appear hypocritical.

Or maybe the believers ironically spend more time in the atheism section of the forum and don't make it out to the politics side very often.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you spend any substantial amount of time wondering where your unborn child might stow his pecker...I think we've found a way to detect the "paedophilia gene" right there.

[Autumnlicious]

There isn't a single valid reason to abort a child based on sexual preference (although a trickier question would be if they found a paedophilia gene.. that would make for more difficult moral question).

Even if the gene was discovered, unless there was evidence to show it directly was a factor in the act of committing a pedophilic act for the majority of the cases, aborting it would be for as much of a good reason as aborting it because you fear the child will be gay.

Pre-crime is not a crime.

Would you abort over any other difficulty for the kid? Down syndrome? A tendency towards addiction?

Yes to the first one. No to the second. Why?

Dealing with a child with a predisposed vulnerability to addiction can be done with my resources.

Taking care of a child whom is cursed with a genetic defect that consigns them to a limited life style and limited self-determination?

Never, unless it already was born and I had the resources.

Because I think about their life post-me, having a child who is capable of self-determination and self-managing in a strong manner means they can survive well after I am gone. One who lacks those abilities, unless happened upon by a kind soul or assigned a care taker, will be unable to thrive.

And having a child who cannot possibly thrive, I think, is a grave disservice to the developing intelligence that inhabits that body. Also, I look at the suffering in other places in the world, where individuals who may have great intellectual capabilities die for lack of food.

They do not thrive. They suffer. Eventually, they die.

Failure to thrive is a massive concern of any parent, and it should be -- a parent should always worry, make sure they're preparing their offspring to survive instead of to die.

Seeing as people with Down syndrome can live perfectly fulfilling lives, and addiction can be overcome, no, I wouldn't.

If the simple emotion of happiness is your sole qualifier, then sure.

Overcoming addiction, as a basic idea, has at least an end in sight.

You cannot solve Down syndrome at the moment.

And I would argue, until that is possible, it is in the best interests of the family to spare themselves the challenge.

Raising children is expensive enough as it is.

[kılıç_mehmet]

For the purposes of this hypothetical, imagine a not-to-distant future when the popular claim that homosexuals are born that way is proven correct. We find the "gay gene" and can detect it in unborn babies. Otherwise, society is mostly the same as today. Gays are still fighting for certain rights and are thought as sinful by a large percentage of the population.

You or your wife/girlfriend/whatever is pregnant and the baby will be born homosexual. Do you move forward with the pregnancy or abort the fetus?

I'm curious how atheists, who are typically pro-choice and gay rights, and how theists, who are typically pro-life and think homosexuality is a sin, will answer this.

Well, I'm not really anti-abortion, and I'm rather supportive of aborting babies with mental disorders and things that might produce problems for themselves, and their parents later on...So yes, I'd probably abort the baby if I'd know for sure that it'd be born homosexual.
But this is a hypothetical question, I don't even know why I even bothered with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd probably abort a human being after they've been born if you knew they were a homosexual..lol.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You'd probably abort a human being after they've been born if you knew they were a homosexual..lol.

The thread was about the hypothetical situation of whether a person would abort a baby if they knew he/she would become homosexual.

[Faith No More]

I don't think I could ever advocate the abortion of my child unless it was for something severe like tay-sachs. I don't know why people are so hung up on sexuality. It's such a trivial issue.

This question does bring up an interesting point that I've heard before, and that is what about the bigots who would abort a child because of sexuality? Would discovering a gay gene be worth that?

You'd probably abort a human being after they've been born if you knew they were a homosexual..lol

I'm sure he'd abort anything non-Turkish regardless of sexuality.

[Grundy]

This question does bring up an interesting point that I've heard before, and that is what about the bigots who would abort a child because of sexuality? Would discovering a gay gene be worth that?

That is what I originally thought when hearing this question too. I didn't think up this question, it was posed on Google+. I doubt we'll find one gene for sexual preference. Maybe a series of genes that somehow influence it.

I just wanted my first thread after my introduction to be titled "A gay fetus killing hypothetical." Now I've gotten it out of my system.

[Faith No More]

It was also the subject of a 'Law & Order' episode.