Now first of all, this question is purely hypothetical, please treat it as such.\n\nCurrent medical science has not proven that homosexuality is an innate thing. But suppose that science did prove that the homosexual orientation was innate, and impossible to change.\n\nI understand that by definition, people that are pro-life are against abortion. But frequently people in this group are also opposed to homosexuality.\n\nDoes the opposition to abortion outweigh the opposition to homosexuality. And if so, then what would you as a prospective parent do about the sexual orientation of your child?\n\nI think that abortion in any case is a tragedy. In certain parts of the world, women choose to abort female fetuses. With the increasing technology, I would not be surprised if mothers could choose to abort fetuses with undesirable traits, like hair color, eye color, etc. So I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that one day people may decide to abort homosexual fetuses.
214769
Very interesting question . . . but life trumps all else!  Abortion is murder, no matter what.  That the child might have any "defect", physical, emotional, etc is not the point.  The child might grow up to be a serial killer, but that does not mean they do not have the right to life.  \n\nHomosexual orientation (being attracted only to members of one's own gender) is not a sin in and of itself.  The sin is acting on a disordered desire . . . just as it is sin to have heterosexual sex outside of marriage.  As far as parenting a homosexually oriented child, I think the same difficulties apply as with any child (of course, I am speculating here).  You still have to help your child understand sin and that they will have desires that are sinful and that they must choose to not act on those desires.  I am sure this is a difficult task with any child.  \n\nAbortion, however, is not the solution to any of this.
664363
I'm pro-choice and was raised Roman Catholic.  There is diversity in the pro-choice group, so I assume there is diversity in the pro-life group as well.
216373
It is likely that there are both biological and environmental factors at work in sexual orientation (not to mention free will).  For instance, men who develop breast cancer typically have very high estrogen levels.  They are also many times more likely to be homosexuals.  This evidence suggests a strong biological basis.  Conversely, adult lesbians are several times more likely to have undergone rape during their childhoods compared to heterosexual women.  This evidence would seem to indicate a strong environmental and psychological influence.\n\nWhen talking about a system of behavior as complex as sexual orientation, it is impossible to determine a single cause.  Asking if someone is born gay is like asking if someone is born Republican, or born spiritual, or born enjoying horror movies.  To the best of our knowledge, humans are born with certain behavioral tendencies.  These tendencies are strenghtened or suppressed by our experience, then translated into action through conscious expression of will.
247940
No, they can't.  This is the wrong forum for this question.  Closed minds and open mouths are all you will get.  Love to them is closed-minded.  The church turned its back on me so I turned my back on the church.  If Christianity is the "true" religion, Jesus is weeping for it.\n\nI'm having trouble copying this person's hard-to-memorize nickname so here's what she wrote:\n\nyou know i was reading a study on fraternal twins (being one male and the other female) anyway it was found that they have a higher than normal likelihood of being gay or bisexual, it was thought to be because they were exposed to each others hormones in the womb... if that's the case you wouldn't be looking for a gene you would be looking for an event during the pregnancy which caused the baby to be exposed to a higher than normal level of estrogen or testosterone... \n\nActually, in Physiological Psychology class, we discussed a study on a nucleus of the hypothalamus that has a gender and a sexual orientation difference because exposure to hormones in the womb makes it larger.  In Women, the nucleus is smaller than men because women are not exposed to ANY hormones during pregnancy.  The area is MUCH larger in men because they are exposed to a LOT of hormones during pregnancy (I believe mainly estrogen and the testes convert that to testosterone or something like that, I don't have my notes with me at the time).  The same area of homosexual men are somewhat in between in size from men and women which would suggest a LOWER exposure to hormones in the womb.\n\nGod said he formed us while we were still in our mothers' womb didn't he?  Wouldn't that mean that if homosexuality is determined in the womb, that it is part of his plan?  \n\nI believe that in this day and age, as a believer in the migration of souls which have lessons to learn in each life, that homosexuals today are here to learn a lesson about hate and prejudice.  So I must thank Christians with open mouths and closed minds for making that lesson easier for me to learn.
569368
You are mistaking a preference for spending time with a person of the same sex, with an inability to procreate.  Historically, many "gay" people had children.  They seemed to find enough motivation to mate with someone even if that is not their preference.  Given that, there is no reason why being gay would stop one from procreating.\n\nIn fact, historically, it could be advantage in some cases.  The whole point of pro-creation is to survive long enough to mate and then to ensure that your offspring also survive long enough to mate.   Women can better rely on other women to help raise children, and the importance of male bonding in combat or dangerous situations is quite clear.\n\nThe real question is does a single "gay" gene exist.  I have my doubts that it is that simple.  Human interaction is a complex affair.  I suspect that there are multiple genes involved as well as environmental conditions (both pre and post natal).  That doesn't mean, that being gay is a choice.  A given gene may make it more or less likely, but almost all the contributing influences likely occurred long before self awareness was firmly in place.
35645
NO, not right.  Your question is conveluted and misses the point completely.  I can't even respond becuase your conclusions come from no real reasoning.  The tall and skinny of it is this: our governement is not anti-life.  It is pretty clearly pro-life, and anti-abortion.  Consider the fact that there is currently a third trimester partial birth abortion ban.  This is the only kind of abortion that the Supreme Court has said would be acceptable to ban completely.  And the FEDERAL government did this.  It is not a people or a state issue.  It is no business of the government's what I do with my uterus - I would never presume to tell you or Ms. Rice what to do with yours, so stay the hell away from mine.  The fact is abortion is not a form of murder (argue it all you want, I am talking legally) , so your argument that we can't comitt murder in our bedroom blah blah really doesn't follow.  This is a privacy issue - the Supreme Court has held that our Constitution protects privacy interests in our own homes in many many different ways.  I suggest you consider the fact that this posting board ONLY exists becuase the Constition provides a free speech protection.  The government cannot come in and tell you not to express your opinion (thought the Bush White House apparently feels this doesn't apply to them...).  Get off your crazy high horse, your argument is so off and so full of misunderstings its not even funny.
590940
Well done.  I knew about the one in Exodus, but the others are new to me.  Thanks for pointing that out.  \n\nI'm a Bible believing Christian and I have always supported abortion.  In fact, I support abortion even when the mother doesn't want to in cases where the child will be born seriously defective.  \n\nI have gotten into many arguments with my Christian friends over this and I believe their problem is that they listen to what the preacher says and not the Bible.  For me, the Bible trumps the preacher any day.\n\nGreat job.\n\n===\nTo Williamzo: Exodus 21:22 says {para} "If two men fight and during the fight a pregnant woman is injured such that she miscarries, the man shall be FINED as the judges determine, but  if the woman also dies, then the man is put to death."  I suggest you read it again.\n\nWhat God is telling us in this verse is that an unborn baby is NOT the same thing as a human life.  If it were, the punishment would be death for that also.  Thus, God is telling us that abortion is NOT murder.\n\nBefore conception/before entering the womb - Isn't it obvious that God is talking about their spirit and not their physical body?
302405
I think your understanding of the science is not quite there. The "gay gene" (or at least one of several reported as potentially being called such) does not define a trait or characteristic but rather it pre-disposes. That is, it is not like a gene for determining eye colour.  It requires other influences to produce a non-hetero adult.  Some of these determining influences are (or have been) intimated as being one or more of: behavioural, biochemical, psychological or pathological.\n\nFor example, pick any one of the expectant mother's endocrine glands -  and you can be sure that an "over-production" of some hormone has been attributed as (contributing to) the cause of SOMETHING in the post-natal child.\n\nI do take exception to the word "flaw" in your commentary.  It may be a difference and, indeed (as you go on to say), it does then lessen the chances of their procreating but it has no place (being subjective) in the objectivity of a scientific question.\n\nMy last point, I would especially like you to consider, when deriving your conclusion, and that is:\n\n1)Given the empirical approach of Science (building blocks to construct knowledge) \n2)the increasing specialisation of its adherents (e.g. from scientist to chemist to biochemist to neurochemist to neuro- toxicist)\n3)the continued existence of non-heterosexuals (despite bell book and ban e.g. Aversion therapy)\n\nIs there an overarching reason that non-heteros exist? \n\nIf there is a scientific reason for their existence (cause as yet undetermined) it has not been recognised because the different strands of Science (which would combine to prove or, at least postulate the idea), together with perhaps Psychology and Philosophy are so distended from one another.     \n\nI hope that this was reasoned enough and provides food for thought.\n\nRegards
576503
Without an actual poll being conducted, there's no way to say what percentage of people were born gay as opposed to .... choosing? it.  Just to put your statistic in perspective.\n\nThey've been taken out of the gene pool....wrong.  If by that you mean that they can't have kids, that's not true.\n\nThey don't have the desire to procreate...wrong.  I don't have that desire, in fact I find it abhorrent.  But I'm not gay.\n\nWho cares if it's abhorrent to us?  And of course they CHOOSE to do it, just the same as we choose to do what we do sexually.
427589
I am a conservative.\nI do NOT support sanctions and laws against gays marrying and women having abortions.\nThey are definently moral  AND political issues.\nThe reason it is a political issue is the fear of change and the fear that someones morals are not going to be the same.  If it was just a moral issue there would be no laws abridging the issues.\n\nWhat you are looking at is the Republican party platform.  There are real conservatives out here and we want real change.
157147
Unborn babies are babies nonetheless, and human. The silly justifications people try to come up with for abortion and abortion itself disgust me. The fetus IS human - firstly considering that he/she has the DNA makeup of a human being. The embryo/fetus does not go through different stages in "evolution," a concept that was shown to be a hoax perpetuated by Haeckel.\n\nWhen you have an abortion, you're killing someone. Why do you think would-be mothers find themselves in great distress, as though they just killed their 2 years old boy? Frankly, killing a person while s/he is in the fetal stage of human development is no different from killing that person at 2 years of age. Oh, and the baby isn't part of the mother, technically - considering that the baby has to secrete enzymes that prevent the mother's own body from attacking the baby. The baby is essentially a parasite as far as the mother's body is concerned, so it's not part of the mother's body. It isn't like removing a limb, it's like heartlessly killing a baby in its crib.\n\nAs a former fetus, I support life. I don't support pro-murder.
586125
I think it is a good idea. After all, you pointed out that homosexuality exists whether we like it or not and we can't really keep kids heads buried in the sand for the rest of their lives. If you are a teacher, I also feel that you can do a better job of approaching this issue with objectivity than some parents can. I would just point out that it is a choice that some consenting adults make and leave it at that.
337204
i havent read all the responses to this ques so sorry for any over lapping ideas.\ni am of the opinion that being attracted to the same sex is the most natural thing, and man woman marriage is a part of conditioning. well now that may be refuted. but marriage, relation or watever is a very personal choice. its like telling someone publically not to wear a bra but continue with a breif! i mean its ones choice whether he/she wants to b with a man a woman or both. if any one tries to stop this sort of personal desire or right, they are coming in the way of a person's regular life - and that my dear friends is the very basic threat to all our natural, basic and fundamental rights. this is the root cause of a lot of evil, disharmony and unhappiness to many people. live and let live. support those who want to b with people of their own sex. its healthy for them as well as people around them. being gay is like saying i'm happy, why come in someone's way of happiness? \nso yes...ultimatum - lesbian/gay marriages should be supported ad not banned. everyone has the right to a happy pesonal life that is spent in the loving wake of the one they chose to loose their heart to.
607558
I have always believed it was more nature than nurture.  Too many things didn't fit the nurture.  Too many people from different backgrounds end up gay.  \n\nAngeltress:  Many genetic traits are only passed on by the mother and never the father.  Just because gay people don't procreate doesn't mean that the genetic information doesn't make it to the next generation.  The best example I can think of is Leebers Disease.  It is a genetic disorder that causes blindness in males and insanity in females.  It is never passed from a male to an offspring and is always passed from the mother.  This disorder is more rare than homosexuality, however the gene that causes it continues to be passed to next generations.\nAs long as somebody is procreating, the genetic information is passed to the next generation.  Same for homosexuality.  The recessive trait is there...  being passed on...  but doesn't require gay people to pass it on...  even though many gay people have children who grow up to have their own children.\n\nThe question I have now is will Christians begin aborting the little abominations in their womb so that they don't have to raise a child hated by god, or will they continue to have them, mess up their minds by trying to change them, then throw them our into a sorry world to fend for themselves like they have been doing for generations...
638776
Taking the religious aspect out of homosexuality...think for a second how incredibly unnatural it is.....females were designed to produce offspring and that takes a male counterpart. If homosexuality was right and natural then how would we ever continue the human race??? Please name one other animal on this earth where a male is with a male......I know people would say you can't compare humans to animals but we are. We are the more intelligent species of animals but we are animals. Heterosexuality just seems a little more natural to me....
629628
There is some truth in what you say. The rabid feminists (most of who strike me as lesbians anyway) always chant, "it's a woman's right to chose." The abortion issue can be solved in another phrase: "if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex."
316770
i never thought about it that way.thank you Spock.people all the time say that Christians are imposing their religion on abortion.you know,your right,if an atheist came forward on t.v and said that, the pro-choice would never say their imposing their views on the abortion issue.\n              God Bless