6 ms·

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pre

In reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.

r00fus 9y ago
Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. (edit - spelling)
- yipopov 9y ago
  Whose cognitive dissonance?
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Those that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare". My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.
    - yipopov 9y ago
      That's hypocrisy, not cognitive dissonance. Though I suppose a lot of hypocrites also experience cognitive dissonance. But if you're going to accuse someone of hypocrisy I think you should be a bit more specific about exactly who you are accusing.
quantumofmalice 9y ago
By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.
- zer00eyz 9y ago
  Thanks for your candor: Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question. If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?
  - quantumofmalice 9y ago
    That would be a tough situation, I'm not sure. My first thought is that the moral choice for me would be to accept celibacy and try to do the best I can for others in that role.
    - debatem1 9y ago
      Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
      - quantumofmalice 9y ago
        That's a reasonable perspective. I would have to ask my children to remain celibate, though, and would it be fair to put that burden on them, even (maybe especially) if they didn't accept it? It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
      - azinman2 9y ago
        Why do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?
        jschwartzi 9y ago
        Because the people who would want to get rid of their homosexual children want to do so because they consider it a sin.
grondilu 9y ago
Well, there's always preimplantation genetic diagnosis[1] and CRISPR. That wouldn't require the termination of any pregnancy. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagno...
natecavanaugh 9y ago
Your other comments make me think you're someone who appreciates an honest discussion, so thanks for that. I do have an honest question of the reverse. Those most in favor of homosexuality are also those okay with abortion. But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Other comments have rightly commented it could be inverse (selecting for homosexuality), but I think all pro-lifers would prefer anyone being born, and allowing them to be responsible for their own soul, so that answer is easier for me to imagine.
- mfukar 9y ago
  > But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Not more so than terminating a pregnancy for any other reason.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Doesn't sound like it. Usually it's for some reason that's justifiable, e.g. don't have the means to support it, don't want a child ever/at this moment in my life, teenage pregnancy, product of rape, fetus has some inherited disease, etc. Merely dropping a child because it'll be gay, while being ok to keep another that wouldn't is not exactly of that nature. Even the most casual reasoning for abortion ("I don't want a child, period") doesn't imply anything more, whereas this can be seen as implying you hate gay people.
    - bobthechef 9y ago
      > fetus has some inherited disease By your logic, if homosexual attraction had genetic causes, could it not also be seen as "some inherited disease"? You're doing a great deal of question begging. You're beginning with an ideological stance vis-a-vis homosexual attraction that is exactly a point of issue, and then tailoring moral arguments to suit the position. You've confused "the position that homosexual attraction is disordered" with "hating gay people" and then unjustifiably construed "hating gay people" as not entailed by the desire to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, i.e., it's okay to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason unless the reason is that the fetus is genetically conditioned for homosexual attraction, in which case it isn't okay because that would be an act of hate against gay people by virtue of my prior ideological commitments. You must see the absurdity of that line of thought. The position of sound anti-abortionists would be that no matter the characteristics of the fetus, the fetus is a human being and the killing of any innocent human being is immoral. Your position, on the other hand, seems to be very ad hoc, relying on special pleading that is driven by prior sui generis ideological commitments.
Top19 9y ago
This is actually the plot of a movie from the 90’s based on a popular play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(fil...
Balgair 9y ago
Maybe. Many people still think homosexuality is a choice, not an inherent trait. The genetic argument may just be ignored entirely. People somehow believe stranger things about the flatness of the Earth.

r00fus 9y ago

Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. (edit - spelling)

yipopov 9y ago
Whose cognitive dissonance?
- r00fus 9y ago
  Those that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare". My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.
  - yipopov 9y ago
    That's hypocrisy, not cognitive dissonance. Though I suppose a lot of hypocrites also experience cognitive dissonance. But if you're going to accuse someone of hypocrisy I think you should be a bit more specific about exactly who you are accusing.

quantumofmalice 9y ago

By HN standards I would be considered opposed to homosexuality and I am opposed to abortion. The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.

zer00eyz 9y ago
Thanks for your candor: Since were in the realm of hypothetical, I would like to ask you a question. If we manage to identify homosexuality as a genetic disorder, and we determined that there was a 99.999% chance that your children would be homosexual, what would you do?
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  That would be a tough situation, I'm not sure. My first thought is that the moral choice for me would be to accept celibacy and try to do the best I can for others in that role.
  - debatem1 9y ago
    Out of curiosity, why not select life? Everybody sins-- why not accept that maybe this sin is more likely and love the children that might be born to you?
    - quantumofmalice 9y ago
      That's a reasonable perspective. I would have to ask my children to remain celibate, though, and would it be fair to put that burden on them, even (maybe especially) if they didn't accept it? It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
    - azinman2 9y ago
      Why do you have to go to sin? What’s sinful about being born any which way?
      - jschwartzi 9y ago
        Because the people who would want to get rid of their homosexual children want to do so because they consider it a sin.

grondilu 9y ago

Well, there's always preimplantation genetic diagnosis[1] and CRISPR. That wouldn't require the termination of any pregnancy. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagno...

natecavanaugh 9y ago

Your other comments make me think you're someone who appreciates an honest discussion, so thanks for that. I do have an honest question of the reverse. Those most in favor of homosexuality are also those okay with abortion. But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Other comments have rightly commented it could be inverse (selecting for homosexuality), but I think all pro-lifers would prefer anyone being born, and allowing them to be responsible for their own soul, so that answer is easier for me to imagine.

mfukar 9y ago
> But if parents started aborting because they were homosexual, would there be any sort of moral/ethical issue? Not more so than terminating a pregnancy for any other reason.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 9y ago
  Doesn't sound like it. Usually it's for some reason that's justifiable, e.g. don't have the means to support it, don't want a child ever/at this moment in my life, teenage pregnancy, product of rape, fetus has some inherited disease, etc. Merely dropping a child because it'll be gay, while being ok to keep another that wouldn't is not exactly of that nature. Even the most casual reasoning for abortion ("I don't want a child, period") doesn't imply anything more, whereas this can be seen as implying you hate gay people.
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    > fetus has some inherited disease By your logic, if homosexual attraction had genetic causes, could it not also be seen as "some inherited disease"? You're doing a great deal of question begging. You're beginning with an ideological stance vis-a-vis homosexual attraction that is exactly a point of issue, and then tailoring moral arguments to suit the position. You've confused "the position that homosexual attraction is disordered" with "hating gay people" and then unjustifiably construed "hating gay people" as not entailed by the desire to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason, i.e., it's okay to terminate a pregnancy for whatever reason unless the reason is that the fetus is genetically conditioned for homosexual attraction, in which case it isn't okay because that would be an act of hate against gay people by virtue of my prior ideological commitments. You must see the absurdity of that line of thought. The position of sound anti-abortionists would be that no matter the characteristics of the fetus, the fetus is a human being and the killing of any innocent human being is immoral. Your position, on the other hand, seems to be very ad hoc, relying on special pleading that is driven by prior sui generis ideological commitments.

Top19 9y ago

This is actually the plot of a movie from the 90’s based on a popular play: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds_(fil...

Balgair 9y ago

Maybe. Many people still think homosexuality is a choice, not an inherent trait. The genetic argument may just be ignored entirely. People somehow believe stranger things about the flatness of the Earth.