I find it funny, upon contemplation, to consider that a few hundred homosexual activists have the potential to grind the Capital to a halt and make a liar or hypocrite out of every member of the US legislation.
The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL, which doubles as their philosophy: plagal mode is a musical term referring to a kind of harmony, reflecting their position of harmony with all human life) has petitioned for the approval of a bill to be presented to the US government. As written, the bill would, in the event that a prenatal test for homosexuality or a disposition towards homosexuality is developed, make it a crime to abort children with a high likelihood of being born gay or becoming gay. I, for one, love this idea -- because, no matter who votes which way, everyone loses.
Republicans have two options: Either vote for or against it. If they vote for it, they would have to admit that homosexuality is a condition preexisting the individual's choice, thus negating any possibility of legitimately arguing against such issues as gay marriage or gay adoption. If they vote against it, however, they would admit that they do not care about unborn human life "under any and all circumstances."
Liberals are even worse off. If they vote in favor of the legislation, they would have to admit that they do not uphold a woman's choice "for any reason," and that human nature begins long before viability or birth-- that human nature is, in fact, inextricably linked to human life, and that human life begins at conception. On the other hand, if they vote against it, they would be admitting to all homosexuals that they do not truly care about protecting gays unless it becomes politically advantageous for them -- something no Democrat would want to portray.
I almost hope that such a test could be developed, if for no reason other than to see the images of agony come across our elected officials' faces as they deliberate over which cheek would hurt less to get spanked on.
Comments (18)
classic conundrum !!!!!
1-3% of the population with power to push around the other 97%...."We battle not against flesh and blood..."
HaHa! I Love It! How do you weasel out of this one Mr Lifetime Politician?
what would jeff beck do?
@Such_Were_You - That is the beauty of a Republic, my friend -- our laws are based on their compliance with the Constitution, not on majority rule. If 1% of the people are right, should they be silenced by the 99% who are wrong?
Regardless, I think it would be awesome to see politicians be put in their place by a handful of pro-life gays and their heterosexual supporters (among which I count myself). Abortion has become such a political issue that it's all about power-mongering and vote-getting -- not actual questions of life and death which hold actual consequences for millions of people a year. Legislation like this would bring the issue back into focus and force politicians to really think about where their loyalty lies.
@GermanWrench - As far as rights go, you are of course correct. Having been "gay" I know the fuller gay agenda...Yep there is a gay agenda...I don't talk about it, because it just gives Christians a reason to become condemning. I have no problems with giving gay people the same civil rights you and I share, I am with you 100%. I don't even have a problem with gay marriage, as long as the Church is exempt from being involved.
I've always had a problem, even before I quit the state of being "gay", with much of the gay rights agenda. (I have as much problem with the Religious Left, and Right agendas, for similar reasons).
Look at it from my perspective...make it illegal to abort a perceived gay baby, then how long before it's illegal to change a child perceived as gay, or an adult who is gay? You see I want the right to choose to stop being gay, and I want the right to seek out the help of mental health professionals for this purpose. (yes, it's more complicated than just stopping, but it's not impossible).
Please don't forget the countless numbers of your brothers and sisters in Christ who desire to pursue their choice and right to change. This isn't just about the rights of a perceived "gay" unborn...That I can say with some understanding of the very real gay agenda.
Lonnie
@Such_Were_You - I'm not disputing that, and for those who feel that they are truly gay against their nature I am 110% in favor of their freedom to choose their own alternative way of being. But in order for them to have that freedom, they must first be born. Yes, that does also include the possibility that they would choose to remain gay, but this would be a chance worth taking.
Honestly, I don't think such a test could conceivably be devised, but the possibilities of it are very disturbing; just as parents may abort on the basis of sex, discrimination against sexual orientation via extermination would largely impact the children of conservative parents who object to homosexuality to an extreme point, and the children of "sympathetic" parents who would kill their children in an effort to "save them" from the hardships of being homosexual. I've considered the possibilities of my son's being gay, and honestly, I would be okay with it -- whether he chose to remain that way or struggles with his orientation and wants to change. Because whether it's nature or nurture or a combination of both, I'm giving him life so that he may ultimately have the choice to do with it whatever he wants, insofar as he is able. It is the ultimate pro-choice act.
I agree that there is an activist agenda, just as there is an activist agenda in the pro-life movement, the abortion-choice movement, the conservative right movement, liberal left, on and on. But beyond those agendas are the lives of every American just trying to do the best they know how. I believe that the unborn have the right to continue that fundamentally American ideal and to take part in its fruition, even if their genetics or birth order or hormone exposure make them likely to be homosexual.
Those who claim to be "pro-choice" need to stop seeing the "right to choose" as one that applies only to reproduction, and instead see it as a fundamental right of all Americans, born and unborn, male and female, gay and straight.
And now the rocks cry out.
The very idea of trying to write a law to prohibit something in the future which doesn't even exist in the present is a terrifying thought in itself, regardless of the issue at hand.
@thereluctantsinger - Good point. But I think that the logical conclusions that could follow such legislation would ultimately be beneficial to the pro-life movement, even if such a test is never developed (which I believe is far more likely anyway). Since Roe v. Wade cannot be annulled or overturned as it currently stands, the Supreme Court would need to make a ruling that negates its conclusion of constitutional adjudication -- and such a law would open the door to just such a ruling.
I think it would not be as bad as you might think for Democrats. After all none of this wonderful analysis will be reported by the State Run Media. All that will be said regardless of how the votes went down is that the Repubicans were wrong and the Democrats were right. And since at least 53% of Americans only believe what CNN tells them and many others still haven't figured out that they are the propaganda office for the Democrats there would be no backlash.
I find this incredibly entertaining, and yet the logical messiness contained in the bill itself... wow.
@GermanWrench - I absolutely agree completely with your stance on the rights of unborn persons, and the right for gay people to be and live unmolested as gay persons. I have always believed what The Declaration of Independence says, when addressing the rights of human beings, is one of the greatest pieces of human rights doctrine there is.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It isn't written in the Bible, but I swear I hear God say "Amen" every time I read it. This is the heart of all that is great and good about the American Experiment. And no matter what anyone says to the contrary, the unborn American deserves to be afforded the same God given right the Declaration of Independence declares for you and me. And if your son ever did self-identify as gay, I'd support his rights to his pursuit of happiness as well.
I'm not addressing abortion at all. Here's my question: What's the difference between not being able to change a child's destiny in the womb, and being able to change a person's destiny who is already born? How many steps are there between the rights of the perceived gay unborn and the perceived gay child, gay adolescent, gay adult? If a law exists which says you can't kill them in the womb because they're gay, how many steps is it before there is a law stating you can't do anything about anyone's orientation for any reason at all? As I write this there are those who are working tirelessly to stop any and all help for people who desire to work toward a change in their orientation.
And don't just laugh off what I'm saying. The connection you may not see hasn't been missed by the legal eagles in the gay movement. You simply aren't seeing the whole picture. Abortion is, frankly, a red herring.
Agree or not, do you see where I'm coming from?
Lonnie
@Such_Were_You - Oh I definitely know what you're talking about; I do agree, and find it despicable that so many so-called "pro-choicers" attempt to deny homosexuals THEIR right to choose their sexual orientation. But as to your question, "What's the difference
between not being able to change a child's destiny in the womb, and
being able to change a person's destiny who is already born?" The difference is that changing the destiny of a person already born is Constitutionally guaranteed to be his choice. An adult who comes to the conclusion that his sexual orientation is not compliant with his lifestyle or personal beliefs has the freedom to then act upon that conclusion; while an unborn child has no such legal protection, and, should he be killed, no opportunity to say otherwise. After having seen prenatal tests abused by doctors as a means to encourage abortion, even the possibility of such a test makes me extremely leery.
Say that sexual orientation could be altered in the womb -- should parents have the option of making potentially gay children straight? How about making potentially straight children gay? Either way, such an action would be unjust; such matters should be for the child to decide, if he feels it is his desire to do so. (I don't mean to imply that being straight or gay is universally a choice, but the decision to change ones' sexuality, ultimately, is.)
It kind of goes back to what I believe the ultimate human right is -- the right to own ones' self and use ones' devices and capacity as one sees fit. If that means the continuation of being homosexual, fine -- but if it means choosing to alter ones' sexuality, good for you. But the choice should never be made by one for another.
@GermanWrench - Again, yes, but what I'm talking about is the ulterior motive behind such a law. *sidebar* The law wouldn't pass the Supreme Court. The argument would still rest upon the woman's right to privacy.
If such a law could be passed, then perceived sexual orientation would trump a woman's all powerful right to privacy *sarcasm* . You're own child is not afforded such a protection, unless he were perceived as potentially gay. It's a brilliant stepping stone upon which to build laws for those who've left the womb. Think past the law itself, to the potential of building new laws with it as the foundation.
@Such_Were_You - I agree that such a potential exists; however, given the ruling of Roe v. Wade, if this was the case then one of the potential outcomes would be to argue that to protect the unborn only on the basis of sexuality (or potential sexuality) is discrimination, opening the door to overturning Roe via legal precedent (rather than appeal, which is impossible).
And yes, you are very correct, such a ruling would also open a door to those children already born; however, such legal preferences are already built into federal laws currently in place, like hate crimes legislation, which would make the murderer of a homosexual twice as guilty due to the sexual orientation of his victim, and affirmative action, which has been extended to all persons of unconventional sexual orientation (as well as women). So, yes, there is potential for it to be abused... but it would be a drop in the bucket, and the potential positive outcomes would be far more beneficial to all unborn persons, not just those who may be gay.
@GermanWrench - I do appreciate this conversation. No disrespect intended, but I think I've been around homosexuality a bit longer and with a great deal more exposure to the thinking. No matter the agenda I still support the civil rights of gay people. Having said all of that I'm not sure you fully grasp the potential ramifications. I'm not the least worried about myself, but there are so many others who would suffer from the unspoken intent of such a law.
Blessings,
Lonnie
I think it's a fun thought experiment, but I see several logical problems:
1) It encourages bad science either way you look at it. Some will be motivated to force such a link between genetics and homosexuality, and many more will be motivated to ignore any such link.
2) Neither your average conservative nor your average liberal should be forced to squirm about such a law. Each merely need point out that he or she disagrees with one of the two necessary premises to it:a) There is or will be found a linkb) Abortion is inherrently bad
The ends don't justify hypothetical means.