The gay people I know say that they could not change their orientation if they tried. They were born that way. I consider them "experts in the field".
"Could not change their orientation if they tried" does not necessarily equal "innate in the DNA or the chemistry." Are you aware of how one's environment can affect gene expression? There's a lot more complexity to genetics than just what's in the DNA.
You can find out a hundred different things about your baby before it is born. Why wouldn't you be able to find that out?
There is no test to determine if a fetus will become a firefighter, or a criminal, or the next Einstein, and a lot of reason to believe that there will never be one. We can't yet say for sure whether determining homosexuality is anywhere near as complex a proposition as that. So far, the best we know is that it appears to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
I disagree for several reasons. First, females are not selectively aborted in the west. If society suddenly aborted 50% (or more) of the females in expense of the males, you would not politely "address the stigma/culture."
If a change like that were to suddenly happen in the West, all bets are off---there's no telling what would happen, or what would accompany that change. But in non-Western societies, sex-selective abortion is common, and feminist/LGBT/reproductive advocates are not calling for restrictions/prohibitions on abortion to stop this.
Second, people who are prejudiced against gays tend to de-humanize them. "They don't deserve the same rights as us because they are just deviants, etc".
That's what needs to be addressed to resolve the (potential) problem of orientation-selective abortions.
De-humanization is the same tactic used by pro-choicers - that human life is just a fetus, just an embryo, etc.
This is incorrect. Pro-choicers hold that the pregnant woman has dominion of her body, and that while the fetus within her is human, it does not have a right to use her body against her will (just as no one else does).
My opinion is that gay people will not tolerate that additional de-humanization if their numbers start getting killed off en masse.
Surely there are some anti-choice gay people out there who would restrict a woman's right to abortion to prevent supposedly homosexual fetuses from being selectively aborted. I think that most, however, will continue to see that the problem is bigger than that---and that it can be solved without infringing the rights of women.
The gay people I know say that they could not change their orientation if they tried. They were born that way. I consider them "experts in the field".
I agree.
If orientation is innate in the DNA or the chemistry, there will eventually be a test for it. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to predict that. You can find out a hundred different things about your baby before it is born. Why wouldn't you be able to find that out?
It's my understanding the current state of the research indicates there may be several different mechanisms which result in same-sex orientation, from the mother's exposure to testosterone in previous pregnancies to genetic tendency being triggered by something unknown (as evidenced by identical twins of whom only one is gay although their DNA is identical) to the effects of stress on the mother and/or fetus during the pregnancy. Hopefully, by the time the tests are available, the results of the research which would be needed to make the tests possible will also enable most people to get over the idea that being gay is a dysfunctional choice and therefore a behavior problem.
I realize that there are still some nut-jobs out here insisting that mental illness is caused by evil spirits, etc., but they are a very small percentage. If a similar percentage of anti-gay nutjobs who weren't willing to accept the scientific facts aborted fetuses because they suspected them of being gay, IMO those fetuses would be a lot better off than if they were born and had no escape from a childhood where they were told constantly how 'evil' they were by nutjob parents.
WAIT Training follows the CDC-DASH Sexual Health Guidelines , "until they are ready to establish a mutually monogamous relationship within the context of marriage."
for optimal health and wellness.
And yes, we give information about condoms and contraceptives.
Most experts in the field aren't even sure how much of it is nature, and how much is nurture. DNA is not destiny, after all.
The gay people I know say that they could not change their orientation if they tried. They were born that way. I consider them "experts in the field".
If orientation is innate in the DNA or the chemistry, there will eventually be a test for it. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to predict that. You can find out a hundred different things about your baby before it is born. Why wouldn't you be able to find that out?
No, they won't. If and when that day comes, they'll handle it as feminists address sex-selective abortion today
I disagree for several reasons. First, females are not selectively aborted in the west. If society suddenly aborted 50% (or more) of the females in expense of the males, you would not politely "address the stigma/culture."
Second, people who are prejudiced against gays tend to de-humanize them. "They don't deserve the same rights as us because they are just deviants, etc". De-humanization is the same tactic used by pro-choicers - that human life is just a fetus, just an embryo, etc. My opinion is that gay people will not tolerate that additional de-humanization if their numbers start getting killed off en masse.
And I can't believe they would buy into that de-humanization now.
This is the first time I've heard that aborting a pregnancy when the fetus is grossly deformed is "eugenic abortion". As I understand the idea of 'eugenics' it is to improve the human race by weeding out the 'unfit' from the gene pool. Most congenital abnormalities are caused by random DNA errors or development mistakes, are not heritable, but instead will continue to occur at the same rates even though none of the fetuses to whom they have occurred successfully reproduce to pass them on.
Are they talking about a fetus that has "congenital abnormalities incapable with life", one that has zero chance of surviving? Or a fetus that will have a handicap but is capable of living with support? How severe is the handicap they are addressing and how much support will be necessary and is that support available?
Certainly my opinion on the issue would depend on which of those situations it is we're talking about. Aborting a fetus at 20 weeks because ultrasound shows that its brain is missing or that it hasn't developed kidneys or an esophagus is not 'eugenics', it's a sobering realization that while the fetus has no hope, the health and sanity of the mother needs to be safeguarded.
It really does seem to me that the use of the incorrect term 'eugenic abortion' is an attempt to confuse the issue since from what I can get out of this article apparently there isn't any organized attempt at identify those 'not worthy' and prevent their birth because they don't meet eugenic standards but instead individual women and their doctors making individual decisions about individual pregnancies in which there are serious problems.
One day there will be an in-utero diagnostic test that will give a probability that a fetus will have a certain sexual orientation.
You seem awful certain of that. Most experts in the field aren't even sure how much of it is nature, and how much is nurture. DNA is not destiny, after all.
When that day comes, same-sex rights advocates will go from being passively pro-choice ("we're all progressives!") to aggressively pro-life ("it's legal to kill based on sexual orientation?!")
No, they won't. If and when that day comes, they'll handle it as feminists address sex-selective abortion today: not by restricting abortions performed for that purpose, but by addressing the stigma/culture that causes people to want to abort fetuses of a certain type in the first place.
It's more work, to be sure, but the end result is a whole lot better than using one injustice as an excuse to commit another.
While your religious beliefs certainly color your sexual morals, the answer is inside you, if you listen. The more important question is "Is your relationship with your boyfriend ready for sex?" That is a question only you can answer. There are websites you can visit that may help you evaluate your relationship, google Healthy Relationship or Healthy Marriage for several sites. It sounds more like you as a person are not ready yet for a sexual relationship. Sex is not the end all of a relationship, with the right person it's great, but not if your not ready.
If you wait, there may come a time when you are sure, one way or the other. 5 years seems like a long time, and it is, a quarter of your life, but I don't think I've ever heard anyonelooking back at their life say 'I should have had sex with...'. I hope this helps.
As Thanksgiving Day quickly approaches, we want to take a moment to relfect on how grateful we are for the people who make RH Reality Check what it is today.
The Stupak furor has obscured the shocking fertility and family control provisions in current health care legislation. The House bill actually authorizes a plan to monitor the childbearing decisions and family lives of low-income women.
Revisions in Peru's Penal Code may lead to decriminalizing abortion in cases of rape or severe disability of the fetus. But conservative political and religious forces are, predictably, opposing these changes.
Rights advocates can forget that there is an entire world of potential allies out there we may be missing because we are not effectively communicating with them.
Muslim women in India are caught between the strictures of family and personal law and persistent discrimination against them as women from both the Indian government and society writ large.
Opponents and supporters of women's choices in childbearing agreed early on, in theory, to maintain the “status quo” with "abortion neutral" health care legislation. The Senate bill achieves this goal; the House bill does not.
An epidemic of sexually transmitted infections in the U.S. disproportionately affects blacks, youth, gays and the poor. Talking openly about sex is the first step in prevention.
Bethany Cajúne, pregnant and in a substance abuse recovery program, was jailed for 19 days for traffic violations. But officials repeatedly denied her a drug necessary to her recovery, putting her health and the life of her fetus at risk.
No one reading this has forgotten that the House passed a healthcare “reform” bill that includes the Stupak Amendment. Here's a speech Congressman Stupak needs to hear.
In a strange twist, Nevada anti-choice groups, complaining that the wording of a "personhood" amendment to establish civil rights for fertilized eggs is too vague, are on the same side as Planned Parenthood and ACLU.
I'm a transgendered sex worker, and I want to not get killed for who I am or what I do. As our death count rises, I beg that you consider your prejudices around gender, and let us live in peace. I'm literally begging for my life.
In examining rooms, we see women in terrible pain, but their suffering doesn’t count in Stupak/Pitts world. By banishing abortion from the reform bill, the amendment punishes women who need to end unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies.
With the Stupak amendment literally and symbolically stripping women of equal status, the movie "Precious" presents, in grim detail, the way race, class and bias render a woman's body simultaneously invisible and subject to abuse.
Form-based ethics teach the Christian to ask the question “Am I allowed to do this?” Content-based ethics teach the Christian to ask “Am I truly loving the person or persons with whom I am doing this, including myself?”
I agree with Jim Wallis that the truth has become a casualty in this war--because both Jim and the Catholic Bishops have twisted it. And if Jim Wallis and his conservative allies have their way, women will become another casualty.
The CDC releases its annual "Abortion Surveillance" report on abortion in the United States, for 2006. The report says the surveillance provides critical information needed to evaluate programs aimed at preventing unintended pregnancy.
"Crisis pregnancy" centers in Baltimore must now display signs stating they do not provide abortions or birth-control referrals under a measure approved by the City Council Monday night and thought to be the first of its kind in the nation."
In the Weekly Pulse, Lindsay Beyerstein reports on this week's developments on health care reform, the public option, and new recommendations on mammogram screening for breast cancer detection.
"Could not change their orientation if they tried" does not necessarily equal "innate in the DNA or the chemistry." Are you aware of how one's environment can affect gene expression? There's a lot more complexity to genetics than just what's in the DNA.
There is no test to determine if a fetus will become a firefighter, or a criminal, or the next Einstein, and a lot of reason to believe that there will never be one. We can't yet say for sure whether determining homosexuality is anywhere near as complex a proposition as that. So far, the best we know is that it appears to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
If a change like that were to suddenly happen in the West, all bets are off---there's no telling what would happen, or what would accompany that change. But in non-Western societies, sex-selective abortion is common, and feminist/LGBT/reproductive advocates are not calling for restrictions/prohibitions on abortion to stop this.
That's what needs to be addressed to resolve the (potential) problem of orientation-selective abortions.
This is incorrect. Pro-choicers hold that the pregnant woman has dominion of her body, and that while the fetus within her is human, it does not have a right to use her body against her will (just as no one else does).
Surely there are some anti-choice gay people out there who would restrict a woman's right to abortion to prevent supposedly homosexual fetuses from being selectively aborted. I think that most, however, will continue to see that the problem is bigger than that---and that it can be solved without infringing the rights of women.
I agree.
It's my understanding the current state of the research indicates there may be several different mechanisms which result in same-sex orientation, from the mother's exposure to testosterone in previous pregnancies to genetic tendency being triggered by something unknown (as evidenced by identical twins of whom only one is gay although their DNA is identical) to the effects of stress on the mother and/or fetus during the pregnancy. Hopefully, by the time the tests are available, the results of the research which would be needed to make the tests possible will also enable most people to get over the idea that being gay is a dysfunctional choice and therefore a behavior problem.
I realize that there are still some nut-jobs out here insisting that mental illness is caused by evil spirits, etc., but they are a very small percentage. If a similar percentage of anti-gay nutjobs who weren't willing to accept the scientific facts aborted fetuses because they suspected them of being gay, IMO those fetuses would be a lot better off than if they were born and had no escape from a childhood where they were told constantly how 'evil' they were by nutjob parents.
WAIT Training follows the CDC-DASH Sexual Health Guidelines , "until they are ready to establish a mutually monogamous relationship within the context of marriage."
for optimal health and wellness.
And yes, we give information about condoms and contraceptives.
We just don't start there.
Respectfully submitted, Joneen Mackenzie RN
The gay people I know say that they could not change their orientation if they tried. They were born that way. I consider them "experts in the field".
If orientation is innate in the DNA or the chemistry, there will eventually be a test for it. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to predict that. You can find out a hundred different things about your baby before it is born. Why wouldn't you be able to find that out?
I disagree for several reasons. First, females are not selectively aborted in the west. If society suddenly aborted 50% (or more) of the females in expense of the males, you would not politely "address the stigma/culture."
Second, people who are prejudiced against gays tend to de-humanize them. "They don't deserve the same rights as us because they are just deviants, etc". De-humanization is the same tactic used by pro-choicers - that human life is just a fetus, just an embryo, etc. My opinion is that gay people will not tolerate that additional de-humanization if their numbers start getting killed off en masse.
And I can't believe they would buy into that de-humanization now.
This is the first time I've heard that aborting a pregnancy when the fetus is grossly deformed is "eugenic abortion". As I understand the idea of 'eugenics' it is to improve the human race by weeding out the 'unfit' from the gene pool. Most congenital abnormalities are caused by random DNA errors or development mistakes, are not heritable, but instead will continue to occur at the same rates even though none of the fetuses to whom they have occurred successfully reproduce to pass them on.
Are they talking about a fetus that has "congenital abnormalities incapable with life", one that has zero chance of surviving? Or a fetus that will have a handicap but is capable of living with support? How severe is the handicap they are addressing and how much support will be necessary and is that support available?
Certainly my opinion on the issue would depend on which of those situations it is we're talking about. Aborting a fetus at 20 weeks because ultrasound shows that its brain is missing or that it hasn't developed kidneys or an esophagus is not 'eugenics', it's a sobering realization that while the fetus has no hope, the health and sanity of the mother needs to be safeguarded.
It really does seem to me that the use of the incorrect term 'eugenic abortion' is an attempt to confuse the issue since from what I can get out of this article apparently there isn't any organized attempt at identify those 'not worthy' and prevent their birth because they don't meet eugenic standards but instead individual women and their doctors making individual decisions about individual pregnancies in which there are serious problems.
You seem awful certain of that. Most experts in the field aren't even sure how much of it is nature, and how much is nurture. DNA is not destiny, after all.
No, they won't. If and when that day comes, they'll handle it as feminists address sex-selective abortion today: not by restricting abortions performed for that purpose, but by addressing the stigma/culture that causes people to want to abort fetuses of a certain type in the first place.
It's more work, to be sure, but the end result is a whole lot better than using one injustice as an excuse to commit another.
Now if they would just require similar signs in the offices of OB/GYNS who won't prescribe and pharmacies that won't provide hormonal birth control --
While your religious beliefs certainly color your sexual morals, the answer is inside you, if you listen. The more important question is "Is your relationship with your boyfriend ready for sex?" That is a question only you can answer. There are websites you can visit that may help you evaluate your relationship, google Healthy Relationship or Healthy Marriage for several sites. It sounds more like you as a person are not ready yet for a sexual relationship. Sex is not the end all of a relationship, with the right person it's great, but not if your not ready.
If you wait, there may come a time when you are sure, one way or the other. 5 years seems like a long time, and it is, a quarter of your life, but I don't think I've ever heard anyonelooking back at their life say 'I should have had sex with...'. I hope this helps.
There really should be a _federal_ level law preventing these "clinics" dfrom misrepresenting themselves.
Catseye ( (|) )
The woman _went in voluntarily_ to finish up a sentence for _traffic violations_!!!!! These people are nothing short of evil.
Catseye ( (|) )