Wednesday, March 4, 2009

If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for its rights?


While dying of extreme boredom in English today I noticed a white board "ad" for "Life Week" at my University. When it comes to the pro life/pro choice debate, I can see valid points on both sides of the argument. But, I realize by being pro life, that is a definite stance with no room for change; whereas, pro choice still leaves the choice of life or not. And I feel women should have the right to their own bodies, including their fetus.

Its really troubling when pro life groups advocate the human rights of the fetus. Logically they should advocate total/complete human rights, but its not always the case. Too often the pro lifers are not for GLBTQ rights. So what happens when that fetus whose rights were fought for are then ignored because s/he grows up to have same sex attraction and relationships? The fight for human rights, by the pro lifers, is therefore conditional.

6 comments:

  1. This is something that I've never pondered but is a good point and as such, i would cast my 'choice' as Pro Choice. if rights are to be fought for all; it should be universal not conditional to some unseen 'difference' if this were some form of 'recognized' medical condition; would the conditional issue still be the same? would the person be outcast to if its not change? again I state this is about universal acceptance and not some acceptance via exclusivity

    ReplyDelete
  2. very valid point, it is completely conditional and hypocritical. also are these "pro-lifers" vegetarian? if not, they are anti-life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another point to the debate is with regard to prenatal testing - for example, if "gay" is shown definitively to have genetic roots and a "gay gene" can be identified, what if through prenatal testing, you find out the chances your child will be gay are 75% or higher. What affect does that have on the pregnant anti-abortionist who is also anti-gay?

    Of course, the question is rhetorical since testing cannot predict the child's sexuality by today's standards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very interesting point there, jaysays. That also comes back to eugenics. Humanity would be encroaching on precarious turf if we could identify specific human attributes and decide if we want "that" as our child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What about species that "spontaneously" have children? Male or female, does it matters? Isn't life more important that what we are? We are not so important, we are just an expression of the universe. Take it or leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Considering that even rabid prolifers avail themselves of the currently legal choices they have, I bet checking for the gay gene would be really popular among the religious right. Along with an unsurprising uptick in "miscarriages".

    ReplyDelete