Is that what the liberals are saying? You can abort a fetus as long as it's not going to turn into a gay adult? Surely not, if so then they would also be saying that black people could not have abortions?
Oh no, they're not saying that. But that's the box they've got themselves into. Liberalism -- at least in this country -- has positioned itself so that the pro-abortion lobby and the pro-gay lobby are almost inseparably linked in the liberal bed. So with the advancements in genetic science we find ourselves in a position where people can start aborting fetuses based on more and more knowledge of that fetus ... including it being gay.
Note: that's already occurring, of course -- some very large percentage of Downs Syndrome fetuses are aborted. The new issue is that more and more "qualities" of a person are being identified in the genome, and with that comes early identification. Tragic defects are one thing; being gay is quite another. How about even less "tragic" characteristics -- the boy in the womb will not grow to be 6'6" tall and therefore won't have a chance to be a start basketball player?
The pro-abortion lobby is at the present time silent on this. They know they're in a box. They're searching for an escape ... one where they don't have to limit the availability of abortion.
Seems like they are pro-abortion regardless of what the fetus may be.
You would think so. But I doubt that's how it'll end up. What they'll do is come up with a set of guidelines for when abortion is "acceptable" and when it's not. That list will, of course, be based on their preferences. Those with different preferences will be shouted down. Such is the nature of discourse in America today.
Wouldn't a better solution be to offer young girls some kind of support to take the child to term and have it adopted by the thousands of childless couples desperate to have one? I know that this would be very much open to abuse by those folks looking for crab legs though.
There is a story -- true, I believe -- where Mother Theresa was speaking to an audience that included President and Mrs. Clinton, both ardent "pro-choice" supporters. Mother Theresa, not one to back down, stood at the podium and said of abortion: "Do not abort them ... give them to me!"
Yes, it would be a better solution to encourage -- heck, subsidize -- the carrying to term and the putting up for adoption those children that aren't wanted by the birth mother but desperately wanted by other couples. Do you know what the counter-argument is? "It would be too harmful to the mother to carry the child to term and have to give it up."
If you look at the pro-abortion lobby in America, they have positioned "health of the mother" as the ultimate criteria for allowing abortions. And by "health" they mean anything, including a troubled conscience.
The question is ... what trumps what? The health of the mother, or the political correctness of being gay? That's the dilemma.
Deliberately breeding less function into your child? How selfish is that?
Enormously so. The human race has an almost limitless capacity for selfish behavior.
I suffer from a genetic defect which I have passed onto my daughter. I would have given anything not to have passed it on but I did, if I could have removed the defect from her at any time I would have done it.
I understand. And I'm sorry about her picking up the defect on a 50/50 proposition. I wish there was something I could do to help, but of course there is not.
John Derbyshire of NRO wrote, in response to others on that site who are arguing against research into genetic modifications:
"If that is typical of the arguments that will be placed before the American public to persuade them that it would be wrong, wrong, wrong for them to pay $2,000 to a clinic to increase the odds of their newborn being healthy, clever, and good-looking; well, as I said, lotsa luck."He's absolutely right, of course. Further, he writes:
"And even if I wasn't fine with it, it would happen anyway because the demand would be great and the objections so abstract & theoretical it would he hard to get anyone to care about them." (emphasis added)Right again. There may be no more powerful and overwhelming force in our human existence than the desire of a parent for their child to be healthy and happy. Abstract arguments against something that will provide that will bounce off public opinion like pepples off a windshield.\
Not that I am saying we should not do it, but that we should try to think "outside of the box" when we do.
Are we permitted the opportunity to truly "think outside the box" anymore? Or has multi-culturalism and political correctness reduced the parameters of free thinking to such a degree that "outside" the box really isn't outside anymore?
Note: here in the United States, some weeks ago now, six Muslim Imams boarded a US Airways plane in Minneapolis and started to engage in behavior that was frighteningly like the behavior reported to have been done by the 9/11 hi-jackers: changing seats at the last minute, asking for seat belt extenders they did not need, speaking in Arabic and making anti-US statements. The passengers, unnerved, requested the Imams be removed. They were. All hell broke loose. The government's response has been to force "sensitivity training" on the airlines and security personnel.
It is almost perfectly clear those Imams were trying to provoke such a response so they could they could ram-rod a law suit or other concession ... which of course then makes it easier for terrorists in the future. If I were to joke about hijacking a plane I would be arrested. There's no question about that -- they warn that joking about such things is unlawful. But I guess it's okay to exhibit behavior exactly like known terrorists in the past.
That's not related to the question of genetic manipulation and the effects of that, but it makes my point that there are parameters around what we are "allowed" to think and say. It is and will be the undoing of our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment