For example, we can detect if a baby is going to be born retarded. Many people choose to abort and try again. What if we can detect homosexuality or gender identity? Would you allow that? I think we would quickly discover that most people do not consider homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality when it comes down to it. I think a lot of people who say they support abortion do not actually support abortion.
shareThere are heterosexual people who are infertile and can't have kids. Would not abort them, so why would I abort a homosexual? Besides, even a homosexual can have his sperm frozen and have a baby at some point.
shareSome high IQ people do not become rich, so I would be just as happy to have a low IQ son, because he could win the lottery?
share"Some high IQ people do not become rich, so I would be just as happy to have a low IQ son, because he could win the lottery?"
High IQ son can win lottery
Low IQ son could win lottery
High IQ son could not win lottery
Low IQ son could not win lottery
You choose to have low IQ son, then you have low IQ son.
You choose to abort low IQ son, then you abort low IQ son.
Can I tell people what to do with their low IQ son while he's in the womb?
Someone born with mental development issues will face more challenges and difficulties throughout their lives.
Homosexuals do not face challenges or difficulties unless they are dealing with bigots.
That being said , I support all abortions. If someone is not ready to be a parent, for whatever reason, they should not be forced to have a child.
No. I didn't ask about people not ready to be parents. You avoided the issue completely and tried to pat yourself on the back for it. I don't want to hear about how hateful you are toward "bigots". Homosexuals face all kinds of health issues and that's not the point anyway unless you're trying to tell me we can finally stop spending so much money on AIDS.
shareIs this discussion really about abortion? Or is it about how people view the LGBT and Disabled communities instead? You seem to veer from the original question almost immediately.
Thankfully, there is ample evidence to suggest that homosexuality is NOT genetic, but a learned way to live life. To suggest otherwise means that such people are not willing to take responsibility for their own actions, and want to play the victim of society. I don't envy that kind of life, where a group of people has to force others to accept them on pain of punishment from the law.
The gender identity thing is tied to Gender Dysphoria, a mental disorder that only affects 1% of any population in any country, and it's not clear if someone develops that over time, or if it is genetic at all. And even if it was, the chances are still very small that the baby would have it.
Now if the child was to be born with a genetic defect, such as Down's Syndrome, or the extreme end of autism, it would make more sense to try and use the hypothetical advanced technology you're suggesting, and correct the gene while the child is in the womb, rather than just outright murdering them before they had a chance at life. Many parents who have changed their minds about aborting their Disabled children have not regretted it, and while it is still difficult, their lives are richer for having allowed such kids a chance.
Giving up the child for adoption is also an option if the parents do not feel they can give the life they think that child deserves. It would be more merciful than outright killing them out of convenience to the mother.
Children are not "accidents" or "mistakes" to be wiped away.
"there is ample evidence to suggest that homosexuality is NOT genetic, but a learned way to live life"
Oh really? Then how can homosexuality be observed to exist in a small percentage of every known species in existence if it doesn't have a genetic component?
The OP's question should have different answers depending on the context. Does he mean "we can choose to abort a retarded baby if we want to" or "I want the government to force people to abort retarded babies."
shareI don't think the OP had any idea of what she was trying to say. Or if she did, she made such a convoluted argument that it failed to have any real meaning at the end of the post. I thought she was trying to make a failed attempt to point out liberal hypocrisy by suggesting liberals who support gay rights would abort their kids if we had the technology to determine they were gay pre-birth.
But then she pivots to saying most people who support abortion don't actually support abortion, which doesn't even make sense in the context of what she was saying before. I think she's confused.
No that's gross.
shareYou seem to be missing something here. 'Supporting abortion' takes place before 24 weeks. What happens after 24 weeks is in the hands of pro-life rules since around 24 weeks is where science has determined the majority of fetuses become viable. Viability is not determined by eugenics so whatever eugenics entails would be subjected to pro-life rules after 24 weeks.
Imagine if you had an already-born infant that could live a normal life with an operation that had a 50% chance to kill it. Or you could skip the operation and have the infant live to the age of two. Do you take the operation or not? Whether you do or don't it is a similar topic as your OP. But it is not a pro-choice one. Pro-choice ends at 24 weeks. This is a right to life argument.