Any fetus found to be in possession of a gene that will make the child gay can not be aborted unless the Mother is at risk of having physical health problems.

I cannot imagine why anyone who vote Yes. This is the most retarded case I have ever heard of...

Its like calling Bush stupid, even though he is smarter then a lot of people (probably most people on this MUD).

Or its like saying Republicans want a draft. Or Americans are stupid. Or Russians are Communists.

Silvanus, are you defending Bush then? If so...<3.

Anyhow...considering I don't like abortion, that kind of blocks out any other issues involved with that piece of legislation for me.

Touche Batman.

wtf? is that for real?

Yes its real..

http://66.195.16.55/nat1206.html

http://www.plagal.org/media/2005-03-07.html

PLAGAL would.


Still looking to find the actual bill as its proposed, but having a hard time figureing out what number it is.

EDIT: Damn, 8 news articles and 3 blogs later, I found all the facts around the situation except for what the bill actually says or what number/code letters it is. Three cheers for the internet. I'll let someone else find it

SOOOOO why are they agreeing with a legislation that so obviously segregates the two there? I've never gotten too involved with the whole gay rights thing. As far as I'm concerned they should be equal and that's it. Simple.

But this is exactly the sort of reason I hate what a lot of feminists have turned into these days. Leave it at equal, nothing else, damnit. Seriously.

Here's the summary for Maine's state legislature bill LD 908

Isn't a bit late for April Fools jokes?

The way Daganev explains it, the Bill sounds stupid. The way Singollo quotes it, the Bill sounds totally reasonable.

heh, good work Singolo.

Mind you, I first heard about this thing on the daily show

They are very good at making anything sound stupid.

So its okay to end the life of a fetus if its not gay?

"Golly Molly, I'm sorry but we can't follow through with the Abortion. The ultrasound showed your little bun in the oven reading a playgirl magazine and we found some anal beads clutched in his hands. "

Its -not- ok to end the life of anything based on its sexuality/race/hair colour or any other inane reason. I think that's the point.

Where you watching the daily show too?

Well, for one this hinges on a gene actually being found that predisposes a child to one sexual orientation or another.

I agree with Shiri in that the optimal situation is equality and unification, not special treatment, but this bill appears acceptable in theory. If the sole reason for termination is sexual orientation it is insufficient. Whether it is straight parents looking for straight children or gay parents looking for gay children is irrelevant. That, I agree with on a personal level.

On the other hand, I do have qualms about any attempt to excessively legislate such personal and delicate issues as human procreation. If this Bill were to be introduced, does it mean that every mother facing the difficult choice of an abortion must report their reasons to the government? How does one 'prove' someone guilty or innocent of breaking this law?

I think politicians need to realize they don't have a right to legislate everything.

I wonder if this would pass the 14th Amendment equal protection clause? It probably depends on how it is written. For example, the summary sounds a bit different from the poll wording. The summary makes it sound like it'd be illegal to abort a gay baby if the intent was to not have a gay baby, though it sounds like it'd be legal if you just didn't want the baby for other reasons, so would not be a carte blanche ban on aborting babies you can somehow prove will be gay when he or she grows up. It also sounds like it'd be illegal to abort heterosexual baby if you wanted to have a gay child, but could probably abort the baby for other reasons. So the legal protections are in a sense the same even though in reality there would be very little odds of the latter case ever happening, similar to how hate crime laws are worded to cover everyone in equally in law but not in their real implementation.

That is a very strange law, though. It'd be interesting to see how Republicans and Democrats vote on it since they probably each can find some merit and some problems with the bill based on their own party platforms.

Honestly, I can't believe someone is born with a GENE for homosexuality, no more than I can believe someone's born with a GENE to kill mass amounts of people.

The American legislative process has become a joke as of late anyway, my county recently put to vote a tax that you only have to pay if you're from out of state, and only at select restaurants and hotels.

Besides, how hard would it be to tell if they're aborting because the baby has the gay gene? Very.

Wow. Needlessly said, as a bleeding heart liberal, I can understand what he means.

He doesn't mean that all gay babies need to be protected, as has been pointed out. He's saying that it should be illegal for people to abort a baby because it's predisposed to a "gay" gene (which doesn't exist). But he knows that they'll just say something else is wrong and abort it. So he intends to banket-clause it and protect them.

I really don't care. I'm against abortion, I think it should be taken to term and given up for adoption. There's plenty of incapable couples out there needing children.

That said, I'm very, very pro-choice. I can't believe a country based on the freedom of choice wants to deny someone the freedom of choice...

And, as a random add on, not all of your comparisons fit, Silvanus. Right, not all Russians are communists, but everyone on this MUD has an IQ probably ten times greater than bushes. At least. More like fourty or fifty times.

Hell, at least Shiro can read.