24 February 2005

Why save only homosexual babies?

I have not taken leave of my senses. The legislature in Maine has though. They are considering a bill which will restrict a "woman's right" to have an abortion if she is doing so to rid herself of a baby carrying the homosexual gene.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:

Sec. 1. 22 MRSA §1597-B is enacted to read:
§1597-B. Prohibited basis for abortion
An abortion may not be performed when the basis for the procedure is the projected sexual orientation of the fetus after birth, based on analysis of genetic materials of the fetus in which sexual orientation is identified through the presence or absence of a so-called "homosexual gene."


I am so thoroughly appalled by the whole mess. Is there really a homosexual gene? If there is, doesn't it only indicated a predilection? Why does the bill allow provisions for both the presence or absence of the gene? Don't we make choices in how we live our lives regardless of the DNA we carry? If the termination of a gay baby is discrimination, then every other abortion should be considered discrimination of straight babies.

I find it ludicrous for law makers to say abortion is acceptable as long as you don't abort babies we are trying to place in a protected class. All life is precious. Your sexual orientation has nothing to do with the value of your life.

I think what the Maine legislature needs to do is to decide to save all babies. If a little gay baby's rights are to exceed his mom's right to kill him, the straight baby deserves equal representation.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You're right. It's ridiculous. To say it in a pretty cruel and ignorant way *Kill all babies or no babies*. I vote for the second though. What a way to already make one child's life more important than that of another's...