Gays and Baby Killers: A Shaky Alliance?

How would you like to ask the pro-choice mob a question that is guaranteed to have them jumping around like worms on a hot rock?  Well, read on.  

Three facts are important to know.  First, though there are certainly members of the gay community who are pro-life, go to any large public event put on by the pro-choice gang, or read any edition of the NOW Times or MS Magazine, and you will see that the “mainstream” homosexual lobby and the “mainstream” abortion lobby are joined at the hip.

Second, the current “enlightened” and “politically correct” view is that homosexuality is not a choice but a function of genetics.  While I am not convinced this is true, if it is then it is only a matter of time before scientists identify the genetic marker for homosexuality.
Third, the abortion lobby has made it clear that they will never back away from their fundamental assertion that the reasons for abortion are no ones business except the women who have them. 

In light of these three facts, let’s ask our enemies one simple and completely appropriate question:  Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay? 

When you ask that question, their only options are to either abandon their basic position or risk alienating one of their most loyal support groups.  We should also keep in mind that these people have failed this sort of test before.  You may recall that standing-up for the disabled was, at one point, sold as an integral part of the liberal agenda.  But the first time that effort conflicted with the abortion license, the Godless Left did not hesitate for one moment to throw the disabled under the bus. 

The result is that, for example, in America today over 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are killed in the womb.  In fact, legalized abortion has so decayed American society that abortion is now the default position for women carrying a child with even the most insignificant abnormalities.  In our brave new world, if a new mom delivers a handicapped baby she better be prepared to routinely answer the question, “Didn’t your doctor tell you about this while you were still pregnant?” 

That sorry question and all it implies is part of the “better-dead-than-disabled” mentality that now infects our country.  And make no mistake about it, that mindset is the sole responsibility of the pro-choice mob and it has helped them sell lots of abortions.  To one degree or another, it has also created a rift between them and those who truly care about the disabled.

Whatever the consequences, it is pretty clear that the Choice Mafia is not going to turn off this path.  They have apparently decided that they cannot afford to say that any woman should be denied her “right to choose” for any reason.  If a “homosexual gene” is ever identified, the bloodbath they are currently prosecuting against Down syndrome and other “imperfect” children will be expanded to include those who might turn out to be gay.  In fact, we may discover that parents are actually more likely to have a potentially gay child killed than one with Down syndrome. 

If the homosexual lobby has not yet thought about this issue, it’s time they did.  We need to show them that when the American holocaust turns its attention in their direction, it will be their pro-choice buddies who not only defend it but carry it out.     

We should also introduce the reality that this phenomenon is not going to be limited to homosexuality.  Some scientists are now speculating that genetics may influence people to embrace certain political ideologies.  So imagine that someday a conservative, but otherwise pro-choice, organization launches a campaign to encourage – not force or require but simply encourage – pregnant women to kill any fetus they are carrying who is identified as having a politically liberal genetic marker.  Would these pro-choice death-merchants have any problem with that? 

If you analyze what genetic scientists are now suggesting, the possibilities for this line of dialog are endless.  If it is true that virtually every person born into the world is a potential member of a group that could be genetically identified, that means they could be targeted for extinction through abortion. 

The bizarre part of this is that, if we press this issue to its logical conclusion, the abortion lobby may be forced to adopt a completely different “abortion-justification” argument.  Instead of saying that women should be allowed to abort for any reason whatsoever, they may have to say that the only women who should be allowed to abort are those who are doing so for no reason whatsoever.

Designers and Deformers

Pro-lifers and bio-ethicists have long warned that we were headed toward the day when people would order babies like they order a new car.  In this brave new world, abortion, altered genetics, in-vitro fertilization, frozen embryos and a myriad of other Frankenstein-like scientific “advances” will allow us to spec-out perfect designer babies to suit every need.  Men and women will no longer be mere parents, but informed and enlightened consumers.  At the same time, babies will be transformed into a product whose value is not intrinsic, but only determined by what they can do for those who order them.      

Apparently, we can stop predicting that such an environment will one day exist.  One day is here.  In San Antonio, Texas, a company called the Abraham Center of Life is now offering off-the-shelf embryos for single women and infertile couples.  Customers make their selection after reviewing information about the egg and sperm donor of the baby they are thinking about buying.  This data includes the race, educational background, personality type, physical appearance and other relevant characteristics.  Customers are also allowed to see pictures of the donors at various times of their lives.  For customers who are unable or unwilling to carry the child, the company will even arrange for the services of a surrogate mom.  

The company’s founder, Jennalee Ryan, rejects the charge that she is ushering in the creation of a “Master Race.”  However, her center requires that egg donors have at least some college education and sperm donors must have advanced post-graduate degrees.  
Neither can have a criminal background.  

Responding to the claim that she, and her clients, are making decisions based on IQ points and physical appearance, she told the Washington Post that, “If I do discriminate, it’s that I only want healthy, intelligent people.”      

Meanwhile, some people with physical handicaps are insisting that they too be allowed to design their own perfect babies.  To this group of people, perfect means a baby with the same handicap they have.  A survey published in the medical journal, Fertility and Sterility, found at least four embryo screening clinics in the U.S. that admit to having assisted people in creating what are being called deformer babies – children with disabilities specifically requested by the parents.  

To date, it appears that the most common reason for using this technology is to create babies that are either deaf or dwarfs.  One deaf lesbian couple, Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, say that when they wanted a baby they chose a particular sperm donor because he was deaf and came from a family with five generations of deafness.  The baby was born with residual hearing in one ear, but Duchesneau and McCullough have made it clear that they will not allow the little boy to be fitted with a hearing aid.

In the past, whenever the issue of sex-selection abortion was brought up, pro-lifers were ridiculed for suggesting that they represented some kind of slippery slope.  But now, Duchesneau and McCullough are openly stating that their use of technology to create a deaf child is no different than someone using technology, for example sex-selection abortion, to get a baby of the desired gender.    

Going down the deformer baby trail raises some interesting, and probably unanswerable, philosophical questions.  Perhaps the most troubling is whether a line can ever be drawn.  If a blind couple discovers that their unborn child is sighted, do they have the right to insist that their doctor do something to cause the child to be blind?  If not, why not?  

After all, they could have it legally killed through abortion if they so chose.  What about mental disorders.  Does a schizophrenic mom have a right to turn her mentally healthy unborn baby into a schizophrenic?  Again, if not, why not?  Who gets to design the “perfectness” scale?

When dwarfs Cara and Gibson Reynolds were criticized because they were considering using embryo screening to create a child who was also a dwarf, an outraged Cara replied, “You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me.”  Then, in an astonishing perversion of logic, she went on to attack people who oppose the intentional creation of deformer babies claiming that they are “... playing God.”

The reality is, at the moment America decided that it was acceptable to create designer babies it became impossible to oppose deformer babies.  They are opposite sides of the same coin.  It is as legitimate for a deaf person to consider a hearing child imperfect as it is for a “normal” person to consider a Down syndrome child imperfect.  It is also true that Duchesneau and McCullough are correct that artificially creating a deaf child is no different than artificially creating a girl instead of a boy.

The underlying problem is, legal abortion transformed babies from being full and valued members of the human family into a commodity that we can choose or unchoose just like we choose or unchoose what brand of toothpaste to buy.  Until we correct that, things far worse than pre-fab embryos and deformer babies are on the way.  It may be frightening to contemplate, but we are not even close to the bottom of the slippery slope.

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics