Fiction Ripped From Tomorrow’s Headlines

     This bit of satirical fiction has the Left’s knickers in a serious twist:

     Well, got the blood work results [on a fictional unborn child], and there’s good news and bad news. Good news: It’s a boy and he’s healthy. Bad news: He’s gay. I didn’t even know there was a blood test for that now, but I guess it’s new? They found the genes that cause homosexuality and they test for them now.

     I’m a really tolerant person, but this has made me think hard. I don’t know how I feel about trying to raise a gay son. Will I be able to relate to him? Won’t his life be super hard? I know things are getting better for gay people, but it seems to me that being gay is really hard in the South, where we live. Gay people aren’t really accepted here like in other parts of the country yet....

     So my wife and I talked, and we’ve decided we aren’t ready to raise a gay child. It isn’t fair to raise a gay child in our area. It would be so hard for our son to live here. And I don’t think either of us could handle it if he killed himself.

     Moving elsewhere just to have this baby would be totally unfair to us. We are going to get an abortion, both for the child’s sake and for ours. It’s the best thing for all of us. I’m really glad we found out before it’s too late. I’ve never been more thankful for a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body.

     Yes, you can relax, it’s fiction. At this time there’s no way to determine whether a child, whether born or unborn, will exhibit homosexual behavior when he matures. Yet the homosexual-activist community has long claimed, entirely without evidence, that the homosexual orientation is organically based: a characteristic of the body, not of the mind. But imagine if that were confirmed scientifically, and that amniocentesis were to become capable of detecting a trustworthy marker for homosexuality in a developing fetus. Can there be any doubt that some parents, at least, would be extremely dismayed? Can there be any doubt that, given the continuation of existing, highly permissive pro-abortion laws, some of those parents would choose to abort?

     Homosexuals from coast to coast would scream bloody murder over it. Their “tribe” would be under threat. In all probability, their numbers would dwindle steadily over the years, down to a few aging relics of a less scientifically knowledgeable age. Why, they’d most assuredly lobby for a sexual-orientation restriction on abortion! The homosexual community, one of America’s most privileged and protected classes, would find itself at war with the rest of the Left over the Left’s chief sacrament: abortion.

     Have you ever heard a homosexual say “No one would choose to be this way” -- ? I’ve heard it many times. By implication, if there were a reliable technique for replacing the homosexual orientation with a heterosexual one, you would expect that homosexuals would flock toward it. But, if we can judge by their fierce opposition to psychological approaches to the problem, the reverse seems more likely.

     I’m opposed to abortion at any stage of gestation, with one exception: if the mother’s life would be seriously endangered by the continuation of her pregnancy. (Her life, not her emotions or her finances.) As such cases are apparently rare, a law that makes an exception for them but otherwise outlaws abortion would probably be acceptable even among persons who would prefer to prioritize the baby’s life over that of his mother. I am absolutely opposed to aborting on the grounds of the predicted characteristics of the baby. But American homosexuals, overwhelmingly to the Left politically and typically quite committed to it, would find themselves in a cleft stick were it to become possible to forecast an unborn baby’s ultimate sexual orientation.

     So they’d better hope that Stephen Lavedas’s tale remains a fiction, and that homosexuality is really a psychological matter rather than a characteristic of the body.