Abortion kills Gay babies, too

“Abortion and Homosexuality” are always lumped together in our modern parlance. Perhaps they are conceived of as some twin issue or something. I don’t know. What does one have to do with the other? Not much. But they are related in a conundrum way. Well, let us look.

It is true that gay folks don’t really make babies, so in a sense, we’re not involved in the abortion issue – we don’t add to the problem. No gay man ever had to hear from his honey “but, I want an abortion” – for it just can’t happen. Nor do I think any woman pregnant goes to a gay friend (if she has any,) and wonders what to do, or seek guidance or counsel. Maybe one or two does – but, I doubt it. We’d be the last to ask anything on the issue. Nor am I sure that most gay men have any fully formed view on the matter. It really just doesn’t pertain to us directly – only indirectly.

Meanwhile, 99% of gay men are pretty darn sure we’re born this way. We don’t know why we are, but we’re sure we are. Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” is quite a popular tune among us, I hear. (I heard it once, I think it insipid and uninspired, but, I’m a Beethoven man, so there.)

Then, it is often asked by some of our “better” thinkers, somewhat rhetorically, “If you knew the child was going to be gay would you abort it?” Which is an interesting question, to say the least. And most gay men I know would say “No, don’t abort the gay baby.” So, gay men are against abortion – maybe.

Indeed, I believe there’s a few plays about this angle of aborting gay babies. I forgot the names, I think a play called “Jeffrey” is one – I’m not sure. I’ll let others look it up, I’m busy. But, I know the question is posed, and often. And I think it’s done in some weird desire to tweak Christians against both abortion and homosexuality. But the gay men who write those articles and plays probably don’t think of themselves as “conservative” on the abortion issue – but that’s exactly what they’d be if they were against aborting babies, gay or otherwise.

Now, some liberal gay men are all for the woman’s “right to choose,” I’m sure. I’ve heard it said. And then, of course, they segue into “but don’t abort the gay babies.” Which is a conundrum of logic to say the least. It results in arguments, I assure you, having had these arguments myself. For if it is wrong to abort the gay baby it can’t be right to abort the hetero baby. Especially if, as we say, “we’re equal.”

Meanwhile, gay men are few in numbers, and we could use every extra one we can find.

Thus, if gay men are born gay from the moment of conception, as we argue, then it stands to reason that for every given number of abortions, a small percentage will be gay. Thus, people are aborting gay babies, of that there can be no doubt.

Even if one posits that the gayness is some childhood trauma – if the child isn’t there to get some childhood thing to make him gay, it still results in less gay folks.

Also true is that the opponents of gay existence are against abortion too – and so, I’m in league with my own opponents on one issue – abortion – and against them on the other – gayness. Which is a political conundrum of some size. For I would join say, The Family Research Council in their fight against abortion – while they’re fighting me for being gay. Maybe they would reject my support of their abortion position because I am gay – I don’t know. Gay men haven’t had the gumption yet to go to the FRC and point out that since we’re born gay and abortion kills us that we are on their side on the abortion issue. That would be strange bedfellows indeed. What the FRC would say on this, I have no clue – they haven’t yet said a word on it. But, I would think gay men should indeed join the FRC in their quest to end abortion. And let the FRC figure out their position on that sticky wicket.

Now, if we don’t abort the babies – there’s going to be at least 1.3 million kids born, annually. Mostly to parents who cannot or will not tend the babies. And gay men have been stepping into the breach and adopting or fostering the kids. And if the FRC doesn’t want abortion, but can’t find any heterosexuals to take care of the 1.3 million kids – would they accede to the idea that gay men could step up to the plate and help deal with the extra kids? Again, that’s another ball to throw into the FRC’s court.

We should go tell them “We’re against abortion, and we can help by offering to adopt the kids their own parents don’t want.” And again, let the FRC figure out that conundrum – how to lie down with gay folks politically against abortion, while still fighting our existence.

It is true there’s not enough of us to take in 1.3 million babies a year, that’s for sure. Even if we make up 10 million men, in a few years we’d each have 3 or 4 kids, and then what? I’m not sure we could do that. Still, maybe we can solve the problem of parents for a few hundred thousand – and the heterosexuals will have to take care of the rest of the kids.

So, yes, “abortion and homosexuality” – what a conundrum. Gay men who are “pro-choice” – and Gay men willing to adopt un-aborted babies – and Gay babies being aborted, which, we seem to be against.

I have never in my years seen any article of the type I just wrote – not a one. Never have I seen any proposal by us to go to the FRC (or the Catholic Church for that matter,) and pose the question in a rational way – rather than just some “hahaha, we’re tweaking you” sort of way. Frankly, I think gay men should make the case that we will take care of the babies not aborted – and in return the FRC and Catholic Church give up their fight against our existence and let us do it. It’s good for children, helps to solve a problem or two, and well, it’s just the right thing to do.

And so that’s the conundrum of “abortion and homosexuality.” I wish the matter were explored more, but well, it doesn’t seem to get much traction. I think it’s because gay men are so removed from the abortion issue that we haven’t thought it the whole way through.

And so I pose it. As a serious matter for discussion: would the Catholic Church and FRC accede to the reality of gayness and stop the condemnation if we agree to help them end abortion which is killing gay babies?

 And that’s how to get a good discussion going on both issues.



  1. SteveDenver

    Stunningly ignorant.
    Abortion doesn’t “kill babies,” that is right wing incendiary talk; just the same as the right wing calls Marriage Equality “gay marriage.” It fires up their stupid constituents. Abortion terminates a pregnancy and eliminates a fetus: a not yet fully-formed being.

    From the sounds of it, you have never talked to a woman who has had an abortion. I recognize the tone of your screed. It’s similar to people who think they don’t know any gays or lesbians talking about GLBT rights.

    You write about gay men being removed from the issue and gay men not making babies, but your comment is incredibly uninformed. In my 30 years of volunteering with abortion services and reproductive choice activist groups, I have NEVER met a woman who “wanted” an abortion. It is a difficult choice in every instance. There are myriad reasons why women access termination services and none of them are anyone’s business but the woman and her physician.

    As for abortion rights, it has been noted by the National Organization of Women, Gill Foundation, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Anti-Violence Project, that anti-woman sentiment and activity is a precursor to anti-gay sentiment and activity. In short: opposition to women’s rights is directly related to homophobia.

    If you, as a gay man, want to reduce the incidence of abortion, there are proven methods:
    1. Comprehensive sex education beginning at an early age. Kids are having sex by 11-years-old, high school is too late.
    2. Access to contraception and birth control. The right wing hates education and contraception because they think it will encourage sex. Is this about people having sex or about reducing abortion? It can’t be about both.
    3. Information and education for women who are emigrating to the U.S. — many of them are not fully informed as to how pregnancy occurs and how they can prevent it.

    In 2002, Brazil — where abortion is illegal — acknowledged a sharp spike in abortions. The decision was made to institute comprehensive age-appropriate sex education from childhood through adulthood. In three years the incidence of abortions dropped by half. The outreach was extended to prostitutes in the impoverished favelas and condoms were distributed for free. Abortion rates fell again, as well as the incidence of STDs. In 2011 the President suspended distribution and production of sex-ed materials because of “unsuitable” gay and lesbian content.

    As pointed out earlier: anti-woman comes with anti-gay. This is expected to have disastrous results, just as the Bush years of “abstinence only” resulted in the highest-ever teen pregnancy rates, reemergence of syphilis and tuberculosis as public health threats, skyrocketing HIV diagnosis, and a generation ignorant about the value of prevention.

    • Well, I never start off responses to people with “stunningly ignorant” — meanwhile, you are right — no woman has ever discussed abortion with me, nor do i know any gay man who has discussed abortion with some woman they know — in fact, among the gay guys I know – the question hardly every arises. Meanwhile, the fetus to a womb is like a human to earth — yes, it’s unviable if you remove it from the environment it’s in — but to argue that it’s not a human is rather hard — what else would it become. And, no where in my “screed” did I bring up any of the stuff you brought up — but took on a whole new angle, one that is never considered. What the “right wing” likes or doesn’t like I’m not sure.

      As for anti-woman “leads” to anti- gay — well, that’s ludicrous. For it that was true, all this pro-woman stuff you like which started in the ’60s would have lead to something for gay folks — it didn’t — the woman’s movement chased gay folks away too — go ask Gloria Steinem — she complained of lesbians in NOW — seems NOW didn’t like gay folks — learn you history.

      Since I didn’t make any policy recommendations, but merely exercised a thought experiment – well, then, one cannot be “ignorant” if one thinks of a new angles to a confounded debate.

      other than that quick AM response, enjoy your day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: