Abortion Is Not a Gay Issue

Last month, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent out a press release decrying the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart. The Task Force said that the decision, which bans a particularly grisly form of terminating a fetus whose head is mostly outside the womb, was "draconian" and that the court had made itself the "tool of the anti-choice movement."

That was hardly the first time the Task Force had spoken out on issues at best tangential to the gay community. In addition to stating policy positions on abortion, the Task Force has decried the war in Iraq, supported racial preferences and opposed social security privatization and welfare reform.

In other words, it has again demonstrated that it is a garden-variety leftist organization masquerading as a gay civil rights group; it only represents the interests of gay people who also happen to be ideologically committed members of the furthest reaches of the political left.

I believe abortion should be, as President Clinton said, "safe, legal and rare." But just because one supports the right of women to have the control over their bodies that abortion laws seek to protect does not mean that gay people, ipso facto, believe that the gay rights movement - which has plenty of significant legal battles of its own to win - ought to take a position on abortion.

The strongest case that the Task Force has is that the legal reasoning used to erode abortion laws is the same as that used to harm gays; that is, a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution that does not recognize any constitutional right to privacy.

In terms of choosing judges, this may be the rule in practice, but it is hardly a principle that opposition to abortion laws translates into opposition to gay rights; there are, after all, plenty of gays who oppose abortion. Moreover, there is a much stronger constitutional basis for the protection of the rights of consenting adults (in gay rights cases) than the right to take a potential life.

Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that overturned state sodomy laws, rarely mentioned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and did so only in passing. In that case, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, found that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

Abortion, reasonable people ought to be able to agree, raises more complicated questions regarding "intrusions" in the "personal and private" lives of individuals, namely, the potentiality of human life. It is for this reason that Kennedy himself, no slouch when it comes to the Constitution and hardly a right-wing reactionary, was able to write the majority opinions in both the pro-gay Lawrence and pro-life Gonzales v. Carhart cases without sounding intellectually inconsistent.

And as if it merited mentioning: abortion is biologically a heterosexual issue. Noting this fact does not make gays who oppose abortion selfish, it merely emphasizes further that abortion is, in its essence, something with which heterosexual women and their partners struggle. The only way in which abortion could ever be tied to gay political concerns is in the rare case when a surrogate or lesbian mother decides, for whatever reason, to abort the fetus that she agreed to carry prior to insemination.

But these instances are morally incomparable with the cases of most heterosexual women who choose to undergo abortions because of an unplanned pregnancy. As the gay columnist and law professor Dale Carpenter has written, "'Oops babies' are simply not a phenomenon common to gay life."

New pre-natal technology will pose interesting questions for gay activists who believe that abortion rights ought to be hewn to the fight for gay equality. For years, gay activists - backed by scientific discoveries - have claimed the existence of a gay gene. In the near future, if this gene is to be found and isolated, what will the Task Force say about those potential parents who wish to abort their gay gene-carrying fetus, just as a woman bearing a fetus with a cleft palate or Down's Syndrome is able to do?

Because of legal abortion, in the not-too-distant future, there may be a vast culling of potential gay lives simply because of the fact that those lives will be gay.

To win equality nationally, the gay rights movement will have to convince many people of the justness of its cause. A lot of those people are religious, live in the middle and southern parts of the United States and fervently oppose abortion. How does taking a position on the most divisive cultural issue of the past three decades advance the cause of gay rights?

49 Comments for “Abortion Is Not a Gay Issue”

  1. posted by anonlesbian on

    It takes a man, and a sexist man at that, to write this: “And as if it merited mentioning: abortion is biologically a heterosexual issue. Noting this fact does not make gays who oppose abortion selfish, it merely emphasizes further that abortion is, in its essence, something with which heterosexual women and their partners struggle. The only way in which abortion could ever be tied to gay political concerns is in the rare case when a surrogate or lesbian mother decides, for whatever reason, to abort the fetus that she agreed to carry prior to insemination.”

    I have never had sex with a man. I never voluntarily will. But like every woman, I could (God forbid) be raped, and for the next 20 or so years of my life, that event could lead to my being pregnant, and subsequently to an abortion. Furthermore, rape is sometimes a form of violence perpetrated upon lesbians precisely because they are (or are perceived to be) lesbians, so it’s more than just slightly imaginable that a lesbian could end up needing an abortion because she has been literally attacked for being a lesbian.

    Next time, get a feminist (man or woman) to read your post before you post. You undermine what otherwise might come through as the merits of your case when you write such sexist nonsense.

  2. posted by KipEsquire on

    I concur with you generally, but one should acknowledge the role that “morality” played in Justice Kennedy’s Carhart II decision.

    If we are to see a return to “morality as a state interest” — which we had all hoped that Lawrence repudiated forevermore — then that has tremendous implications to gay rights litigation.

    So it’s a bit more complicated than “abortion is biologically a heterosexual issue.”

    Cheers…

  3. posted by Reggie on

    For an interesting prior article making most of the points of the above post, see Damich and Wolfe, Out a Second Time: Gay Heterodoxy On the Question of Abortion, XIII St. Louis University Public Law Review 253 (1993).

  4. posted by dalea on

    Everything anonlesbian said. Many thanks for your clear post.

  5. posted by Zach on

    Props to Anonlesbian. You make a good point. Abortion does affect the lives of both homosexuals and heterosexuals. But I must agree with Mr. Kirchick: abortion is not a fundamentally gay issue, and gay rights organizations should not treat it as such. As a whole, the gay community should be striving to end DADT and secure civil marriage rights. Let anyone who wants to help protect a woman’s choice go to the appropriate groups.

  6. posted by Deedee on

    Statistically speaking, straight women are more likely to stand with us than straight men. However, make it clear that if we vote for what they want, they should return the same.

  7. posted by Deedee on

    Oh, and what anonlesbian said.

  8. posted by raot on

    People have been predicting that the discovery of a ‘gay gene’ will transform the abortion debate for some time – Larry Kramer and some Christian fundamentalist (Pat Robertson, if I remember rightly) had a go at it back in the 1990s, about a decade ago. Nothing of the sort has happened, of course, and those of us who don’t believe in a gay gene will be there to say, ‘We told you so’, when it eventually becomes obvious it will never happen.

  9. posted by dalea on

    anonlesbian, I hope that you will stay here and comment. Here is a lengthy discussion on the topic from a few weeks ago:

    http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31227.html#commentform

  10. posted by LeBain on

    What does brutal partial-birth abortion, and the deliberate taking of a life have to do with the frightening but remote possibility that a lesbian may be raped before she reaches menopause? One is a distant reality that even if it were to happen, a possible ensuing pregnancy could be terminated well in advance of the time when partial-birth abortions are administered. The other is a non-abstract taking of life.

  11. posted by Pappy McFae on

    I must agree wholeheartedly with the author. Just because an issue has a leftward slant doesn’t mean it is up to the gay community to take an official position on it.

    How is taking a stand on abortion going to further our ability to marry? How is taking a stand on abortion going to further advances in hate crime legislation?

    Further, why is it when a gay man dares to say something, he has to pass it through the feminist filter? WHY? Do the man hating lesbians run their sexist crap through the opposite filter for us? NO! Not at all!

    It’s always a man’s fault! We are the ones that have to be “sensitive” to the needs of others. We are the ones that have to sublime our ideals, ideas, and opinions to the growling masses of cranky feminists, else we suffer being slammed from one side of the room to the next.

    Frankly, I’m tired of that crap! If the gay “community” continues to allow side issues such as abortion to move focus away from that which is important, ie. getting all the civil rights that are our due, then we will have only ourselves to blame.

    Oh yeah, and if some of you feminists don’t like what I said, tough! I am a gay man. I have a gay man’s point of view. I am not going to get pregnant. I am not going to get someone pregnant. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, abortion is an issue that is outside the world of gay rights. It is just one more issue that makes you think you have the right to slap me around for my opinion!

    Blessed be!

    Pappy

  12. posted by Another Lesbian on

    What does brutal partial-birth abortion, and the deliberate taking of a life have to do with the frightening but remote possibility that a lesbian may be raped before she reaches menopause? One is a distant reality that even if it were to happen, a possible ensuing pregnancy could be terminated well in advance of the time when partial-birth abortions are administered. The other is a non-abstract taking of life.

    Remote?

    Between 20% and 25% of all women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.

    Furthermore, the ninth paragraph of the aforementioned article reads as follows: And as if it merited mentioning: abortion is biologically a heterosexual issue. Noting this fact does not make gays who oppose abortion selfish, it merely emphasizes further that abortion is, in its essence, something with which heterosexual women and their partners struggle. The only way in which abortion could ever be tied to gay political concerns is in the rare case when a surrogate or lesbian mother decides, for whatever reason, to abort the fetus that she agreed to carry prior to insemination.

    Any non-illiterate person would come to the conclusion that the author was making a general statement about abortion not being a gay issue. Partial birth abortion is just one small slice of all abortion-related issues. However, the author did not mention partial birth abortion specifically in that paragraph; in that particular paragraph, he was making the statement that, generally, abortion is a heterosexual issue. “Abortion” in the context of that paragraph means “abortion in general.” And as “anonlesbian” and others have gently reminded the author: that statement is false.

  13. posted by Another Lesbian on

    Oh yeah, and if some of you feminists don’t like what I said, tough! I am a gay man. I have a gay man’s point of view. I am not going to get pregnant. I am not going to get someone pregnant. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, abortion is an issue that is outside the world of gay rights. It is just one more issue that makes you think you have the right to slap me around for my opinion!

    Gays and lesbians may have many similar issues but we also have different issues, — and I’m willing to support yours if you’re willing to support mine. For example, AIDS. Never really a big problem in the lesbian community. But have I marched, volunteered, etc? Have other lesbians dragged their butts out there to help? You betcha.

    So quit bitchin’. No one is slapping you around. Pay it forward. That’s all I’m saying…

  14. posted by Craig2 on

    As far as I’m concerned, socially conservative anti-abortion gay men need their heads examined. Hello? The Christian Right and anti-abortionists believe that all non-reproductive sexuality is wrong, heterosexual, lesbian or gay. Most of them are homophobes. Most of them have overlapping membership of antigay groups.

    And may I say it’s good to see lesbians contributing to this debate, left, right or otherwise.

    Not all gay men are clueless misogynists.

    Craig2

    Wellington,

    New Zealand

  15. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Between 20% and 25% of all women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.

    And yet, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s own cited statistics (page 114, Table 3 of the linked PDF), pregnancies resulting from rape account for less than one-half of one percent of all abortions performed in the United States annually. Furthermore, the argument is perfectly legitimate that, in these cases, the existing rights of the mother do outweigh those of the child, since the mother was not allowed to make the decisions of whether or not to have sex and whether or not to have protected sex.

    It’s the other 99.5% of abortions that cause the problem — or just over 90%, if you allow the exceptions for the baby’s health or the mother’s health.

    And as far as “paying it forward” goes, I think organizations like the Breast Cancer Emergency Fund do an admirable job of that without requiring gay men to support something against their beliefs and morals. Since lesbians are more susceptible to breast cancer than straight women, this is something that is very much important to AND needed in the gay community — and it’s hardly controversial.

    Simply put, if you want gay men to speak out against sexual assault, you won’t have any problem. If you want gay men to support health causes that are of particular and proven concern to lesbians, especially given the pay it forward principle, you won’t have a problem either.

    But your asking us to support something like abortion-on-demand based on a justification that is true in less than 0.5% of cases and which could be strongly mitigated by speaking out against its cause (sexual assault) instead doesn’t fall into either of those categories.

    And finally, Craig2, “the enemy of my enemy is someone I should unquestioningly support” is not a way to manage things, especially when you can’t even certify honestly that “all” of them oppose gays. Furthermore, I find it highly amusing that you are criticizing them for their stances on the need for one to control and limit their sexual behavior, but supporting groups who point out that inability or unwillingness to control or limit one’s own sexual behavior, i.e. sexual assault, is a major problem.

  16. posted by Another Lesbian on

    Just driving by for a bit:

    And as far as “paying it forward” goes, I think organizations like the Breast Cancer Emergency Fund do an admirable job of that without requiring gay men to support something against their beliefs and morals. Since lesbians are more susceptible to breast cancer than straight women, this is something that is very much important to AND needed in the gay community — and it’s hardly controversial.

    Good point, actually.

  17. posted by barry on

    Anonlesbian conveniently ignores the main import of the piece, which is that abortion, like most of the other issues on the political agenda, is simply not a gay issue.

    I suppose she “caught” the author in a misstep when he neglected to mention lesbian rape victims. But you can’t blame him even for that: given all the talk about date rape and spousal rape, one would think that rape happens far less to lesbians than to straight women.

    In any case, of course, early term abortion after rape by a stranger is almost universally accepted by Americans (include South Dakotans), and was before Roe v Wade as well. No rape victim has to wait until late in the pregnancy, when partial birth becomes an option. So, to repeat, the recent Supreme Court opinion is not a “gay or lesbian” issue at all.

  18. posted by James on

    Sorry, anyone who thinks that something as fundamental as sexuality is controlled by just a few genes needs to take a few biology courses. Gay people don’t need to worry about being aborted. The very fact that homosexuality appears in all cultures and among all races throughout human history should be indication enough that it’s something very deep-rooted and can’t be eliminated by an examination of DNA.

  19. posted by James on

    Any stance on any issue that doesn’t bear directly on gay rights is crap. Our whole struggle, as I see it, is to prove our humanity, that we are not just a function of our sexuality, which is how many heterosexuals view us. Gays who imagine that there’s a “correct” gay position on matters unrelated to our legal rights and the dignity that issues from legal equality are simply contributing to our stereotyping and dehuminization.

  20. posted by Craig2 on

    It may not be an issue for *socially conservative* gay men, but I have always believed in a co-gendered lesbian and gay community. Some gay men happen to like female social company, straight female and/or lesbian.

    Lesbians may experience rape, and may require termination of pregnancy. Therefore, reproductive freedom (or liberty) is a lesbian and gay issue.

    And ND30, if you’re a libertarian, may I point out the existence of Wendy McElroy and other libertarian feminists and pro-choice libertarians? And also ask you why any libertarian would support massive state interference with as basic an issue of individual freedom as the right to control one’s own body?

    As for the “gay foetus” issue, may I point out that the gay gene theory is just that- a theory. There are theories that the origin of our sexual orientation occurs so early in infant development that it is, to all intents and purposes, hardwired and unmovable. I happen to believe in those.

  21. posted by Audrey B on

    Attention, IGF posters, Mr. Kirchick isn’t saying abortion is an illegitimate issue, only that it’s not a gay issue. As someone who is pro-abortion and heterosexual, even I find it ridiculous to see organizations that are supposed to be working on behalf of gay people wasting valuable resources fighting others battles.

  22. posted by Pink Elephant on

    Craig2, abortion is actually an issue where there can be considerable disagreement among libertarians. It comes down to whose and which rights should be infringed, the mother’s reproductive rights or the unborn child’s right to life. As ND30 pointed, in cases of rape most people would side with the mother’s rights, but iun other cases the answer can legitimately be less clear to people who are principled defenders of liberty.

  23. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    And also ask you why any libertarian would support massive state interference with as basic an issue of individual freedom as the right to control one’s own body?

    There seems to be some confusion of issue here, Craig.

    If you’re talking about this:

    Lesbians may experience rape, and may require termination of pregnancy.

    as Pink Elephant already pointed out, that’s a case in which the rights of the unborn come into conflict with those of the mother — because the mother did not agree to have sex.

    However, as I mentioned above, even if you include the other non-consensual case — the mother’s physical health is severely and/or permanently threatened by the pregnancy — those account for less than 10% of the abortions performed in the United States annually. The vast majority — over 90% — are as the result of consensual sex.

    Pregnancy, simply put, doesn’t happen in the vast majority of cases until you choose to have sex and you choose to have unprotected sex (or take the risk of your birth control failing). As a result, if you don’t want to get pregnant, you have plenty of options to “control your own body” prior to having to abort the baby created as a result of your actions and your decisions.

    Put bluntly, given that nonconsensual sex and health issues constitute the reason for less than 1 out of every 10 abortions, they make a very poor argument for allowing the other 9.

    To me, the ultimate irony is this; under Federal law, you can be arrested, fined, and imprisoned for damaging an animal’s embryos or eggs in exactly the same fashion as you would for an adult or juvenile animal…..but not for a human being.

    Put bluntly, many Americans value the eggs of a bald eagle more than they do unborn humans.

  24. posted by snark on

    While I find much in the column to dislike, particularly a tone that’s somewhere between condescending and contemptuous, I do think the (theoretical) discovery of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, in whatever nook or cranny of the genome, presents pro-choice gay people with a conundrum. For instance, the very pro-choice lesbian pastor of my church will at the same time decry the possible abortion of fetuses that might be gay. Why? If one supports the right to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome (which has happened to the point that there are very few children with that disorder in this country anymore), one cannot oppose the right to abort a fetus with gay syndrome (or something similarly called). Is a child with Down’s less valuable than a gay child? I think not. so. It made me, for one, seriously reconsider my longstanding support for abortion rights. It’s not an easy, black or white subject, but it saddened me greatly to know that most people with Down’s are adults because the rest have been killed. If I continue my support for abortion, I must accept that someday there won’t be very many gay children, either – a position I cannot abide.

  25. posted by Brian Miller on

    I am a Libertarian, so I support a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy and govern her own body unambiguously and strongly.

    However, if I want to spend my resources on that issue, I will donate to an abortion rights group that lobbies on that issue. I don’t need my donations designed to advance gay causes diverted to an unrelated issue.

    To understand the absurdity of NGLTF’s abortion campaigning, just imagine if EMILY’S List, or NARAL, started rallying millions of dollars and HUGE mailings in favor of gay adoption. Their members would be most unpleased. We should act similarly.

    I do think the (theoretical) discovery of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, in whatever nook or cranny of the genome, presents pro-choice gay people with a conundrum.

    People who look at this argument ignore the other side — the advances in medicine that allow fetuses to be customized. In the near future, two men will be able to have a biological child together, and eventually, the genomes for sexual orientation (if they exist) will be easily manipulable as well.

    You could very possibly see gay and lesbian couples having gay and lesbian babies. So, of course, things work both ways.

    I also doubt that Christian “true believers” would suddenly decide abortion was A-OK if it was only of a gay baby. They reject abortion for other reasons, including the health and life of the mother and abortion for genetic defects/deformities. They’re not going to reverse that hard-line course to make a “gay exception.”

    All in all, an unconvincing case from the anti-choice side as well — and I won’t even go into the immorality of the government claiming ownership and sole domain over a woman’s uterus simply to preserve the perceived population of gay folks.

  26. posted by Jim on

    “Between 20% and 25% of all women are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes”

    BS. Any basis to this statistic, other than rape accusations and allegations, corecting for false allegations? The rate of false aaccusations is ma matter of a great deal of controversy, and that by itself puts this staistic on very shaky ground. But beyond that, this statistic may only reflect the incidence of rape or sexual assualt – how does it differentiate between one-time victims and victims of several rapes? That would reduce the overall number of women assualted. For that matter what constitues “sexual assualt”? Unwanted physical contact such as a hand on the shoulder qualifies as assualt; how does that psossibly qualify as rape?

    Why try to support a basically sound objection with such an unsound citation?

  27. posted by Ashley on

    Thank you for addressing this issue. I have also always wondered why abortion and gay rights have been tied together by the pundits (e.g. the definition of a “moderate” Republican seems to be one who is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights). As a lesbian and a pro-life conservative, I take issue with this and do not want a movement that is supposed to be striving for equality for gays to be simultaneously supporting an unrelated leftist issue. I also know that many gays and lesbians who are otherwise liberal democrats happen to be pro-life. Yet we are all lumped together with the media (including the gay media) presuming that we all share the same views or that we should.

    And I do not agree with anonlesbian’s suggestion that you “get a feminist” to read (and approve) your work before you post it. That would kind of take away the point of you writing an opinion piece in the first place wouldn’t it?

  28. posted by anongayguy on

    Surely one of the legitimate reasons for gay men to side with pro-choice women is that we, by and large, oppose the same enemy– the Religious Right *and* its secular SoCon hangers-on. As such, we look to the roots of our enemy’s political power, in hopes of curbing it. Like it not, a large part of the Right’s ability to organise politically revolves around the variously charged issue of abortion. To curb their power, then, we gay men are compelled to oppose the Right’s position on this matter. It’s aS simple as that.

  29. posted by ETJB on

    It is intersting that gay conservatives often claim a wide range of issues are ‘gay issues’ — that other gay people feel are not — Yet, when they get upset that gay people dont take them seriously on issues that they insist are ‘gay issues — tax cuts for the rich or letting everyone run around with a nuclear weapon, Iraq War — they turn around and do the same thing; i.e. say abortion is not a ‘gay issue’.

    Nothing is preventing pro-life gay people or feminists from organizing (in fact they already do) pro-life clubs. How much respect and credibility do they have in the pro-life movement? Zero.

    Much of the pro-life movement is still overwhelming run by men who want to outlaw all sex that is not done for the purpose of procreation.

  30. posted by Craig2 on

    I’d have to agree with the criticism of lesbian and gay male social conservatives above.

    By supporting the anti-abortion movement, they are endangering the judicial privacy rights basis that underlaid Lawrence v Texas.

    Incidentally, how *is **supporting* the Iraqi War a gay issue when it provokes the ‘sexuality cleansing’ of Iraqi gay men by radical Shia and Sunni Islamists?

    As for LGBT rights and the pro-choice movement, I would point out that outside the United States, solidarity between the two movements is quite commonplace. Only the United States has a gay anti-abortion group, and its membership thankfully is restricted to your country.

    Craig2

    Wellington

    New Zealand

  31. posted by Jay on

    Surely one of the legitimate reasons for gay men to side with pro-choice women is that we, by and large, oppose the same enemy– the Religious Right *and* its secular SoCon hangers-on.

    No. The only legitimate reason for a gay man to side with pro-abortion women is that he agrees ethically with their position.

    To curb their power, then, we gay men are compelled to oppose the Right’s position on this matter. It’s aS simple as that.

    I hope you’re not speaking on behalf of gay men as if they all ought to act in complete accordance with each other. Do you really expect gay men who are anti-abortion to support, monetarily or otherwise, pro-abortion organizations simply because doing so might “curb” the power of a constituency that opposes gay rights? Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they’ll betray their other ethical positions if it meant the possibility of preventing an infringement of gay rights.

  32. posted by anongayguy on

    Only the United States has a gay anti-abortion group, and its membership thankfully is restricted to your country.

    Perhaps because the US is the only first-world nation so broadly and utterly choked with Right-wing sentiment that there’s an ideological slop-over effect: one that spills onto gay people so desperate to assimilate that they’re willing to fully take on the minset of their own oppressors.

  33. posted by Brian Miller on

    one of the legitimate reasons for gay men to side with pro-choice women is that we, by and large, oppose the same enemy

    Not really. Many of the most outspoken supporters of anti-gay laws are pro-choice — just look at the DOMA votes for confirmation of that.

    Only the United States has a gay anti-abortion group

    I so tire of this sort of anti-American propaganda by people who style themselves “cosmopolitan.” They’ll denounce Yankee liberals as “racist” for taking on sharia muftis, but then they’ll make broad comments about those stupid, insular, racist Americans without irony.

    I am aware of several British, Irish, Dutch, Canadian and Italian gay groups that are also anti-choice. While I disagree with them, I certainly don’t pretend they don’t exist. I also don’t see the point in pointing out the nationality of people with every other post.

    There’s nothing “sophisticated” about anti-Americanism. It’s no more “enlightened” or “correct” than anti-French sentiment in Texas, or anti-African comments in the Tory tea parties of high-society London.

  34. posted by Brian Miller on

    gay people so desperate to assimilate that they’re willing to fully take on the minset of their own oppressors

    And become Democrats (and Republicans) — all the while insisting that those two anti-gay political parties are the only “realistic choices!” 😉

  35. posted by raot on

    ‘Do you really expect gay men who are anti-abortion to support, monetarily or otherwise, pro-abortion organizations simply because doing so might “curb” the power of a constituency that opposes gay rights?’ Sometimes life offers us difficult choices. Suppose that it were impossible in practice to oppose abortion without also advancing an anti-gay agenda. What then?

  36. posted by Jay on

    Sometimes life offers us difficult choices. Suppose that it were impossible in practice to oppose abortion without also advancing an anti-gay agenda. What then?

    If hypothetically you could only choose to support the anti-abortion cause or the gay rights cause and supporting one was necessarily detrimental to the other, then your only option would be to decide which cause was more important to you and act accordingly.

  37. posted by Brian Miller on

    Suppose that it were impossible in practice to oppose abortion without also advancing an anti-gay agenda. What then?

    That would be a fair question to ask except that it’s not a reflection of the actual situation.

    A fairer question to ask is “suppose it’s impossible in practice to support Democrats or Republicans without advancing an anti-gay agenda. What then?”

    Because supporting either the Democrats or the Republicans advances an anti-gay agenda — yet many gay people passionately do so day after day.

    Many of the Democrats demanding that gay people have a single unity of purpose on the issue of abortion “to advance gay rights” lack the unity of purpose to oppose Democrats like Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc. who advance anti-gay policies and who oppose equality under the law.

    So which is more “anti-gay” — being a non-Democrat whose opinion on abortion deviates from the position popular on the left; or being a partisan Democrat sending campaign funds and urging votes for candidates who are resolutely opposed to marriage equality?

  38. posted by Craig2 on

    Name these non-US LGBT anti-choice organisations. I’m not convinced they actually exist.

    Craig2

    Wellington,

    New Zealand

  39. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    So if you’re gay, you have to support abortion — or you’re not really gay.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    And for making the author’s point about how ridiculous that is.

  40. posted by Pappy McFae on

    Gays and lesbians may have many similar issues but we also have different issues, — and I’m willing to support yours if you’re willing to support mine. For example, AIDS. Never really a big problem in the lesbian community. But have I marched, volunteered, etc? Have other lesbians dragged their butts out there to help? You betcha.

    So quit bitchin’. No one is slapping you around. Pay it forward. That’s all I’m saying…

    Here we have a clear example of what I said. You think that just because you have “helped” with a completely gay, and might I add HUMAN issue, ie AIDS, you think that you are owed a tit for tat on an issue that is clearly not a gay issue.

    You are not owed tit for tat on this issue. No matter what rationalization you use, you cannot ignore the reality that abortion rights have nothing to do with the gay “agenda”.

    Also, as I knew would happen, you made assumptions on my opinion about the issue of abortion. For the record, while I find abortion to be murder, as well as an irresponsible alternative to practical birth control, I think it must be kept safe and legal. One death is bad enough. Why kill two people with one wire hanger?

    Oh yes, surprise, surprise, I am pro choice! I bet you didn’t expect that, did you? Whatever my personal political ideals may be on the issue of abortion, the fact remains it is not a gay issue. Like it or not, abortion has no impact upon my life or the lives of other gay men. AIDS, on the other hand, has no idea about the gender, gender preference, or political affiliation of the person infected. The retrovirus couldn’t care less. As long as it finds a human to infect, it’s happy.

    If you want to split hairs over the issue of AIDS versus abortion, I submit that your words call your motivation into question. Are you simply supporting AIDS so you have a hammer to hit those of us who disagree with abortion as a gay issue? If this is the case, then quite frankly, I don’t want or need your support on AIDS or any other issue! If your support comes with strings or price tags, then your support is both unwanted and unneeded!

    Blessed be!

    Pappy

  41. posted by Pappy Mcfae on

    Craig2, abortion is actually an issue where there can be considerable disagreement among libertarians. It comes down to whose and which rights should be infringed, the mother’s reproductive rights or the unborn child’s right to life. As ND30 pointed, in cases of rape most people would side with the mother’s rights, but [in] other cases the answer can legitimately be less clear to people who are principled defenders of liberty.

    The constitution of the United States does not take the ?rights? of anyone under eighteen years of age into account. A lump of cells has no rights whatsoever under the constitution. In my opinion, the rights of the mother win out every time. Too bad I don?t write the laws, or adjudicate them, either.

    It is [interesting] that gay conservatives often claim a wide range of issues are ‘gay issues’ — that other gay people feel are not — Yet, when they get upset that gay people don?t take them seriously on issues that they insist are ‘gay issues — tax cuts for the rich or letting everyone run around with a nuclear weapon, Iraq War — they turn around and do the same thing; i.e. say abortion is not a ‘gay issue’.

    What is ?interesting? is the number of people who assume that one?s opinion on whether or not abortion is a gay issue automatically makes them either ?conservative? or ?liberal?. I am liberal on many issues (including abortion) and conservative on others. That?s why I am a middle of the road Libertarian. Just because I don?t feel that abortion is an issue that?s germane to the issue of gay rights has no bearing on my opinion on the issue of abortion itself.

    If we are concerned with our civil rights, then that must remain our focus. In regards to my thoughts on gay rights, I have no opinion on issues that exist outside that reality. I don?t care about tax cuts, abortion rights, child custody laws, or any other ancillary issue that has no direct relation to gay rights. I?m sorry if that makes me seem like a misogynist on the issue of abortion, but that?s how I feel.

    I?ll never get pregnant. I?ll never get anyone pregnant. Ergo, the issue has no bearing on my life as a gay man. If this is the case, then it is not a gay issue. Let the straight men and women deal with this issue. It?s clearly more of an issue for them than for my kind or me.

    Surely one of the legitimate reasons for gay men to side with pro-choice women is that we, by and large, oppose the same enemy– the Religious Right *and* its secular SoCon hangers-on.

    What an incredibly weak argument! Unlike many who feel that they must fall into lockstep with others on particular issues, I can think for myself and hold my own opinions on issues. I have never held that it is my responsibility to tow the party line just because others in the party think I should. My mind is not for rent, nor is it given away to others simply because they think I should give it away. I don?t live for my brothers or sisters. I live for myself. I was born alone. When I die, it is I alone who will be in my coffin (until I am cremated). So why should I live my life the way others think I should? Why should I hold an opinion because YOU think I should?

    I am no fan of the Religious Reich. However, that doesn?t mean I believe or disbelieve issues as they pertain to the opinions held by members of the Religious Reich or their adherents. Once again, I am a big boy. I can make up my own mind. It just so happens that I am diametrically opposed to the Religious Reich in every way. That is as much about my hatred of hypocrisy as it is about the fact that they see me as an evil pariah. I am an evil person that should be killed and sent to the place where the guy in the red suit with the pointy tail and pitchfork does his business (and is hurriedly fixing a place of honor for Scary Jerry Falwell). That?s why I am against the Religious Reich.

    That being said, I still don?t believe that abortion is a gay issue. My opinion about abortion notwithstanding, I still don?t feel it has any place in the discussion of gay rights. This doesn?t make me a misogynist. This makes me someone with an opinion.

    The issue of aborting gay fetuses is a red herring issue! The true dynamics of what makes a person gay or straight (or bi, which is technically more predominant according to Kinsey) is still a mystery. Oh, to be sure, they have identified possible genetic markers that predispose someone to be gay. However, as human beings, we are as much the products of nurture as we are nature. While geneticists might be able to find genetic markers, it is our experience postnatal that dictates where our sexuality takes us. Our personal sexual preferences and peccadilloes are definitely more a product of experience than genetic predisposition. How many come out of the womb liking leather, or wearing fuzzy animal costumes? Not many. That crap comes later!

    If one thing has been proved, adding the issue of abortion to the so-called gay ?agenda? has added a bone of contention that causes numerous rifts. In this way, it is clear that the issue of abortion should be kept out of the discussion of gay rights. Whether I am conservative, liberal, or middle of the road, the absolute truth is abortion is at best a point of contention, and at worst, a completely moot point in considering the larger issue of gay rights.

    I am sure there are going to be others who are going to poo-poo what I have said here. So be it. The continued discussion and contentiousness of this issue only proves that its inclusion in the larger discussion of gay rights causes more problems than it solves. I hold many leftist ideas, and just as many conservative. However, I don?t bring them to the table in discussing gay rights. If it?s not about gay marriage, anti hate crime legislation, or the complete securing of every civil right that is our due as gay Americans, it?s moot! Abortion falls neatly into that category!

    Blessed be!

    Pappy

  42. posted by Brian Miller on

    Name these non-US LGBT anti-choice organisations. I’m not convinced they actually exist.

    It’s not my job to disabuse you of your prejudices — rather, it’s up to you to prove your confused, prejudicially “progressive” statements are factually valid.

    If one thing has been proved, adding the issue of abortion to the so-called gay ?agenda? has added a bone of contention that causes numerous rifts.

    This is not uncommon. All too often, the internationalist gay lobby’s self-appointed leaders have aligned LGBTQ interests directly with the causes of socialism (as defined in various UN documents that discuss the “right” to a job, house, health care, etc.)

    They do so completely to our detriment. Queer folk thrive in an environment of openness, liberation and self-achievement and tend to do very poorly in places where socialism is the norm.

    Understanding this truth, perhaps those of us of a liberal persuasion should start painting high-tax, big-government nanny statists as homophobic by simple virtue of the disastrous results their policies have on LGBTQ folks?

  43. posted by QoQ-QueerFemme on

    Abortion is a women’s issue, NOT a (solely) heterosexual issue. It concerns, intrinsically, our reproductive autonomy and the sovereignity we have over our bodies. Period.

    This article completely sweeps the essence of pro-choice politics under the rug and reduces the issue to a caricature of careless heterosexual reproduction versus carefree gay sex. Ludicrous either way, the author in my opinion, is either incredibly myopic or has a more conservative agenda. He completely discounts and dismisses the concerns of a large portion of the GLBQT population who are female bodied.

    Dismantling reproductive freedom has an impact upon society regardless of which set of genitalia you posess. This is why, much like aids, abortion is also a HUMAN issue. There are consequences to bringing unwanted human life into the world which directly or indirectly impacts each member of society. These consequences are economic, social, and political. To deny this fact is at best obtuse and at worst, destructive. To assume that imposing sexual subjugation upon women would have no impact on gay males now or in future is absurd. If one group of people are denied reign over their bodies then we are all at risk.

    Though I personally would prefer that the task force didn’t represent the position of queer WOMEN on this issue I value their allyship, if it is genuine.

  44. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    He completely discounts and dismisses the concerns of a large portion of the GLBQT population who are female bodied.

    As I cited above, rape cases make up less than one-half of one percent of all the abortions that take place in the United States annually.

    In the meantime, if lesbian sex has suddenly started producing babies, please contact scientists so it can be studied.

    To assume that imposing sexual subjugation upon women would have no impact on gay males now or in future is absurd. If one group of people are denied reign over their bodies then we are all at risk.

    Don’t make me laugh.

    As a gay man, I have dealt with the consequences of unprotected sex all of my adult life; it’s called “HIV”.

    As a result of that possibility, I’ve had to both limit sexual activity that could result in unwanted consequences and (horrors!) use protection when I do — or be faced with the chance of something that would likely kill me, will definitely shorten my life, and at the least, make me dependent on expensive pharmaceuticals for the rest of my life.

    But the mere thought of having to carry a baby for nine months after you choose, not only to have quickie sex, but to have unprotected quickie sex, has you and your feminist sisters shrieking “sexual subjugation” whenever someone suggests you think first and use protection, rather than depending on abortion to get rid of your inconvenient children.

  45. posted by Walloon on

    [quote]Perhaps because the US is the only first-world nation so broadly and utterly choked with Right-wing sentiment that there’s an ideological slop-over effect: one that spills onto gay people so desperate to assimilate that they’re willing to fully take on the minset of their own oppressors.[/quote]So ? a gay person couldn’t possibly be anti-abortion because he or she believes that it’s the taking of a human life. No, they’re only saying it so they can assimilate. Gotcha.

  46. posted by Mark on

    Whenever I run into gays who puppet the typical left wingisms about abortion, I always ask them: If science could detect a gene that causes homosexuality in fetuses, would you support a woman’s right to choose abortion if she didn’t want a gay child? You’d be surprised how silent the room gets.

  47. posted by raot on

    Mark, that is a rather pointless question, because there is no good reason to think such a gene exists.

  48. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Sure there is, and I quote: “Homosexuality is biological and not a choice.”

    It’s always entertaining to watch lefty gays insist that being gay is not a choice and is completely biologically and genetically determined — but then insist that the genes or biological things that inexorably cause it can neither be identified or tested for.

  49. posted by Jim on

    “Abortion is a women’s issue, NOT a (solely) heterosexual issue. It concerns, intrinsically, our reproductive autonomy and the sovereignity we have over our bodies”

    Bullshit on the reproductive autonomy. Sovereignty over your bodies, yes of course, but reproduction is obviously not solely a female issue.

    “If one group of people are denied reign over their bodies then we are all at risk.”

    Quite – so why is it that wives feel entitled to throw tsntrum,s when their husbands screw other women? What right does a woman have to tell a man where he can put his dick? It’s not as if he can come back pregnant and force her by legal fiat – the irrefutable presumption of paternity – to raise someone else’s bastard, the way she can. Our bodies, ourselves.

Comments are closed.