Category: Moral Theology

Thanks to a kindly reader down yonder, I now have had a chance to look at the text of Maine’s proposed "gay gene" bill, which would prohibit abortions based on the findings of a genetic test pertaining to the projected sexual orientation of the child.

If I’m reading things correctly, here’s what Maine’s law would be amended 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."

Now, I’ve highlighted the words "or absence" because it points up something I mentioned in the combox on the above-linked post: This bill does not only seek to protect babies who are foreseen to have homosexual temptations. It equally protects babies who are foreseen to have a heterosexual orientation.The law wouldn’t let you kill a kid because he’s foreseen to be straight or gay.

(The title of the bill may mention protecting homosexuals, but this is an obiter dictum. What counts is what the text of the law would be amended to read, and that protects both proto-straight and proto-gay babies.)

Would this survive the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Here’s the part of the amendment containing that clause:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since both proto-straight and proto-gay babies are protected by the law, a textual reading would not indicate that either is being denied equal protection.

One could say that, well, the proto-gay babies are the ones who would by far benefit from such a law as most parents would not want to kill a proto-straight baby. True enough. But does the fact that one class of people benefit from a law more than another mean that the law is unconstitutional because of a violation of the equal protection clause? It would seem hard to argue this reasonably.

First, virtually every law advantages one group more than another:

• If you have a law against murder, that advantages the people who don’t want to be murdered over those that would like to murder them.
• If you have a law giving a government subsidy to wheat farmers (much against the advice of the Supergenius Thomas Sowell) then that advantages them over people not getting a subsidy in their line of work.

Laws against murder and in favor of wheat subsidies are certainly constitutional (regardless of the economic demerits of the latter), so whatever the equal protection clause means, it does not seem to mean that a law which on its face treats everyone equally could not work to the advantage of one group more than another. As long as both the would-be murder victim and the would-be murderer both have their lives protected from being murdered, equal protection is maintained. As long as anybody can become a wheat farmer and gain a share of taxpayer loot, equal protection is maintained.

The equal protection clause was originally introduced to keep states from having "Black Codes" that applied a different set of laws to blacks than to whites (e.g., with more severe punishment and less access to legal redress of grievances). Both classes had to have a common set of laws applying to them.

That is what we have here with proto-straight and proto-gay babies: Both get protexted.

Further, for the equal protection clause to be rationally applied to the unborn the courts would need to find that unborn babies are persons because the equal protection clause expressly applies to "any person within its [a state’s] jurisdiction." I would be most happy with such a finding.

That being said, do I think the proposed law is ideal?

No.

For a start, it speaks only of a "homosexual gene" (singular), but scientists might find that several genes or a combination of genes rather than a single gene may have an impact on sexual orientation.

Further, it ignores completely the possible role that hormones rather than genes may play in shaping future sexual orientation.

Finally, the such a law would have negligible effect since it only prohibits abortions "when the basis for the procedure is the projected sexual orientation of the fetus after birth." What the basis of an abortion may be is too hard to discover. A couple could get a gay gene test on the baby, find out the answer, go home, think it over, and come back with a completely different excuse for why they want to kill the kid. This bill does nothing to prevent that from happening.

Do I expect the law to pass?

Probably not, though I don’t know enough about Maine politics to know.

Do I think the law would survive court challenges?

No, that would be an extreme longshot given the proclivities of Darth Kennedy and Our Robed Masters.

Do I think the law or its attempted passage would start a productive national debate on abortion?

Heck, yeah! I suspect it’s already causing some rethinking in the gay community in a pro-life direction.

Oh, and for those who missed our earlier discussion: Do I believe that there is a "gay gene" that determines sexual orientation?

No. I think humans are too cognitive a species for that. Our sexuality is quite sensitive to cognitive conditioning, though I can’t rule out (given present science) that genes or prenatal hormones may play some kind of role in laying the groundwork for later homosexual temptations.

Thanks to a kindly reader down yonder, I now have had a chance to look at the text of Maine’s proposed "gay gene" bill, which would prohibit abortions based on the findings of a genetic test pertaining to the projected sexual orientation of the child.

If I’m reading things correctly, here’s what Maine’s law would be amended 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."

Now, I’ve highlighted the words "or absence" because it points up something I mentioned in the combox on the above-linked post: This bill does not only seek to protect babies who are foreseen to have homosexual temptations. It equally protects babies who are foreseen to have a heterosexual orientation.The law wouldn’t let you kill a kid because he’s foreseen to be straight or gay.

(The title of the bill may mention protecting homosexuals, but this is an obiter dictum. What counts is what the text of the law would be amended to read, and that protects both proto-straight and proto-gay babies.)

Would this survive the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Here’s the part of the amendment containing that clause:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since both proto-straight and proto-gay babies are protected by the law, a textual reading would not indicate that either is being denied equal protection.

One could say that, well, the proto-gay babies are the ones who would by far benefit from such a law as most parents would not want to kill a proto-straight baby. True enough. But does the fact that one class of people benefit from a law more than another mean that the law is unconstitutional because of a violation of the equal protection clause? It would seem hard to argue this reasonably.

First, virtually every law advantages one group more than another:

• If you have a law against murder, that advantages the people who don’t want to be murdered over those that would like to murder them.
• If you have a law giving a government subsidy to wheat farmers (much against the advice of the Supergenius Thomas Sowell) then that advantages them over people not getting a subsidy in their line of work.

Laws against murder and in favor of wheat subsidies are certainly constitutional (regardless of the economic demerits of the latter), so whatever the equal protection clause means, it does not seem to mean that a law which on its face treats everyone equally could not work to the advantage of one group more than another. As long as both the would-be murder victim and the would-be murderer both have their lives protected from being murdered, equal protection is maintained. As long as anybody can become a wheat farmer and gain a share of taxpayer loot, equal protection is maintained.

The equal protection clause was originally introduced to keep states from having "Black Codes" that applied a different set of laws to blacks than to whites (e.g., with more severe punishment and less access to legal redress of grievances). Both classes had to have a common set of laws applying to them.

That is what we have here with proto-straight and proto-gay babies: Both get protexted.

Further, for the equal protection clause to be rationally applied to the unborn the courts would need to find that unborn babies are persons because the equal protection clause expressly applies to "any person within its [a state’s] jurisdiction." I would be most happy with such a finding.

That being said, do I think the proposed law is ideal?

No.

For a start, it speaks only of a "homosexual gene" (singular), but scientists might find that several genes or a combination of genes rather than a single gene may have an impact on sexual orientation.

Further, it ignores completely the possible role that hormones rather than genes may play in shaping future sexual orientation.

Finally, the such a law would have negligible effect since it only prohibits abortions "when the basis for the procedure is the projected sexual orientation of the fetus after birth." What the basis of an abortion may be is too hard to discover. A couple could get a gay gene test on the baby, find out the answer, go home, think it over, and come back with a completely different excuse for why they want to kill the kid. This bill does nothing to prevent that from happening.

Do I expect the law to pass?

Probably not, though I don’t know enough about Maine politics to know.

Do I think the law would survive court challenges?

No, that would be an extreme longshot given the proclivities of Darth Kennedy and Our Robed Masters.

Do I think the law or its attempted passage would start a productive national debate on abortion?

Heck, yeah! I suspect it’s already causing some rethinking in the gay community in a pro-life direction.

Oh, and for those who missed our earlier discussion: Do I believe that there is a "gay gene" that determines sexual orientation?

No. I think humans are too cognitive a species for that. Our sexuality is quite sensitive to cognitive conditioning, though I can’t rule out (given present science) that genes or prenatal hormones may play some kind of role in laying the groundwork for later homosexual temptations.

What’s the origin of homosexuality?

I dunno.

I suspect, in a species as highly cognitive as homo sapiens, that homosexuality has an origin that is significantly cognitive. That is: Though few individuals may have a moment where they deliberately choose to be homosexual, most find themselves faced with homosexual temptations that they indulge over the course of time and that result in a pattern of temptations toward their own sex.

If the researches of some psychological professionals are a guide, such temptations may be especially strong among individuals who fail, for whatever reason, to form a strong, healthy relationship with their parents–and particular with their fathers (this is true regardless of whether it is male or female homosexuality).

Though I recognize that humanity is a highly cognitive species with a sexuality that is significantly susceptible to cognitive training, I can’t rule out that there are other factors involved in the genesis of homosexual temptations. There may be a genetic or hormonal component that is independent of the environment in which an individual is raised.

Suppose there is.

Suppose that researchers one day produce significant evidence that there is a specific gene or combination of genes that inclines a child toward homosexual temptations. Alternately, suppose that they find evidence that a specific combination of hormones at a particular stage of gestation that affects a child’s later sexual orientation.

What should happen in such a situation?

Many parents would choose, given the right resources, to correct the situation. They would ask that their unborn child be given genetic or hormonal therapy to correct the problem so that their child would experience only the ordinary sexual temptations that affect normal people and thus not be faced with homosexual temptations.

But suppose that such genetic or hormonal therapy is not available.

What would parents do? Some might willingly shoulder the burden of raising a child who will likely have homosexual temptations. But some may not. Some parents might shy away from this burden and choose, instead, to abort the child they have conceived.

THAT WOULD BE MURDER.

I’m sorry, but one cannot kill someone–before or after their emergence from the womb–on the grounds that they have a particular sexual orientation.

Do you support laws against murder?

YOU SHOULD.

And I ask you to join me in supporting a Maine bill that would prevent parents from aborting their children should future science be able to show that their children may have a predisposition toward homosexual temptations.

No man is the sum of his temptations. Nor is any woman the sum of hers.

ALL individuals are human beings who deserve respect and compassion, regardless of what their particular temptations may be.

If science can help allieviate some of these temptations, it is a cause for rejoicing. But whether science can or cannot do this, nobody may be murdered to prevent the arrival of an individual because of the temptations he may face.

Conscientious Christians should therefore support the current Maine bill against aborting babies that might one day be shown to have a predisposition to homosexual tempations.

GET THE STORY.

What’s the origin of homosexuality?

I dunno.

I suspect, in a species as highly cognitive as homo sapiens, that homosexuality has an origin that is significantly cognitive. That is: Though few individuals may have a moment where they deliberately choose to be homosexual, most find themselves faced with homosexual temptations that they indulge over the course of time and that result in a pattern of temptations toward their own sex.

If the researches of some psychological professionals are a guide, such temptations may be especially strong among individuals who fail, for whatever reason, to form a strong, healthy relationship with their parents–and particular with their fathers (this is true regardless of whether it is male or female homosexuality).

Though I recognize that humanity is a highly cognitive species with a sexuality that is significantly susceptible to cognitive training, I can’t rule out that there are other factors involved in the genesis of homosexual temptations. There may be a genetic or hormonal component that is independent of the environment in which an individual is raised.

Suppose there is.

Suppose that researchers one day produce significant evidence that there is a specific gene or combination of genes that inclines a child toward homosexual temptations. Alternately, suppose that they find evidence that a specific combination of hormones at a particular stage of gestation that affects a child’s later sexual orientation.

What should happen in such a situation?

Many parents would choose, given the right resources, to correct the situation. They would ask that their unborn child be given genetic or hormonal therapy to correct the problem so that their child would experience only the ordinary sexual temptations that affect normal people and thus not be faced with homosexual temptations.

But suppose that such genetic or hormonal therapy is not available.

What would parents do? Some might willingly shoulder the burden of raising a child who will likely have homosexual temptations. But some may not. Some parents might shy away from this burden and choose, instead, to abort the child they have conceived.

THAT WOULD BE MURDER.

I’m sorry, but one cannot kill someone–before or after their emergence from the womb–on the grounds that they have a particular sexual orientation.

Do you support laws against murder?

YOU SHOULD.

And I ask you to join me in supporting a Maine bill that would prevent parents from aborting their children should future science be able to show that their children may have a predisposition toward homosexual temptations.

No man is the sum of his temptations. Nor is any woman the sum of hers.

ALL individuals are human beings who deserve respect and compassion, regardless of what their particular temptations may be.

If science can help allieviate some of these temptations, it is a cause for rejoicing. But whether science can or cannot do this, nobody may be murdered to prevent the arrival of an individual because of the temptations he may face.

Conscientious Christians should therefore support the current Maine bill against aborting babies that might one day be shown to have a predisposition to homosexual tempations.

GET THE STORY.

Down yonder, a reader writes:

I’m a protestant, so half of you probably don’t think im really a christian, but what seems to be missing in this whole debate is the entire rest of the issues. If it’s a sin to vote for a pro-choicer over a pro-lifer, why isn’t it a sin to vote for someone who won’t care for the poor, or who is for capital punishment or any number of other issues. Much less on how well they will actually help the country be a better place for everyone…And until you get bishops running for office, no one will ever follow strictly the Catholic Church’s guidelines/demands. Just my two cents.

First, thanks for posting. I hope you’ll visit again (in fact, regularly).

Second, the Catholic Church teaches that, as a Protestant, you are a Christian. That’s settled Catholic teaching and has been for centuries, so you should not be concerned on that point. Anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with the Church’s teaching.

Third, the issues you name are not all the same. Some involve issues that can be supported in some circumstances (like the death penalty) while some can never be supported in any circumstances (like abortion). There is a qualitative difference between the issues.

Fourth, there is also a quantitative difference between the issues. A handful of people may get executed in the U.S. each year, but 1.4 MILLION babies are killed by abortion (and that number may jump dramatically if embryonic stem cell research and cloning for research purposes get off the ground).

As a result of the fact that it kills more individuals than anything else (not the death penalty, not poverty, not the War on Terror, not anything) and the fact that it is intrinsically evil and can never be permitted, abortion superdominates the political landscape. It is the BIG EVIL that has to be taken down as soon as humanly possible. Work on ending lesser evils can proceed as long as they don’t interfere with taking down abortion.

I may have to suffer from a less-than-optimal environment while waiting for abortion to stop, but I can live with that. As long as millions babies are being slaughtered, I cannot ignore their plight at voting time in order to better my or others’ conditions in matters that are not proportionate to 1.4 million deaths a year.