Abortions motivated by a fetus's perceived homosexuality.

[cthulu2016]

97. Some ideas (like this one) are best examined in the alternative

Hypothetically — a woman finds out she is pregnant and (somehow) learns that the baby is/will be gay.

Has her autonomy been reduced in some way by the future sexual orientation of the fetus?

Would she have more rights somehow if the child were hetero?

Aha!

Since her right is to terminate a pregnancy by her own standards then of course that includes standards you or I wouldn't agree with.

As to whether this would lead to the statistical elimination of gay people at some future point in time (a concern voiced in this thread)... well, then that's what it leads to, but not as a top down decision. It would arise only from (hypothetical) unanimity among billions of individual women that they all feel strongly about not wanting gay children.

If, hypothetically, all women decided to eliminate some trait from the human gene pool then that is what all women chose, as a series of individual choices, to do with their bodies.

That sounds shocking, but again, consider it in the alternative. If all women who existed felt the same way (unlikely) would one then say that all women are wrong, and that women should be forced to carry gay fetuses to term?

In every scenario, not matter how weird or impossible, women must not be considered an agricultural resource as producers of humans... any humans. Women do not have an obligation to perpetuate the species.

It is against everything in human nature to conceive a world where all women prefer to be childless, but if that happened then the human race would end. As it ought to if no woman wanted to bear children.

Which isn't going to happen, of course.