The question relates to philosophy behind pro-choice abortion advocacy and how far the position actually goes. Basically, proponents of abortion often use some sort of justification that the child would live a 'tough' life or that 'no one wants them' or that they will 'suffer'. The accusation is that these individuals may support said positions in part because they have no personal attachment to those very specific situations, i.e. they see someone who's poor, or who lived a life harder than their own and come to the conclusion that that life may not have been worth living (although the subject of the question may certainly disagree wholeheartedly). The question then becomes that perhaps if the justification for the killing/abortion was a bit more close to home, their position may change a bit. If for example there was an easily definable genetic predisposition in all humans found which could accurately predict homosexuality, and women/families began to abort these babies based on on testing positive for this genetic predisposition, would the same number pro-choice advocates still be pro-choice? Would the number of homosexuals who consider themselves to be pro-choice decline rapidly? What's your position? If abortion is used as a tool against homosexuality or against a particular race, etc. does your perspective on the morality of abortion change? If not, why not? If so, why, and how would you prevent it?