the child after its born - they just want to force women to carry their pregnancies to term because they're uncomfortable with women having choices, or something, I don't know. But once the baby is born the parents won't magically change their minds and want a girl. It honestly makes me feel sick to think about the pain that will be inflicted on children, and how anti-choicers don't understand this.

I don't want to reblog that huge thread, but I just want to point out the flaw in that Canadian anti-choicer's argument about "there are no abortion laws here!!11". We do not have any provincial or federal limitations on abortion — but you'd be hard pressed to find a clinic who will perform the procedure after six months LMP without a medical reason. The reason behind this is that the risk of harm to the mother goes up significantly after six months, as the procedure becomes more complicated — and doctors recognize this. It should also be mentioned that the idea of someone getting an abortion the day before they're due is a fucking strawman argument. Why the hell would someone put themselves through 9 months of pregnancy for a fetus they plan to abort? As a doula, I speak to a lot of pregnant women — and I have never, ever, EVER met someone who stays pregnant for as long as possible and then gets a risky late-term abortion for funsies.

There really isn't evidence to prove that people are born with homosexual desires.  On the other side, it is impossible to prove the absence of something.  I really don't know.  Regardless, this doesn't effect the debate.  Many people like to emphasize this point, but I am on your side with this one--I don't think this is a point we should be debating.