American Family Association | Bryan Fischer | News

AFA Hater Bryan Fischer Forecasts Abortions of Gay Babies, Says New Study Suggests Homosexuality is a 'Birth Defect': VIDEO


American Family Association radio host is excited about the announcement yesterday in which researchers said they may have identified epigenetic reasons for homosexuality, Right Wing Watch reports.

Writes Fischer:

The scientists in Koebler’s article, in my view, are now resorting to genetic subterfuge and are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect...

...In fact, I expect that if this theory gains some currency, it will not be long before we have legislation from the homoexual lobby prohibiting “sex-selection” abortions on any child carrying this epi-marker.

Watch him repeat the same sentiment on his radio show, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I'm not surprised. These guys just keep moving the goal posts. First it was "a choice" and now that it might proven to be genetic, it's a "birth defect".

    They'll make up any BS reason to condemn homosexuality, but they won't actually admit that they think "gay sex is gross" or that it makes them "aroused and confused".

    Posted by: FuryOfFirestorm | Dec 12, 2012 7:31:37 PM

  2. So even if it is a "birth defect", are we now going to condemn people who suffer from said defect that they have no control over? People like Fischer are a drain on society.

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 12, 2012 7:38:10 PM

  3. Here's my question: will AFA, FRC and the Republican party still argue that all babies in the uterus have a right to life? Or will aborting gay babies be okay?

    Posted by: Clayton | Dec 12, 2012 7:43:10 PM

  4. Wait... aren't these usually the same people that oppose abortions at cost?

    Posted by: BLANK | Dec 12, 2012 7:44:33 PM

  5. Well now he's obviously IN FAVOR of abortion.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Dec 12, 2012 8:03:15 PM

  6. Bryan Fischer (no surprise) doesn't know what he is talking about. Read for some further details, specifically "We used to think that a new embryo's epigenome was completely erased and rebuilt from scratch. But this isn't completely true. Some epigenetic tags remain in place as genetic information passes from generation to generation, a process called epigenetic inheritance."

    Inheritance of part of the epigenome makes it possible to respond quickly to environmental changes - far faster than with genome changes. Of course we still have a lot to learn - epigentics is a relatively new idea and we are just getting started.

    Posted by: Bill | Dec 12, 2012 8:08:49 PM

  7. This guy's personality is a birth defect.

    Posted by: trees | Dec 12, 2012 8:16:59 PM

  8. He's just trying to be provocative. If people can choose abortion, then they can choose it even for reasons I don't approve of. Freedom trumps survival.

    Posted by: Yeek | Dec 12, 2012 8:24:46 PM

  9. Why does he assume that parents will hate (and abort) gay babies? The younger generation (i.e., the ones who have babies) are not the haters that that this walking bag of pinched up sphincters and others of his dying generation are. Maybe the young generation coming up will love their children for who they are. Could this sorry excuse for a human being ever get his head around that concept?

    Posted by: kit | Dec 12, 2012 8:27:39 PM

  10. The science isn't firm, and epigenetics is really quite new. Sexuality will probably never be tied to any one single cause, things are always more complicated than that. If epigenetics is part of the answer it means that somewhere in our code the sequence and the mechanisms to activate it were already there. It isn't a transcription error or problem with the chromosomes, and there is no certainty about outcome to make a causal link. Not going to even try to understand his obsession with "normal".

    Leave it to Fischer to turn on a dime on his own pro-life stance. Though abortion and homosexuality apparently "come from Satan", the moment science provides an idea, he's willing to twist it to imply something that it doesn't. All he can do is project his own dysfunctional gaze on things. I wonder if there's a genetic basis for that?

    Posted by: kerwot | Dec 12, 2012 8:34:04 PM

  11. I can't f***ing stand it when people that have absolutely zero knowledge of biology try and dissect a study, and then spread their misinformation to an audience of people that are too apathetic to read into it themselves.

    Posted by: Moony | Dec 12, 2012 8:40:45 PM

  12. Normal non-dominant permutations are not the same thing as birth defects. Using words with negative connotations to describe a large subset of the human population is bigotry, pure and simple. This man is just vile and beneath contempt.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Dec 12, 2012 9:05:53 PM

  13. >> "the homoexual lobby "

    wait a minute, what does that mean, the "ex-gays" ?

    Posted by: Randal Oulton | Dec 12, 2012 9:07:30 PM

  14. If parents could abort babies with genes for psychopathy, we could all be thankfull that Bryan would have been aborted. Perhaps a retroactive abortion is called for.

    Posted by: Gestly | Dec 12, 2012 9:19:40 PM

  15. Never believe a member of the Religious Right has actually read a study. The post on TR clearly said that this was a hypothesis and they would have follow up work on it IN SIX MONTHS. So much for Fischer. The Religious Right is even worse about following up on studies. They still believe Regnerus is Gospel, in spite of the fact that Regnerus has denounced their use of his study.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Dec 12, 2012 9:20:42 PM

  16. To elaborate: as I understand it, bee sexual behavior is determined by epigenetic rather than genetic (DNA) causes, This means that during the growth of the bee, biological/chemical influences on the growth of the bee affect the evolution of the bee into either the queen bee or the worker. The queen is not the most common outcome of the process, but she is not a defect in the process, as this clown would suggest. The queen bee is a normal permutation, as the gay people seem to be.

    Posted by: candideinnc | Dec 12, 2012 9:21:52 PM

  17. That vile, vile unholy creature. Fischer, has moved beyond ignorance, homophobia and all-around bigotry to simple and most basic form of scum.

    How do you excommunicate someone when you're not religious, but find that specific scum's existence in discordance with expected basic human decency?

    Posted by: Maguita | Dec 12, 2012 9:25:00 PM

  18. The anti-abortion movement from day 1 (1973) has tried to play the gay card on the gay community: you should oppose abortion because no parent wants a gay child. That was a reasonable strategy so soon after Stonewall. Wake up guys, that's no longer true! Remember that Fischer is still stuck in the 1970s and 1980s about gays and medicine.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Dec 12, 2012 9:26:05 PM

  19. You know, it might be entertaining to use Fischer's "logic" against him and demand that in that case the AFA needs to accommodate gays under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Just to watch him try and squirm out of it, backtrack on his own outrageous rhetoric.

    How many people actually listen to this cretin? Aren't there ratings figures somewhere? I bet his audience is miniscule.

    Posted by: Caliban | Dec 12, 2012 9:27:09 PM

  20. This creep just makes me burst out laughing.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Dec 12, 2012 9:40:27 PM

  21. hetero-people with "birth defects" can still marry, own land, buy junque, and are treated as equal citizens. What is his point?

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Dec 12, 2012 9:48:40 PM

  22. See? Homosexuality is his sole focus. He could care less about abortion or God's making (through heterosexual sex) of a gay person. Would he say the same thing about someone with a different hair color or skin color than that of the parents or if the parents really wanted a boy -- or girl--to abort the unwanted sex to achieve their goals? He's basically mentally ill because there isn't any rationale to his thinking and therefore upholds the meaning of homophobia (that's a dig to you, AP)

    Posted by: woodroad34d | Dec 12, 2012 9:53:29 PM

  23. I honestly don't know how this man comes up with this is so ludicrous, silly, non-sensical, senseless, illogical, unreasonable, irrational and just plain can someone twist science to meet their sick needs????!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ughhhhhh

    Posted by: Bernie | Dec 12, 2012 9:53:41 PM

  24. I'm just curious WHAT THE H^LL business is it of his to begin with?

    Posted by: uflyguy | Dec 12, 2012 9:56:41 PM

  25. Diogenes,
    What makes you think that's no longer true? You can bet that if there is a way to determine whether a pregnancy will result in a gay child, some women will have abortions because they don't want a gay child. We see that in cases where women learn their child will have Down Syndrome or will be deaf or have some other impairment or difference. Gayness will be no different.

    I think many of you overstate the acceptance of gays and lesbians and ignore the difference between having a gay friend and having a gay child. Using gay marriage support as a proxy for gay acceptance, it is true that the younger generation accept gays and lesbians in much greater numbers than the general population. But even if Massachusetts, which has the highest support for gay marriage among those under 30, the rate is still less than 75%. That still leaves 25% who don't, and that's in the state with the highest acceptance. If one in four women in the state with the highest gay acceptance would possibly consider aborting a gay baby, that's troubling.

    Further, acceptance of others doesn't mean acceptance of your own. Just because someone loves her gay friends doesn't mean she would want her own child to be gay. Parents always project an imagined life onto their child. That's just human nature. And more often than not, that imagined future life is something that looks a lot like their own. If given the choice to get rid of a child that won't ever have that life, people will do just that.

    I, for one, don't support abortions for the purpose of selecting the "right" or "normal" baby. That's essentially genocide. It's one thing if a woman seeks an abortion because she does not want a child at all. It's a different situation when a women seeks an abortion because she wants a different type of child.

    Posted by: John | Dec 12, 2012 10:28:04 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Tammy Baldwin Assigned Seats on Senate Panels with Jurisdiction Over Key LGBT Bills« «