Abortion might be wrong sometimes!

Or so I learned on Law & Order last night.
It is a valid choice if you don't want your baby because he is retarded, and nobody should question your preferences.
It was a valid choice if you didn't want your baby because you were misinformed that he was retarded, when he wasn't, and nobody should question your preferences.
We know from past episodes that there are many other instances when it is a valid choice; when you are growing a new human being to acquire spare parts for a human being you already own, when you don't like the father, when your life is already a little too hectic.....
But it is not a valid choice if you don't want your baby because he is gay, (even when it will improve the mothers chance of survival for 0 to 5%,, although in the past I could have sworn that any advantage to the mother was a good enough reason.)
Because that could eventually wipe out... what? an entire "class" of people, a "culture"? I can't remember how it was phrased.
(Of course that wouldn't really be a danger, because if a "gay gene" were isolated and a precise enough test devised, surely in this era of designer babies there would be people who would want gay children..... gay parents for instance? In fact, married gay couples could whip up a batch of embryos, run the tests, and then keep and grow the gay baby, killi---, I mean, discarding the straight babies.)
Gay fetuses seem to possess a personhood not conferred on retarded fetuses, inconvenient fetuses, or really just any old fetus of which you don't know the eventual sexual orientation.
But it is a relief to know that according to the writers and producers of Law & Order, abortion isn't always a valid or moral choice.

That's some progress, anyway.....

In related news, http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL08323466, since some clinics in Spain were offering to do illegal abortions, and inspections have been stepped up, other clinics have gone on strike, depriving some 1000 babies of their executions.
It accomplishes what? It hurts the anti-abortion movement how, exactly?
It sounds like a Win-Win to me. (Who is it that says "Sin makes you stupid"?)

And finally, why does the article mention that abortion was legalized "10 years after the death of conservative dictator Francisco Franco"? How is that relevant?
Is that some attempt by Reuters to tie pro-life forces to a despicable dead ruler?
Isn't that kind of like telling anyone who complains about the trains in Italy that they ran on time under Mussolini, implying that the pro-promptness forces must be sympathizers with Il Duce's Brown Shirts?