Sun Tzu teaches six ways to develop positions that undermine your opposition. One of those is what we call "Division" (the Chinese terms is po) where you aim your position at dividing your opponents along a natural fault line. The bill proprosed by the Republican state congressman Brian Duprey to ban the abortion of fetuses that might be found in the future to carry a "gay gene" is a perfect example. People share philosophies because it serves their self-interest. Gays have traditionally supported abortion as a "choice" issue, but everything depends on whose ox is getting gored. Gays know that if a gay gene is identified, a large number of abortions will target fetuses that carry it. This would quickly end gay society as we know it. How can gays argue against this bill? First, they would find it difficult to argue that there isn't a genetic disposition to homosexuality. We don't know if there is such a thing as a "gay gene," but we do know that twin studies demonstate that there is a genetic tendency toward homosexuality. Among twins separated at birth, if one twin is homosexual, the chances that the other twin is also homosexual is about five to ten times the occurence of homosexuality in the general population (30% chance). So there is a clearly a genetic link even though genetics is clearly not destiny. The gay population has historically exagerated the importance of genetics in the choice of homosexuality. It would also be hard for gays to believe that, if that genetic link was found, some parent would choose to abort even if there was only a 30% chance their child would be homosexual. Gays already feel targeted by society, I think that they would almost certainly believe that large percentages of people would choose abortion. Gays have invested a great deal of emotional capital in identifying themselves as victims. How could they back down from protecting the most defenseless of all potential gay victims? Okay, so what if gays support this bill? Well, this is the key to positioning. If you accept that gays should not be killed in utero, how do you argue that heterosexual people should be? A bill banning gay abortion is as pure a form of descrimination as you are likely to find. The constitution of the United States provide for "equal protection under the law." Such a law would inevitably lead to other laws banning abortion. How about a law banning the abortion of females? Not a problem in America, that we know of, but a serious problem in China and potentially a problem here, at least among some demographic groups. This is how division works. Once you break-off one group, you go after the next.