Derbyshire calls himself tolerant and then proceeds to recommend eugenics

It's so stressful having to tolerate not tolerate homosexuals and all their existing and not messing with you and whatnot, the only solution is the Final Solution, apparently.

Now, the trend in current research on homosexuality, if I have understood it correctly, suggests that the homosexual orientation is indeed mostly congenital — the result of events in the mother's womb, or in early infancy, with perhaps some slight genetic predisposition. The thing is, in short, mainly biochemical — part of a person's physical make-up.
Supposing this is true, let us conduct a wee thought experiment — admittedly a fanciful one. A young woman in the late stages of pregnancy, or carrying a small infant, shows up at her doctor's office. "Doctor," she asks, "is there some kind of test you can do to tell me if my child is likely to become a homosexual adult?" The doctor says yes, there is. "And," the woman continues, "suppose the test is positive — would that be something we can fix? I mean, is there some sort of medical, or genetic, or biochemical intervention we can do at this stage, to prevent that happening?" The doctor says yes, there is. "How much does the test cost? And supposing it's positive, how much does the fix cost?" The doctor says $50, and $500. The woman takes out her checkbook.

Of course, he skirts the implications of what he's suggesting, not so much because he is afraid of offending people with his suggestion that women should have abortions in order to spare the world of homosexuals, but because he is coming perilously close to suggesting that women should be able to exercise reproductive freedom. So, he euphemistically calls abortion a "fix". But if you read that last paragraph, it's a standard choice situation. This hypothetical woman is choosing to terminate a pregnancy for her own reasons. As is usual with history, conservatives are open to allowing women's freedom if they can steer it towards eugenic "solutions". Straight women vs. homosexuals! Everyone loses!
Of course, my guess is that someone who finds homosexuals so loathsome that he wishes to wipe them out completely is unlikely to trust mere women to handle the Final Solution. Unfortunately, the only real "solution" is forced testing and forced abortions for women who might rebel against repeated abortions. But even then, some homosexuals might slip past the authorities and get born. If abortion can be suddenly justified in this case, and no others (including saving a woman's life), then what else can be justified?

Via Pandagon.