NationStates Jolt Archive

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.
Full Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html)

Do parents have the right to choose their child's sexual orientation by this so called straightening process? Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?

Full Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html)

Do parents have the right to choose their child's sexual orientation by this so called straightening process? Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?

Short answer-No.

Long answer-If the parents cannot love a child, regardless of anything as superficial as sexuality, they do not deserve to be parents, nor do they deserve to ever have a child. Ever.

I can see justification for certain diseases, which would endanger the well being of the child, but this is a bit different.

Really long answer-NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Why not? Many Homosexuals admit that they would have rather been straight so they didn't have to suffer being bullied as a kid and find it easier to make a family and just generally fit in.

Why not? Many Homosexuals admit that they would have rather been straight so they didn't have to suffer being bullied as a kid and find it easier to make a family and just generally fit in.

That is a problem with society, not homosexuality.

We should focus on the problem, not the effect.

Why not? Many Homosexuals admit that they would have rather been straight so they didn't have to suffer being bullied as a kid and find it easier to make a family and just generally fit in.

Then it would be better to find the homophobe hormonal balance and straighten that out.

Only if they legalize my experimental new patch to eliminate fundamentalism in a foetus. I call it 'rationalizing' the child.

That is a problem with society, not homosexuality.

We should focus on the problem, not the effect.

Why can't you do both? Anyway it is much easier to fix homosexuality then it is to fix society.

I'm going to go with.......













No.

Why can't you do both? Anyway it is much easier to fix homosexuality then it is to fix society.

You, sir, seem to have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a 'problem' that needs 'fixing'.

Why can't you do both? Anyway it is much easier to fix homosexuality then it is to fix society.

It's much easier to kill the homosexuals rather than "fix" them. Fortunately the world doesn't work like that.

Why can't you do both? Anyway it is much easier to fix homosexuality then it is to fix society.

1. Homosexuality is not a problem need to be fixed.
2. Easier does not make it right.

Why can't you do both? Anyway it is much easier to fix homosexuality then it is to fix society.

We must do whats right, not what's easy.

Why can't you do both? Anyway it is much easier to fix homosexuality then it is to fix society.

Say some kid is bullying another kid for wearing glasses.
Do you tell the victim to not wear glasses, or do you punish the bully for hurting the kid?

Besides, even if the gay guy wasn't gay, the bully would say he was in order to have an excuse to bully him. Kids are mean like that.

http://www.bentsynapse.net/insults/images/feed_troll.jpg

Hmm, is breeding out homosexuality ethical?

A good way to answer this for yourself is to ask the flip-result of allowing this kind of thing:

"Is breeding out heterosexuality ethical?"

We must do whats right, not what's easy.

No we must do the most right thing that is still pragmatic.

It is pragmatic to change society to be more tolerant to homosexuals. It is already happening. Genetic engineering in this department in unnecessary.

Short answer-No.

Long answer-If the parents cannot love a child, regardless of anything as superficial as sexuality, they do not deserve to be parents, nor do they deserve to ever have a child. Ever.

I can see justification for certain diseases, which would endanger the well being of the child, but this is a bit different.

Really long answer-NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

what if they just aborted the child instead? would that be more acceptable to you?

Only if they legalize my experimental new patch to eliminate fundamentalism in a foetus. I call it 'rationalizing' the child.
Fundamentalism is not a gene a human is born with. Fundamentalism is caused by childhood trauma (Jesus Camp or a Madrasa)

No. No, no, no, no.

You have no right to choose "the sort of children [you] want to raise." The human rights of the child are not shoved to the side just because the parents are bigoted assholes.

Imagine this in the hands of Iran? Fuck, imagine this in the hands of the Christian Right right here....

Say some kid is bullying another kid for wearing glasses.
Do you tell the victim to not wear glasses, or do you punish the bully for hurting the kid?

Besides, even if the gay guy wasn't gay, the bully would say he was in order to have an excuse to bully him. Kids are mean like that.

Like I said before, you do both if the othe option was to breed out bad sight because it wouldn't be unethical if someone found away to remove bad sight genetically as well.

No. No, no, no, no.

You have no right to choose "the sort of children [you] want to raise." The human rights of the child are not shoved to the side just because the parents are bigoted assholes.


But I'm guessing you would support the right to decide weather your child lives or dies?

+++++++++++++++ People, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL! +++++++++++++++

Hmm, is breeding out homosexuality ethical?

A good way to answer this for yourself is to ask the flip-result of allowing this kind of thing:

"Is breeding out heterosexuality ethical?"They might make a patch for that too.

+++++++++++++++ People, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL! +++++++++++++++
This is not a troll issue this is really happening.

But I'm guessing you would support the right to decide weather your child lives or dies?

I support abortion, if that's what you're asking.

But the equivalent act here would not be aborting the fetus, but adjusting the fetus so that the child died at eleven.

THAT would indeed be immoral. Grievously so.

They might make a patch for that too.

They would HAVE to. One because turnabout is fair play, and two because there would be a market for it.

So people who think that breeding out homosexuality might be ethical, should realize that you can't have that, without the flipside: Kids genetically altered to be Peter Pan. If you support one, you support the other.

what if they just aborted the child instead? would that be more acceptable to you?

Aborting a child for such a superficial reason is unacceptable to me. I would far rather the child be put up for adoption.

Like I said before, you do both if the othe option was to breed out bad sight because it wouldn't be unethical if someone found away to remove bad sight genetically as well.

The social connotations of being bad sighted are quite different from those of being homosexual. Iran doesn't hang short sighted people, homosexuals on the other hand...


Anyway, parents cannot interfere with the development of their child's sexuality while still a foetus. They will already do so when it's outside the womb, but the child (in most cases) will still have a choice afterwards.

Full Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html)

Do parents have the right to choose their child's sexual orientation by this so called straightening process? Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?

A better question might be "Is it even a good idea"?

The common assumption is that homsexuality is 'unnatural', and that it opposes the 'natural' order of reproduction. It is suggested that homosexuality harms the species, by not yielding young, but that it is self-limiting for the same reason.

Why do families stay together? Why two parents rather than one? Why do we gather together in societies?

All of these things are theoretically 'unnatural' - none of these things automatically equate to 'more' or 'better' offspring. Theoretically - if we want 'natural' and good for producing young - matrimony is a bad idea, as is faithfulness. The bees should be flying from flower to flower.

But - all of these things ensure a much better chance of survival for the whole species, for the offspring of those partners that are reproducing.

So - our species has a model that requires we live in groups that may contribute food, shelter, protection to young... even if we don't personally contribute genetic material.

Those who historically fought against homosexuality have been shortsighted - they considered the species purely in terms of DIRECT continuation... each individual trying to found a dynasty. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that our species model might require 'non-contributive' family members... and that this 'war on homosexuality' is a long-term war on all our kind.

A better question might be "Is it even a good idea"?

The common assumption is that homsexuality is 'unnatural', and that it opposes the 'natural' order of reproduction. It is suggested that homosexuality harms the species, by not yielding young, but that it is self-limiting for the same reason.


Even at that, there are a number of species of animals which have homosexual activity within them. The most common example is the Bonobo chimp. However, this is hardly the case, as almost every animal has instances of homosexuality. Ergo, it is not unnatural, for it happens naturally.

Homosexuals can't breed with each other anyway...so isn't that them breeding themselves out in the first place?

Homosexuals can't breed with each other anyway...so isn't that them breeding themselves out in the first place?

That is suggesting homosexuality is a passable trait, which all evidence proves otherwise.

Homosexuals come from heterosexual people, so as long as heterosexual people continue to have babies, there will always be homosexuals.

Homosexuals can't breed with each other anyway...

Sure they can. For example, a lesbian could get impregnated by a gay man.

!

Fundamentalism is not a gene a human is born with. Fundamentalism is caused by childhood trauma (Jesus Camp or a Madrasa)

I don't think you understand my ambitious new program. Ze patch delivers to the foetus(by new nanotechnology) a complete copy of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion," to be perused at his/her leisure. Ze baby will be born well armed for any Jesus Camp or Madrassa.

A better question might be "Is it even a good idea"?

The common assumption is that homsexuality is 'unnatural', and that it opposes the 'natural' order of reproduction. It is suggested that homosexuality harms the species, by not yielding young, but that it is self-limiting for the same reason.

Why do families stay together? Why two parents rather than one? Why do we gather together in societies?

All of these things are theoretically 'unnatural' - none of these things automatically equate to 'more' or 'better' offspring. Theoretically - if we want 'natural' and good for producing young - matrimony is a bad idea, as is faithfulness. The bees should be flying from flower to flower.

But - all of these things ensure a much better chance of survival for the whole species, for the offspring of those partners that are reproducing.

So - our species has a model that requires we live in groups that may contribute food, shelter, protection to young... even if we don't personally contribute genetic material.

Those who historically fought against homosexuality have been shortsighted - they considered the species purely in terms of DIRECT continuation... each individual trying to found a dynasty. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that our species model might require 'non-contributive' family members... and that this 'war on homosexuality' is a long-term war on all our kind.This is not just about homosexuality it is about designing babies? If they could make a patch to make a children grow up straight they could also make a patch to make a child grow up gay. If people support a parent aborting a fetus than how can they not support a parent designing the fetus. In our culture a fetus has no rights so the parents should be able to design their babies how ever they see fit. How can you be against designer babies and not against aborting fetuses.

Even at that, there are a number of species of animals which have homosexual activity within them. The most common example is the Bonobo chimp. However, this is hardly the case, as almost every animal has instances of homosexuality. Ergo, it is not unnatural, for it happens naturally.

just because something happens in nature doesn't make it good or right.

and about your abortion stance, who are you to decide what is superficial?

I'm going with a "yes" here.

I'm going with a "yes" here.

Please, elaborate.

Do parents have the right to choose their child's sexual orientation by this so called straightening process? Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?Perhaps scientists could do the opposite and breed out heterosexuality for a generation or two? It would help solve the overpopulation problem.

In our culture a fetus has no rights so the parents should be able to design their babies how ever they see fit. A fetus in our culture that will never become a child has no rights. A fetus that will become a child does. (See Laci's Law.)

I don't think you understand my ambitious new program. Ze patch delivers to the foetus(by new nanotechnology) a complete copy of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion," to be perused at his/her leisure. Ze baby will be born well armed for any Jesus Camp or Madrassa.I have not heard of this I will have to read this book.

Sure they can. For example, a lesbian could get impregnated by a gay man.

!

I knew someone would mention that as soon as I posted it, I meant a gay guy and a gay guy/lesbian with lesbian.

Oh well. Well, it's certainly not a passable trait. But we all know some people in the world don't want homosexual kids, and will do anything to call them "normal".

If the ability to breed out homosexuality is there, it will be taken. If that ability was there, then perhaps the ability to "breed out" other things such as inherited diseases will also be there.

It'll be the Governments responsibility to ban whatever they feel necessary.

just because something happens in nature doesn't make it good or right.

No, but it does disprove the stance that homosexuality is unnatural, as it happens naturally.


and about your abortion stance, who are you to decide what is superficial?

The Superficialator?

In all seriousness, why should a parent care if their child is homosexual or not? Is the child still not theirs? Should a parent not love a child unconditionally? I would hope so. A child needs not earn the love a parent.

As for superficial-If a certain trait causes no direct harm to the child, more or less, it is superficial.

Seriously, though, smunk, we usually agree... I'm afraid... someone hold me...

No, but it does disprove the stance that homosexuality is unnatural, as it happens naturally.



The Superficialator?

In all seriousness, why should a parent care if their child is homosexual or not? Is the child still not theirs? Should a parent not love a child unconditionally? I would hope so. A child needs not earn the love a parent.

As for superficial-If a certain trait causes no direct harm to the child, more or less, it is superficial.

Seriously, though, smunk, we usually agree... I'm afraid... someone hold me...

I am playing devil's advocate today, you know I am a "take a kid as it comes and love it anyway" type of person.

Like I said before, you do both if the othe option was to breed out bad sight because it wouldn't be unethical if someone found away to remove bad sight genetically as well.

It's not a perfect analogy, because bad sight is a problem, but gayness isn't.
Let's fix it a bit, by taking it to the extreme edge.
Say there's some fundy with a gun out there who is determined to murder gay people.
Do you leave him alone, so that eventually, he won't have any possible victims, or do you arrest him and throw him in jail with all the other murderers?

Perhaps scientists could do the opposite and breed out heterosexuality for a generation or two? It would help solve the overpopulation problem.The sexuality choice will be left up to the parents. They can get a patch to have extremely hetro-child or they can get the patch to have Peter Pan for a son.

A fetus in our culture that will never become a child has no rights. A fetus that will become a child does. (See Laci's Law.)Where is the law supporting this.

I have not heard of this I will have to read this book.

Basic summary for you:
Dawkins sets up a scientific hypothesis that God exists and then disproves it.
You might be able to see the problem with that here.
Even so, it's still a pretty good book.

In our culture a fetus has no rights so the parents should be able to design their babies how ever they see fit. How can you be against designer babies and not against aborting fetuses.

The difference is that, in one case, you are affecting the life of a being with the rights of personhood (the future child), while in the other, you are destroying a being without the rights of personhood (the fetus.)

We can do whatever we want to the fetus, as long as no person will be affected by it... but we have no right to do whatever we want to the child, and if the fetus WILL actually become a child, then doing whatever we want to the fetus can easily become doing whatever we want to the child.

Please, elaborate.

I've got nothing against parents helping to wipe it out.

I am playing devil's advocate today, you know I am a "take a kid as it comes and love it anyway" type of person.

*wipes away sweat*

Thank God, I thought hte world was ending.

And I suppose some elaboration-

Although I find something morally apprehendable, I also see the difference between "morality" and "legality", and the reason as to why they are seperate. As I find abortion morally wrong, I will uphold the right to choose, as well that I find genetically engineering a child to what you want it to be as morally wrong, I can see no reason thus far as to why it may be considered illegal.

So, I find it morally wrong, I will not advocate making it illegal.

The sexuality choice will be left up to the parents. They can get a patch to have extremely hetro-child or they can get the patch to have Peter Pan for a son.

That is not their choice to make.

I've got nothing against parents helping to wipe it out.

So, you're a homophobe. You coulda just said that rather than pretending this is about ethics.

The difference is that, in one case, you are affecting the life of a being with the rights of personhood (the future child), while in the other, you are destroying a being without the rights of personhood (the fetus.)

We can do whatever we want to the fetus, as long as no person will be affected by it... but we have no right to do whatever we want to the child, and if the fetus WILL actually become a child, then doing whatever we want to the fetus can easily become doing whatever we want to the child.So destruction of fetus is ok but designing is not ok. I do not think you would have a very good case in court.

in the "big picture" abnormal behaviour is normal.......should we prevent abnormal behaviour if possible? yes............no..........yes........no.......very difficult question in this case......

I've got nothing against parents helping to wipe it out.

I wasn't sure wheather or not to post that but It seems I was right to do it.

So destruction of fetus is ok but designing is not ok. I do not think you would have a very good case in court.

You don't understand his argument.
Abortion is only moral because the fetus isn't alive yet.
If we made it so that the change to the fetus affects the child in the future, then that's bad, because the child is(will be) alive.
But destroying the fetus isn't bad because it ensures that the fetus never will be alive.

That is not their choice to make.How can they have the choice to destroy the fetus and not design it?

i say forget a straight patch let the child be born the way they are. if the baby starts acting gay we could just let the parents beat it out of them. leaves less to chance.

So, you're a homophobe. You coulda just said that rather than pretending this is about ethics.

See that's the problem with you people. You seem to think that if you are against homosexuality you're a homophobe. You try to simplify something that isn't just because you want to make it out that if someone has an objection to homosexuality they're immediately afraid of it, which isn't true. Some people might be against it because they have religious objections or moral objections. Some might be against it because they are not into it. Others might be against it because it simply doesn't float their boat. It doesn't instantly mean that they are a homophobe.

So destruction of fetus is ok but designing is not ok.

Depends on the kind of "designing."

If you just abort every fetus you don't like, that's legitimate... at least according to an absolutist stance on abortion rights that I'm not sure I can endorse. I would say that if you do it to avoid having a gay child, it's in the shaky territory of "immoral but probably should not be illegal" - just as refusing to associate with gays is.

If you change the fetus to suit your preference, then permit it to become a being with rights, then you have violated the rights not of the fetus, which has no rights, but of the child, which does.

I do not think you would have a very good case in court.

I don't care. The courts interpret the state's law, not the moral law.

So, you're a homophobe. You coulda just said that rather than pretending this is about ethics.

There is a diffeence between being a homphobe and finding homosexuality to be unethical. i find it to be unethical and i dont understand it but that doesn't mean i am scared of gay people.

Even at that, there are a number of species of animals which have homosexual activity within them. The most common example is the Bonobo chimp. However, this is hardly the case, as almost every animal has instances of homosexuality. Ergo, it is not unnatural, for it happens naturally.

Oh, I appreciate that. A couple of years ago I actually made something of a study of homosexuality in the 'animal' kingdom... and was even a little surprised by some of the results. I wasn't too surprised to find Bonobo with Bonobo 'gay' pairings, or similar pairings in other animals... but I was a little surprised by some of the things like deliberate mutual homosexual stimulation by octopi of different kinds.

Homosexuality is everywhere in the animal kingdom. It is definitely 'natural', I wouldn't argue the other way. I was just setting out the common platform which I was about to oppose.

How can they have the choice to destroy the fetus and not design it?

I walk into the Toyota showroom.

I look at the Celica, but I choose not to buy it.

How can I have the choice to not accept what is offered, and yet not design it?

How can they have the choice to destroy the fetus and not design it?

I've told you why, twice already.

How many times do you want me to repeat it?

See that's the problem with you people. You seem to think that if you are against homosexuality you're a homophobe.

Wait, who is "you people?" People who speak English (http://m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia)?

I walk into the Toyota showroom.

I look at the Celica, but I choose not to buy it.

How can I have the choice to not accept what is offered, and yet not design it?Well you are going to the old showrooms. The future showrooms will allow you to design your own car.

*wipes away sweat*

Thank God, I thought hte world was ending.

And I suppose some elaboration-

Although I find something morally apprehendable, I also see the difference between "morality" and "legality", and the reason as to why they are seperate. As I find abortion morally wrong, I will uphold the right to choose, as well that I find genetically engineering a child to what you want it to be as morally wrong, I can see no reason thus far as to why it may be considered illegal.

So, I find it morally wrong, I will not advocate making it illegal.

agreed.

See that's the problem with you people. You seem to think that if you are against homosexuality you're a homophobe.
It does.
You try to simplify something that isn't just because you want to make it out that if someone has an objection to homosexuality they're immediately afraid of it, which isn't true.
Homophobia is an aversion, not a fear, despite the "phobia" in the word. Yeah I know it's weird.
Some people might be against it because they have religious objections or moral objections.
That's homophobia.
Some might be against it because they are not into it.
Most people on this board are straight. Most are pro gay rights also.
Incidentally, I find gay sex disgusting, and I'm still pro gay rights.
Others might be against it because it simply doesn't float their boat. It doesn't instantly mean that they are a homophobe.
Yes it does. If they're against gay rights they're a homophobe the same way if they're against black rights they're a racist and if they're against woman's rights they're sexist. Reason doesn't matter.

Wait, who is "you people?" People who speak English (http://m-w.com/dictionary/homophobia)?

Nope the general bunch of people who simplify objections to either ignorance or a phobia.

I've told you why, twice already.

How many times do you want me to repeat it?You have told me why but you have serious holes in your argument.

You have told me why but you have serious holes in your argument.

I do? Okay. Point them out.

I'm listening.

Where is the law supporting this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

As you can see, the act states that it is possible to commit a crime against a fetus. Therefore, the fetus has rights, as it will eventually become a child.

This is not just about homosexuality it is about designing babies? If they could make a patch to make a children grow up straight they could also make a patch to make a child grow up gay. If people support a parent aborting a fetus than how can they not support a parent designing the fetus. In our culture a fetus has no rights so the parents should be able to design their babies how ever they see fit. How can you be against designer babies and not against aborting fetuses.

And my point is - even if we could do it... should we?

Yes - you could possibly prevent 'gay' people from being born... or prevent straight people from being born. But, even aside from the moral implications of whether that would be a good thing - is it a good thing to do in terms of the species?

From a purely pragmatic perspective, it might not be a good idea to start weeding out too many 'issues' in our potential offspring - because, let us be honest - we really have very little idea of any ramifications of what we are doing in that arena.

So - should parents 'design' their babies to be gay or straight? Should they design them at all?

Pragmatically, in our current environment and societies, the answer must be no - because we don't know what we are designing [i]for[i].

Nope the general bunch of people who simplify objections to either ignorance or a phobia.

So not me, and not in relation to anything I've actually said. An irrelevant comment that was really more of a rant against people who don't understand what "homophobia" means. OK.

Yes it does. If they're against gay rights they're a homophobe the same way if they're against black rights they're a racist and if they're against woman's rights they're sexist. Reason doesn't matter.


That's only because the definitions and applications of said words have been morphed and changed to fit the purposes and objectives of action groups or political policies. So might I ask what a person is if they are against the right of terrorists to do their bidding or murderers and rapists to do what they please to whomever they please? Certainly "those groups" deserve their rights, don't they? Depending on the dictionary you use, a phobia is either an irrational fear, a strong on at that, or a highly strong aversion; however, the way it is thrown around is almost always used to denote fear and not simply personal opinions and objections. So am I a terrorphobe because I am against Osama Bin Laden living in New York City in a penthouse on Broadway?

So not me, and not in relation to anything I've actually said. An irrelevant comment that was really more of a rant against people who don't understand what "homophobia" means. OK.

Wow. That was definitely a knock-out to me. I'm going to put my tail between my legs and run, holy cow, you're logic is so impervious to mine. Wow. I'm sorry but the homophobe comment was more of a personal attack, which resulted in a further explanation of my comments, which was, in effect disregarded by you, though not others, so you resort to this? Excuse me if I stop paying attention to your comments and listen to others'.

well hmmm first of all, it will never be done.

its unethical to experiment on people in this manner.

it would require a very large number of pregnant women to agree to an unfounded treatment of their unborn children only 10% of which at most would "need" it. then the children would have to be followed until age.....25 or 30...to make sure that none of them show gay tendencies. it would require no bad effects on "non gay" fetuses.

it would require 100% worldwide government mandated compliance.

it would never pass the medical ethics boards

so its an interesting question but not all that realistic to go from giving an adult ram some hormones to a hormonal treatment for pregnant women.

but anyway

if you would allow a parent to do a similar thing so that their children would never grow up to be fat, then you would allow this.

Full Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html)

Do parents have the right to choose their child's sexual orientation by this so called straightening process? Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?

I can think of so many reason why this is so wrong that it would take me five hours and two two-liter bottles of Coke Zero for me to fully articulate it.

Well you are going to the old showrooms. The future showrooms will allow you to design your own car.

Actually (since this is based on real experience) one can design a Toyota, within limits, online - but that wasn't the point I was making.

I wonder if you deliberately missed the point.

You asked how one could 'destroy' if one cannot 'design' - and I showed a parallel where one makes a choice about accepting or refusing, whilst having no impact on the design.

It wasn't an outlandish example - it is the sort of choices we all make every day... it could just as easily be milk. You could choose to buy the milk, or no - but you are unlikely to have much input in it's 'design'.

That's only because the definitions and applications of said words have been morphed and changed

Yes, words change. Language changes. For example, "Anti Semitism" means anti-Judaism, not anti-anyone-who-is-Semitic. That doesn't make perfect sense to me, since "Semite" means more than "Jews." But that's how language works. You can disagree with it if you like, but it's mostly pointless to argue with a dictionary.

Depending on the dictionary you use, a phobia is either an irrational fear, a strong on at that, or a highly strong aversion

Yeah, but "homophobia" is not a psychological "phobia."

So am I a terrorphobe because I am against Osama Bin Laden living in New York City in a penthouse on Broadway?

Nah, cuz "terrorphobe" isn't a word.

I think you just want to be able to rant about "wiping out" homosexuality with verbal impunity.

Honestly, the government should never be telling parents how to raise their children. If the parents want to teach their children that homosexuality is a sin or that there is something wrong with it then it is their perogative. If they want to teach the opposite it too is their perogative. So is it ethical that parents are teaching their children? Yes. Now if they are teaching them to go out and slaughter them in droves there is something seriously wrong with that but that is something for the courts to tackle.

I do? Okay. Point them out.

I'm listening.Because you say it is OK to destroy something but it is not OK to change something. You say it is OK to make it so a child will never exist but it is not OK to change a child to the parents specifications. The fetus has rights or it does not. You said the fetus has no rights and can be aborted if it can be aborted it can also be changed. Your argument is not consistent.

Wow. That was definitely a knock-out to me. I'm going to put my tail between my legs and run, holy cow, you're logic is so impervious to mine.

It's not my objective to make anyone "run."

Wow. I'm sorry but the homophobe comment was more of a personal attack,

It was more like asking you to be more intellectually honest and also summing up your view.

which resulted in a further explanation of my comments, which was, in effect disregarded by you, though not others, so you resort to this? Excuse me if I stop paying attention to your comments and listen to others'.

I guess I disregarded your explanation because it was based on linguistic ignorance. Sorry if that offends you, I can tell you're an extremely sensitive individual!

The silver lining of this issue?


In order for this technology to work, the fundamentalists will have to admit that homosexuality is not a choice.

after all, if homosexuality is something that can be modified during fetal formation through hormones, I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, see how anyone could possibly argue that it is a conscious decision.

That's only because the definitions and applications of said words have been morphed and changed to fit the purposes and objectives of action groups or political policies. So might I ask what a person is if they are against the right of terrorists to do their bidding or murderers and rapists to do what they please to whomever they please? Certainly "those groups" deserve their rights, don't they? Depending on the dictionary you use, a phobia is either an irrational fear, a strong on at that, or a highly strong aversion; however, the way it is thrown around is almost always used to denote fear and not simply personal opinions and objections. So am I a terrorphobe because I am against Osama Bin Laden living in New York City in a penthouse on Broadway?


The definitions of all words morph and change. Language is not a static thing. That doesn't automatically imply conspiracy of 'action groups' - it just means that the language adopts the definitions of words as they are used rather than holding to their etymological origins.

Arguing about what homophobia 'means', when you have clear access to dictionary definitions that show it means more than just the etymological 'fear', is not only ridiculous, but also somewhat irrelevent. Do you keep cups in your cupboard? Do you believe that 'henchmen' are always mounted?

You say you are 'against homosexuality'... but you don't say why. You suggest a number of possibilities, but you claim none - I wonder why?

The simple fact is, in terms of the meaning of the sentence and the received meaning of our language, by being 'against homosexuality' you are a homophobe. Whether you think your homophobia is justified is a different matter.

There is an old saying that runs something along the lines of "How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg?" To which the response is "Four - calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg".

Arguing over the etymological origins of the word homosphobe doesn't mean you aren't one - since the word means what it means, regardless of what it's component parts might once have suggested.

Because you say it is OK to destroy something but it is not OK to change something. You say it is OK to make it so a child will never exist but it is not OK to change a child to the parents specifications. The fetus has rights or it does not. You said the fetus has no rights and can be aborted if it can be aborted it can also be changed. Your argument is not consistent.

Yes, it is. You only say it is not consistent because you are not paying attention.

My ethical system is based upon respect for the welfare and dignity of morally relevant beings - for the purposes of this argument, let's restrict that to sapient beings.

A fetus is not sapient. It has no rights.

A child is sapient. He/she has rights.

If the fetus is aborted, there is no child to speak of. The child never exists; it's nonsense to speak of respecting his or her dignity.

If the fetus is NOT aborted, then there will be a child (assuming no problems with the pregnancy.) At some point that child will attain sapience.

As long as we are affecting a child possessed of rights - and when we are designing a fetus that will become a child, our actions will ultimately affect such a child - then those rights are restrictions on what we can and can't do. Would it be okay to make a gay person straight (or a straight person gay) without first attaining his or her consent? Of course not. The same applies here.

To spell it out even more clearly, consider the consequences of each action:

Abortion - the fetus is killed. The fetus has no rights; this is irrelevant.
Design - the fetus is designed. The fetus has no rights; this is irrelevant. A child is affected. The child has rights; we must consider them.

The silver lining of this issue?


In order for this technology to work, the fundamentalists will have to admit that homosexuality is not a choice.

after all, if homosexuality is something that can be modified during fetal formation through hormones, I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, see how anyone could possibly argue that it is a conscious decision.

I doubt there is one true cause of homosexuality, which you are right, the fundamentalists need to comprehend. Factors such as upbringing, genetics, or even choice can all factor into the ultimate reasoning. However, I doubt there is any "one" reason as to why people become homosexual, which basically they should comprehend. If they did, maybe they'd approach it slightly more intellectually.

The definitions of all words morph and change. Language is not a static thing. That doesn't automatically imply conspiracy of 'action groups' - it just means that the language adopts the definitions of words as they are used rather than holding to their etymological origins.

Arguing about what homophobia 'means', when you have clear access to dictionary definitions that show it means more than just the etymological 'fear', is not only ridiculous, but also somewhat irrelevent. Do you keep cups in your cupboard? Do you believe that 'henchmen' are always mounted?

You say you are 'against homosexuality'... but you don't say why. You suggest a number of possibilities, but you claim none - I wonder why?

The simple fact is, in terms of the meaning of the sentence and the received meaning of our language, by being 'against homosexuality' you are a homophobe. Whether you think your homophobia is justified is a different matter.

There is an old saying that runs something along the lines of "How many legs does a dog have, if you count the tail as a leg?" To which the response is "Four - calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg".

Arguing over the etymological origins of the word homosphobe doesn't mean you aren't one - since the word means what it means, regardless of what it's component parts might once have suggested.

You are correct Grave I am against it but I'm not a homophobe either. I'm against it for my own moral reasons, not by religious affiliation or any political ideology, as most people are when they cite their objections to it. There is a reasoning why I am against a lot of things but the problem with the "homophobe" definition is that it is being used in improper methods and ways, much in the way that people call others "fascist" because they want some more security in their country. I have a feeling that it is going to draw to itself a terrible connotation, much like the word "propaganda" has, which is, by all means, not necessarily as bad a word as everyone thinks.

Yes, words change. Language changes. For example, "Anti Semitism" means anti-Judaism, not anti-anyone-who-is-Semitic. That doesn't make perfect sense to me, since "Semite" means more than "Jews." But that's how language works. You can disagree with it if you like, but it's mostly pointless to argue with a dictionary.


Exactly - if we are going to follow etymology as our guiding star, the most notorious anti-Semitic regime in all recorded history has been 'the Jews', since the Hebrew scripture clearly records centuries of dedicated genocide of 'Semitic' peoples.

Would it be okay to "design" a fetus by severing a limb? Does anyone seriously maintain that a pro-choice position requires accepting such a "right"?

Would it be okay to "design" a fetus by severing a limb? Does anyone seriously maintain that a pro-choice position requires accepting such a "right"?

That is a pretty valid point. At what point does "pro-choice" have its limits. Certainly if a woman has a right to abort her baby then doesn't she have a right to do some other things to it? Pro-choice basically states at a woman should have total control over her fertility and pregnancy, which is an admirable view so if she has "total" control then saying she cannot engineer her baby to be "straight" would defy the entire "pro-choice" belief.

You are correct Grave I am against it but I'm not a homophobe either. I'm against it for my own moral reasons, not by religious affiliation or any political ideology, as most people are when they cite their objections to it. There is a reasoning why I am against a lot of things but the problem with the "homophobe" definition is that it is being used in improper methods and ways, much in the way that people call others "fascist" because they want some more security in their country. I have a feeling that it is going to draw to itself a terrible connotation, much like the word "propaganda" has, which is, by all means, not necessarily as bad a word as everyone thinks.

And what are your 'moral' reasons that do not entail religion or politics?

I wonder if you realise, by the way, that your comment about fascism is a curious choice... since the word is misapplied in referring purely to authoritarianism.. but it was already misapplied in it's association with the specific ideals of certain political parties half a century ago. 'Fascism' itself, only really means 'unity'.

Do you discriminate against homsexuals? Would you let your daughter marry one? Do you think homosexuals should have all the same legal rights and recourses that 'straights' have?

Think carefully about those questions. Your answers would illuminate whether or not you are a homophobe.

That is a pretty valid point. At what point does "pro-choice" have its limits. Certainly if a woman has a right to abort her baby then doesn't she have a right to do some other things to it? Pro-choice basically states at a woman should have total control over her fertility and pregnancy, which is an admirable view so if she has "total" control then saying she cannot engineer her baby to be "straight" would defy the entire "pro-choice" belief.

That isn't what pro-choice states at all.

The pro-choice platform is about the woman, and about ehr control over her uterus.

The conceptus is considered only in the context of the uterus.

Honestly, the government should never be telling parents how to raise their children. That's patently absurd. If someone is raising their children to be sex slaves, the government better step in.

That is a pretty valid point. At what point does "pro-choice" have its limits. Certainly if a woman has a right to abort her baby then doesn't she have a right to do some other things to it?

She has a right to do whatever she wants to the FETUS. She does not have such a right to do whatever she wants to the CHILD.

Since severing a limb, or changing sexual orientation, or whatever, affects not only the fetus but also the child, the child's rights must be taken into consideration.

Because you say it is OK to destroy something but it is not OK to change something. You say it is OK to make it so a child will never exist but it is not OK to change a child to the parents specifications. The fetus has rights or it does not. You said the fetus has no rights and can be aborted if it can be aborted it can also be changed. Your argument is not consistent.

On the contrary - you set up a strawman.

A woman can choose to abort because she 'owns' her uterus. Anything she chooses to abort is something in her uterus she does not want - but it is not the 'focus' of the abortion. The foetus has no rights (being a mindless blob of jelly at that point), so there is no conflicting claim of ownership.

What you are talking about implies that the 'mother' intends to bear her offspring, in which case she may opt to 'surrender' rights to her foetus (she is surrendering her control of her uterus).

Now, if she surrenders rights to her foetus, she is allowing it 'person' status - and the law doesn't let us 'design' other people.

That's patently absurd. If someone is raising their children to be sex slaves, the government better step in.

The parents have no rights whatsoever over the child.

The only party with rights over the child is the child herself. Since her judgment (or so we judge, anyway), is not good enough to let her assume sovereignty over her welfare, the only "right" we have is to act as she would want us to act, were she fully possessed of the necessary mental faculties. There is no reason not to restrict parental "rights" in that context.

(I'm not disagreeing with you.)

And what are your 'moral' reasons that do not entail religion or politics?

I wonder if you realise, by the way, that your comment about fascism is a curious choice... since the word is misapplied in referring purely to authoritarianism.. but it was already misapplied in it's association with the specific ideals of certain political parties half a century ago. 'Fascism' itself, only really means 'unity'.

Do you discriminate against homsexuals? Would you let your daughter marry one? Do you think homosexuals should have all the same legal rights and recourses that 'straights' have?

Think carefully about those questions. Your answers would illuminate whether or not you are a homophobe.

My moral reasons are my own and personal. Do I discriminate against homosexuals? Nope. Would I let my daughter or son marry someone of the same sex, well considering my own objections to it, I think I would have a problem with the issue but I don't imagine my leverage would have much, after all, that is their decision. Legal rights though, that isn't for me to decide, that's for the legislature to decide. The reason I chose the word fascism is that it is an NSG fan favorite that is quite often used against anyone exhibiting any "right-wing" beliefs.

That isn't what pro-choice states at all.

The pro-choice platform is about the woman, and about ehr control over her uterus.

The conceptus is considered only in the context of the uterus.

However, said fetus is in her uterus. So if she has control of the uterus wouldn't she have control of what's inside of it? Certainly if she has a right to terminate the pregnancy whether the fetus is a living, breathing human or just a few cells then why wouldn't she have the right to change its genetic makeup in the process. I'm not going to start an abortion argument because those never end and nobody ever wins but I would like to see people accept that if you allow the woman the right to abort the baby and give her the right to control her uterus then that includes what is inside of it. If you want to only exercise limited control then that shows where the "line" is drawn, which was the original point, where do you draw the line?

That's patently absurd. If someone is raising their children to be sex slaves, the government better step in.

Certainly if the parents are endangering the life of the child and others in the world by teaching him or her to grow up and slaughter millions that is a big problem but do you want to set the precedent of allowing the government more control over what the parents are allowed to teach their children? That precedent will only grow and grow and pretty soon, well, let's face it, you give an inch and they take a mile. I personally don't want to give the government the authority to determine what the parents can and cannot teach their children nor do I want to take away the ability of the government to step in and protect an endangered child. Teaching a child to be a sex slave or a mass murderer are rash things. Teaching a child one's own beliefs on matters is harmless, in many respects, especially if the parents emphasize that beliefs and ideas are just that...

She has a right to do whatever she wants to the FETUS. She does not have such a right to do whatever she wants to the CHILD.

Since severing a limb, or changing sexual orientation, or whatever, affects not only the fetus but also the child, the child's rights must be taken into consideration.

Would you argue though that she has the right to abort a fetus?

Would you argue though that she has the right to abort a fetus?

Yes. If she aborts the fetus, there is no child.

Yes. If she aborts the fetus, there is no child.

Even partial birth?

Certainly if the parents are endangering the life of the child and others in the world by teaching him or her to grow up and slaughter millions that is a big problem but do you want to set the precedent of allowing the government more control over what the parents are allowed to teach their children? That precedent will only grow and grow and pretty soon, well, let's face it, you give an inch and they take a mile. I personally don't want to give the government the authority to determine what the parents can and cannot teach their children nor do I want to take away the ability of the government to step in and protect an endangered child. Teaching a child to be a sex slave or a mass murderer are rash things. Teaching a child one's own beliefs on matters is harmless, in many respects, especially if the parents emphasize that beliefs and ideas are just that...I'm not saying that the government necessarily needs to increase its control over what parents can teach/do to their children, but there needs to be some control over it, for the reasons that Soheran said.
Either way, this paragraph is different than the idea that the government has no right to step in, which you said before.

Pfft. I'd say this is as likely to be sucessfull as trying to ensure kids are born right-handed instead of left.

But on that note, who the hell cares? So your kid is gay. So what? This seems purely marketed toward those rediculously controlling parents who want their kid to be 'perfect'. And in that sense, I'm completely against the idea of designing babies.

I'm not saying that the government necessarily needs to increase its control over what parents can teach/do to their children, but there needs to be some control over it, for the reasons that Soheran said.
Either way, this paragraph is different than the idea that the government has no right to step in, which you said before.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be and for that I apologize. I did mean though that I don't want to set the precedent of allowing the government to invade the lives of parents and how they are to raise their children. It's slowly happening now, as we speak, and it really enflames me.

Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be and for that I apologize. I did mean though that I don't want to set the precedent of allowing the government to invade the lives of parents and how they are to raise their children. It's slowly happening now, as we speak, and it really enflames me.Can you provide examples of this?

Even partial birth?

Yes.

I did mean though that I don't want to set the precedent of allowing the government to invade the lives of parents and how they are to raise their children.

Why not?

So far pretty much every government intrusion upon parental rights that I can think of has been a good one.

No, it would just be another way to make people less accepting and everyone the same...We'd be turning into a Farenheit 451 world, or...what was that one movie about the guy who wanted to go into space but he couldn't because his parents didn't make sure he was perfect like everyone else?...Started with a G...

My moral reasons are my own and personal.


And what - we'll take your word for it that they are benign and uncontrolled by theocracy or party affiliation?

If you have an 'argument', let's hear it.

If on the other hand, by 'my own and personal', you mean that a priest touched you inappropriately, I don't need to hear that... but it would mean you were blaming an entire sexual orientation for the actions of one person.

Do I discriminate against homosexuals? Nope.


I don't believe this is consonant with what you show.


Would I let my daughter or son marry someone of the same sex, well considering my own objections to it, I think I would have a problem with the issue but I don't imagine my leverage would have much, after all, that is their decision.


That doesn't answer the question.

If you had the power to stop it, would you?

You state a bias here "...considering my own objections to it, I think I would have a problem...", which clearly shows that you do discriminate. You might want to bear that in mind.

Legal rights though, that isn't for me to decide, that's for the legislature to decide.


Again - you evade.


However, said fetus is in her uterus. So if she has control of the uterus wouldn't she have control of what's inside of it? Certainly if she has a right to terminate the pregnancy whether the fetus is a living, breathing human or just a few cells then why wouldn't she have the right to change its genetic makeup in the process.


If I rent a room in my house, I can choose whether or not to rent. I don't get to design my tenant.

Can you provide examples of this?

This mess about it being frowned upon for games such as dodgeball to be played or babying children left and right, a recent example of a PTA group being allowed to ban running games in a schoolyard because a child can get hurt. That's an example of where intrusion is going too far. Why can't a child run around and play and get hurt? I don't know about you but I know I got scrapes and bruises when I was a kid and I knew dozens of people with casts. I mean that's part of being a child but if we allow the government to come in and tell a parent that it's wrong for them to promote that behavior in their children we're doing something wrong and once you start something like that it just slippery slopes poorly and quickly into bad areas.

Yes.

Ignoring the many arguments that determine when life begins, because who knows and I'm not a medical doctor but partial birth includes up to a point where the fetus has a heartbeat, brainwaves, is breathing. It may not be a child at all because it isn't born but to abort it is definitely killing a living creature. If it is alright to kill a living creature why isn't it alright to do genetic modifications. Let's say the parents want a green eyed child? That's relatively harmless but let's say they want to do this proceedure. Where can you draw the line? Are you going to give a woman total control over her uterus and what's inside of it but not allow her to exercise that "total" control. Total means total, limitless, boundless. To restrict them is to say repeal that "total" control and then you can add more and more things they can and cannot do, which could, effectively, lead to annihilation of any control, thereby going so far as to say she cannot have an abortion.

Why not?

So far pretty much every government intrusion upon parental rights that I can think of has been a good one.

Sometimes child services has a little too much power and misinterprets situations wrongly and foster homes aren't renowned for being the most wonderful environments in the world, despite many of them being loving and beautiful homes. Not that I'm going to advocate beating children at all because that's pretty bad but a parent should be allowed to smack their child for things they did wrong. Time outs are pretty useless to most kids but a smack might teach them. Hell, that's how I learned not to talk back to my parents, I got whacked upside the head and rightfully so, that's respect that isn't being taught today because the government is promoting such babying of our children that we're going to have a generation of sissies.


Now I am leaving for the night. It is New Year's Eve and I intend on celebrating it the good, old-fashioned way of champagne, some drinking, and having a good ole time singing Auld Lang Syne. Have a Happy New Year's people.

No, it would just be another way to make people less accepting and everyone the same...We'd be turning into a Farenheit 451 world, or...what was that one movie about the guy who wanted to go into space but he couldn't because his parents didn't make sure he was perfect like everyone else?...Started with a G...

gattaca

what a great movie

No, it would just be another way to make people less accepting and everyone the same...We'd be turning into a Farenheit 451 world, or...what was that one movie about the guy who wanted to go into space but he couldn't because his parents didn't make sure he was perfect like everyone else?...Started with a G...Gattaca?

This mess about it being frowned upon for games such as dodgeball to be played or babying children left and right, a recent example of a PTA group being allowed to ban running games in a schoolyard because a child can get hurt. That's an example of where intrusion is going too far. I know of the district in Massachusetts who banned those games out of fear of being sued, not because the government thought such things were bad ideas. I think that the district would have done so whether or not there was a policy of the government interfering in how parents raise their children, to avoid being sued.

Ignoring the many arguments that determine when life begins, because who knows and I'm not a medical doctor but partial birth includes up to a point where the fetus has a heartbeat, brainwaves, is breathing. It may not be a child at all because it isn't born but to abort it is definitely killing a living creature.

I don't care. The relevant question is whether we are killing something with RIGHTS.

Not all living things have rights.

If it is alright to kill a living creature why isn't it alright to do genetic modifications.

How many times do I have to repeat myself with this?

My ethical system is based upon respect for the welfare and dignity of morally relevant beings - for the purposes of this argument, let's restrict that to sapient beings.

A fetus is not sapient. It has no rights.

A child is sapient. He/she has rights.

If the fetus is aborted, there is no child to speak of. The child never exists; it's nonsense to speak of respecting his or her dignity.

If the fetus is NOT aborted, then there will be a child (assuming no problems with the pregnancy.) At some point that child will attain sapience.

As long as we are affecting a child possessed of rights - and when we are designing a fetus that will become a child, our actions will ultimately affect such a child - then those rights are restrictions on what we can and can't do. Would it be okay to make a gay person straight (or a straight person gay) without first attaining his or her consent? Of course not. The same applies here.

To spell it out even more clearly, consider the consequences of each action:

Abortion - the fetus is killed. The fetus has no rights; this is irrelevant.
Design - the fetus is designed. The fetus has no rights; this is irrelevant. A child is affected. The child has rights; we must consider them.

Let's say the parents want a green eyed child? That's relatively harmless but let's say they want to do this proceedure.

No. They cannot make that choice for the child.

Are you going to give a woman total control over her uterus and what's inside of it but not allow her to exercise that "total" control. Total means total, limitless, boundless. To restrict them is to say repeal that "total" control and then you can add more and more things they can and cannot do, which could, effectively, lead to annihilation of any control, thereby going so far as to say she cannot have an abortion.

I don't buy slippery slope arguments, sorry.

Show me how my reasoning leads to that conclusion. Don't make vague assertions about how restricting some things leads to restricting other things. As well say that banning murder leads to making everyone slaves to the government.

Hell, that's how I learned not to talk back to my parents, I got whacked upside the head and rightfully so, that's respect that isn't being taught today because the government is promoting such babying of our children that we're going to have a generation of sissies.

This is actually precisely why parents should NOT smack their children - it teaches the kind of unquestioning obedience to authority that leads to nonsensical prohibitions like "don't talk back."

On the contrary - you set up a strawman.

A woman can choose to abort because she 'owns' her uterus. Anything she chooses to abort is something in her uterus she does not want - but it is not the 'focus' of the abortion. The foetus has no rights (being a mindless blob of jelly at that point), so there is no conflicting claim of ownership.If it is just a mindless blob of jelly than who cares if you change it's hormones.

What you are talking about implies that the 'mother' intends to bear her offspring, in which case she may opt to 'surrender' rights to her foetus (she is surrendering her control of her uterus).

Now, if she surrenders rights to her foetus, she is allowing it 'person' status - and the law doesn't let us 'design' other people. You guys have the moral consistency of a soup sandwich. The mother has the right to make sure the child never exists but she does not have the right to change the hormonal balance in a child. So you are pro-choice only when it is politically correct. Your argument is like saying it is OK to burn down the house but it is illegal for you to rearrange the furniture.

Not that I'm going to advocate beating children at all because that's pretty bad but a parent should be allowed to smack their child for things they did wrong. Time outs are pretty useless to most kids but a smack might teach them. Hell, that's how I learned not to talk back to my parents, I got whacked upside the head and rightfully so, that's respect that isn't being taught today because the government is promoting such babying of our children that we're going to have a generation of sissies.

I never smack my kids, ever.....it's bad parenting and unnecessary......and I've got 4 them, all well behaved and respectful.....

No, it would just be another way to make people less accepting and everyone the same...We'd be turning into a Farenheit 451 world, or...what was that one movie about the guy who wanted to go into space but he couldn't because his parents didn't make sure he was perfect like everyone else?...Started with a G...

That would be (the rather excellent) Gattaca.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

Oh dear Satan... :rolleyes:

Even if this were possible, I have one question...

why?

Why not?

So far pretty much every government intrusion upon parental rights that I can think of has been a good one.

the government has good intentions when it removes kids from a home I can think of several that have gone horribly wrong......muslim children given to a fundy christian family in Texas......a 3 yr old child in Canada given to foster parents who then beat the child into a permanent coma.....

If it is just a mindless blob of jelly than who cares if you change it's hormones.


No one does.

But, it is a blob of jelly when it is aborted... not when it is in it's last month.

If you can work out a way to alter the hormones of the blob of jelly that does not impact the new born foetus, then fine.


You guys have the moral consistency of a soup sandwich. The mother has the right to make sure the child never exists but she does not have the right to change the hormonal balance in a child. So you are pro-choice only when it is politically correct. Your argument is like saying it is OK to burn down the house but it is illegal for you to rearrange the furniture.

If you don't see the moral consistency - I suspect that is more a problem with your appreciation of the argument, than with the argument itself.

Abortion isn't about the foetus - the foetus is just the contamination that is cleared by the surgical procedure. The uterus is the target of abortion - it belongs to the 'mother', and it is her right to deal with it as she will until she cedes rights to some other entity.

Most of us never cede right of any part of our body, except preganant women when they decide to continue with the pregnancy.

Regarding the furniture example... if the uterus is a room... you get to choose whether someone inhabits it or not, if you own it. If you DO choose to rent it out, you probably aren't going to be allowed to decide what colour washing machine the tenant likes.

Full Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html)

Do parents have the right to choose their child's sexual orientation by this so called straightening process? Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?

I don't have a problem with this. I think society will no doubt benefit in the long run.

I don't have a problem with this. I think society will no doubt benefit in the long run.

Really?

I suppose I can see the logic, but..

If we are getting rid of deleterious effects while the foetus is still in the uterus.... given how little 'harm' has been done by homosexuality, and how much by other things...

...shouldn't we be looking for ways to erase other 'problems' (like, a tendency towards religion, for example) first?

I don't have a problem with this. I think society will no doubt benefit in the long run.

How will society benefit from this in the long run? Care to explain?

No one does.

But, it is a blob of jelly when it is aborted... not when it is in it's last month.

If you can work out a way to alter the hormones of the blob of jelly that does not impact the new born foetus, then fine.



If you don't see the moral consistency - I suspect that is more a problem with your appreciation of the argument, than with the argument itself.

Abortion isn't about the foetus - the foetus is just the contamination that is cleared by the surgical procedure. The uterus is the target of abortion - it belongs to the 'mother', and it is her right to deal with it as she will until she cedes rights to some other entity.

Most of us never cede right of any part of our body, except preganant women when they decide to continue with the pregnancy.

Regarding the furniture example... if the uterus is a room... you get to choose whether someone inhabits it or not, if you own it. If you DO choose to rent it out, you probably aren't going to be allowed to decide what colour washing machine the tenant likes.Well I can see this argument will just keep going in circles. I think political correctness is heavily affecting your clarity on this issue. I could also be brain damaged and unable to understand your points.;)

I really see no problem with designing babies if I could choose the hair color, eye color, skin tone of my child,increased intelligence and be able to get rid of all the defective genes that will cause disease in the future. I would be all for it because mother nature can be a cruel bitch at times. I personally would not care about homosexuality but if the fetus has no rights and is not a person than the parents should be able to do whatever they want. I am sure some of you will think I am an evil humanist but I see my position as the true pro-choice position.

Its New Years and I am getting offline to celebrate.
Everyone have a happy New Years.

I will personally hunt down and smack with a trout anyone who advocates this.

I will personally hunt down and smack with a trout anyone who advocates this.

A trout? You're nicer than I would be.

Really?

I suppose I can see the logic, but..

If we are getting rid of deleterious effects while the foetus is still in the uterus.... given how little 'harm' has been done by homosexuality, and how much by other things...

...shouldn't we be looking for ways to erase other 'problems' (like, a tendency towards religion, for example) first?

Being drawn toward Allah and religion is one of the most basic instincts in every human being. to erase that, is to erase the human race.

How will society benefit from this in the long run? Care to explain?

Because it would eliminate a form of sexual devancy. I don't see how this can be a bad thing.

Because it would eliminate a form of sexual devancy. I don't see how this can be a bad thing.

Because people deserve to be treated with dignity.

Do me a favor and define "sexual deviancy." Then explain to me what's wrong with it.

Because people deserve to be treated with dignity.

Do me a favor and define "sexual deviancy." Then explain to me what's wrong with it.

Sexual Deviency, Noun: A fetish I don't have.

Because it would eliminate a form of sexual devancy. I don't see how this can be a bad thing.

So you would perfer that everything would fit into cultural norms, and to eliminate everything else? What ever happened to individuality? I'm happy being gay cause it makes me different. Maybe if people weren't so afraid of being different and realized that everyone is different then this type of stuff would never happen.

I think many people don't see the scope of the matter. If there truly was this so-called "cure" to alter children from ever becoming homosexual it would make any company rich off the bat.

Perhaps the semantics mentioned here will bring some fruit in some of Western Europe, parts of North America and possibly Australia. Otherwise the hormone treatment would become standard in much of the rest of the world.

Even in the US I would say quite a few parents would have it done illegaly, IF and that is a big IF the government bans it.
In all Muslim countries, Eastern european countries, African, Asian countries and India it will probably be bought by the metric tonnes. In those cultures having a homosexual child is considered a social stigma of the worst form.
It is attributed to be sexual deviancy on par with pedophilia, a sign of weakness (this is based more in male homosexuality), an affront to culture, religion and tradition. In other words mostly moral questions about soceity then any real danger. Something which in western nations we have already dealt with and finally overcame. However for 90% of the world that is not the case.
Although even in the US there are still quite a few people and sizeable population parts that are bigoted, and hence homosexual marriages still not allowed.
Although in all honesty I see homosexual marriage having very slim chances of being accepted in the US. Also in the future, as more immigrants enter the country where their culture is still fresh in their minds about stigmatizing such behavior.


All in all, as soceity progresses more and more, I doubt there will be homosexuals in 500-1000 years from now. I honestly believe despite what we hold now, in the future we will engineer humans to fit a certain fitness/intelligence criteria, fit for reproduction (not to say homosexuals cannot reproduce in the natural way, more there is a psychological inhibition to reproduce (as in search a partner of the other sex)).

Also to put a new spin on the arguement. Isn't this similar to circumcision debates? Why do the parents have the right to mutiliate part of a male baby's genitals (to which it cannot give consent), but are not allowed to apply an ointment during pregnancy which will ensure the little guy will always be chasing skirts? Or are you allowed to inject a hormonal balance after-birth like circumcision to make a decision about the childs future?

Tampering with the genetic material of a fetus is obviously never desirable, but it's certainly preferable to the alternative of aborting it that most such people would probably choose otherwise.

Although in all honesty I see homosexual marriage having very slim chances of being accepted in the US. It will be, but perhaps it will take some time after it is legalized for everyone to accept it.

Also to put a new spin on the arguement. Isn't this similar to circumcision debates? Why do the parents have the right to mutiliate part of a male baby's genitals (to which it cannot give consent),Many of the people who are against this are also against the circumcision of infants, for the same reasons.

It will be, but perhaps it will take some time after it is legalized for everyone to accept it.

Many of the people who are against this are also against the circumcision of infants, for the same reasons.

I've always wondered if it's legal to cut off a male baby's foreskin, why isn't it legal to cut off a female baby's clitoris? Basically speaking, the only reason either would be done is for religious purposes or to reduce the pleasure of sex.

NOTE: I'm against both of these things. It's just a point.

Many of the people who are against this are also against the circumcision of infants, for the same reasons.

I'm not sure about that.

I don't think it should be done casually - but if done for religious reasons, and (to members of the relevant religion) highly important religious reasons at that, I have difficulty objecting.

I don't think the levels of violation are equivalent, either. I can't speak for anyone else, but at the worst I've been mildly annoyed that my parents circumsized me, while if I learned that they had messed with my sexual orientation, I would be furious.

See that's the problem with you people. You seem to think that if you are against homosexuality you're a homophobe. You try to simplify something that isn't just because you want to make it out that if someone has an objection to homosexuality they're immediately afraid of it, which isn't true. Some people might be against it because they have religious objections or moral objections. Some might be against it because they are not into it. Others might be against it because it simply doesn't float their boat. It doesn't instantly mean that they are a homophobe.

Let us address this from the standpoint of a conservative viewpoint. If it is wrong to abort the fetus, because it is a life, and it is morally wrong to commit to stem cell research because you are fiddling about with a human life, then how is gene therapy any less wrong? The answer is: it is no less wrong to alter the natural course of a being's development. It is putting man in the place of God. So all gene therapy is wrong, right?

This is OK with you because it conforms to your view what is right or wrong, either that or it makes you comfortable. It is much easier for you to make such a judgement because you have not faced the consequences. I sincerely doubt that you are NOT a homophobe despite assertions to the contrary.

If I were capable of having my genes altered to where my attraction to males would be eliminated and all of a sudden I would be heterosexual is a false choice. I would refuse. I was made this way whether you like it or not, and frankly I could care less about you one way or the other.

In my humble opinion, gene therapy should be reserved for eliminating disease and birth defects. Once you cross into the frontier of gene therapy for the purpose of altering "undesirable" social behavior you risk a lot. For one, who has the right to make these life altering choices? Do the parents have that right? No. Does the government? My God, I hope not.

Gene therapy and stem cell research have a bright future, and I hope we develop them for the right reasons, not because a group of people make us uncomfortable.

Sure, why not?

It's her body, it's her right to choose what's in it, ain't that so?

No. I'm not being facetious. Shutthehellup.

(She should also have the right to make her kid gay through a similar gene therapy if she should so desire.)

Sure, why not?

It's her body, it's her right to choose what's in it, ain't that so?

So do you have a problem with a pregnant woman arranging for a limb to be severed? Or for the baby to be blinded? Or, to use an earlier example of mine, for something to be done to the fetus that will cause the child to die at eleven?

So do you have a problem with a pregnant woman arranging for a limb to be severed? Or for the baby to be blinded? Or, to use an earlier example of mine, for something to be done to the fetus that will cause the child to die at eleven?

Let's make a distinction here.

I find these things morally repugnant, much as I would find gene therapy to determine a child's sexual orientation repugnant, but while said child is within a woman's body, she has domain, I certainly don't.

On the converse, I'd wholeheartedly support the child's right to sue her ass off the moment he could if she were to do any of these things.

On the converse, I'd wholeheartedly support the child's right to sue her ass off the moment he could if she were to do any of these things.

Isn't that in effect making it illegal?

Isn't that in effect making it illegal?

No. She'd just run one hell of a risk if she insisted on being a bitch.

Because it would eliminate a form of sexual devancy. I don't see how this can be a bad thing.

Sorry boyo, homosexuality is not a "deviant behavior." It hasn't been classified as such by Psychiatrists or Psychologists for 40 years. So this is simply your bullshit definition.

I don't need anyone's approval Sov, and I sure as hell don't need people with a sad lack of ethics or REAL morals preaching to me about my life or my orientation...no one put you in charge of the morality police, son.

Life would be so much simpler if folks like you would live your life and let others live theirs in peace. But that is not to be, your kind obviously know so much more about what is "right" and "good" than I do. :rolleyes:

No. She'd just run one hell of a risk if she insisted on being a bitch.

If you're letting her child sue her, you're prohibiting it by making her legally liable.

What you're in effect saying is that "she can do it, but if she does, she has to take the penalty" - but the same is true of every law. No law makes anyone do anything; it just punishes people who break it.

It's weird that, now that the fetus has the potential to become someone's favored constituency, it is referred to in terms of a future human being rather than just an invasive lump of tissue to be discarded or carried to term at the woman's discretion.

Its called a double standard Tirindor. Women can abort their baby, since its in their body, but they can't change the gender, sex, or anything else in it, because its a human being.

We should just make everyone asexual, like those people who don't want sex. That way everyone wins. People will only have sex to make babies, and the world will be a duller, more empty place for it.

Its called a double standard Tirindor. Women can abort their baby, since its in their body, but they can't change the gender, sex, or anything else in it, because its a human being.

We should just make everyone asexual, like those people who don't want sex. That way everyone wins. People will only have sex to make babies, and the world will be a duller, more empty place for it.

Because it will be a human being. Those two words make a big difference.

There's a second problem with your logic that deserves calling attention to.

Saying that it would be legitimate for the child to sue her is in effect saying that what she did was wrong, or at least, that the child has a legitimate grievance for what she did to him.

If the child's grievance is legitimate, then she must have violated one of his rights - otherwise the child's grievance would NOT be legitimate. What would the child rather have - the money or not having his rights violated in the first place? It really doesn't matter, because whatever the answer, the fact remains that the child is the ONLY ONE with the right to make that choice regarding one of his own rights - which means that if there is some cost we can put on violating his rights, HE must be the one to decide what it is. She must make a deal with him - "consent to this hormonal treatment, and I'll give you a certain sum of money" - rather than usurping the choice from him.

Lemme think about this. at first, let us assume the genetic manipulation has no side effects and works 100%since I do not believe any sexuality is bad, the sum of positive and negative effects is 0. The modification would be ethically neutral.

Now let's take into account that there is always a risk of damaging the DNA, causing side effects... this sort of thing... these side-effects can totally screw up your life. therefore, unless these side effects are really seldom, the sum of advantages and disadvantages is negative and it's unethical.

Its called a double standard Tirindor. Women can abort their baby, since its in their body, but they can't change the gender, sex, or anything else in it, because its a human being.

We should just make everyone asexual, like those people who don't want sex. That way everyone wins. People will only have sex to make babies, and the world will be a duller, more empty place for it.

This may have been discussed interms of the woman being a landlord, the fetus being the tenant, and the womb being the appartment. The landlord can decide whether she wants to rent out her space or not, but cannot refuse to rent to someone based on sexuality. O nly on relavent things, like whether they will leave a mess (hurt her health)

Full Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html)

Do parents have the right to choose their child's sexual orientation by this so called straightening process? Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?

Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: You can all blather long and hard about this and that, society and religion, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty. This is her child, and she can do whatever the damn well she pleases with it. I see no reason why 'society' should dictate to anyone.

You ask, but society is the one asking her to change it, and I say society is asking her to not change it. I don't see why abortion should be allowed, killing the baby, which I agree to too a certain extent, but she cannot change some hormones.

Honestly, it is hers, and society, 'the man', religious rights and loose lefties can all just shove it. It is not a matter of attacking homosexuality as it is attacking a mother's right, and to a lesser degree a father's, control (and thus responsibility) of their un-born child.

This is her child, and she can do whatever the damn well she pleases with it.

No one EVER owns another human being.

No one EVER owns another human being.

Fine, we ask the baby after it doesn't make a lick of difference.

No one EVER owns another human being.

Our forefathers would disagree with you. Also look at the law. Someone under the age of 18 is little better than a pet. The only difference is you can't sell it.

Well I can see this argument will just keep going in circles. I think political correctness is heavily affecting your clarity on this issue. I could also be brain damaged and unable to understand your points.;)


I don't see any way in which 'political correctness' could even be relevent, I'm afraid.

I'm not worried about offending anyone, and I'm calling it like I see it - and, logically, your argument just doesn't hold water.


I really see no problem with designing babies if I could choose the hair color, eye color, skin tone of my child,increased intelligence and be able to get rid of all the defective genes that will cause disease in the future. I would be all for it because mother nature can be a cruel bitch at times. I personally would not care about homosexuality but if the fetus has no rights and is not a person than the parents should be able to do whatever they want. I am sure some of you will think I am an evil humanist but I see my position as the true pro-choice position.


Not a matter of being a humanist - indeed, once again, I'm not even sure how that applies.

My argument is that we don't have any way to know what is good for the species, except in tiny snatches that may or may not prove to be representative of the entire spectrum of human existence.

Example: removing adverse health conditions is good. Logically then, removing all 'adverse' health conditions is good. So - we 'cure' sickle-cell anemia. Then, a few years down the line, we encounter a new malaria... we could easily be wiped out by the unforseen consequences of tampering.

Against that - I've not seen a single argument that has the weight to offset the risk.

The other half of your argument seems to be about foetuses, and how they are the devil's playground. But, you are never going to understand where you are meeting opposition, if you can't differentiate between the 'function' of abortion and the 'function' of in-uterine editing... and the ramifications each carries.

The primary indications of the article seems to be that a percentage of mothers to be have a hormonal imbalance that affects the fetus development. IF it does in fact change the likelihood of the child developing different behaviors in the future then so be it.

We didn't know many reasons for folic acid and pre-natal vitamin supplements fifty years ago and we didn't know about Omega 3 supplements twenty years ago, and we will continue to learn more and more about the optimum variables for pregnant mothers as modern medicine advances. Anyone saying that a mother should not be allowed to medicate and or achieve a proper nutrient and vitamin balance via diet in her own body because her baby might turn out to NOT be gay, has a ethical problem IMO, that they want to render the very advancement of a medical science immoral is astounding... interesting that the tables have turned on some of you posters here.

Fine, we ask the baby after it doesn't make a lick of difference.

No - we ask the child only when the child is actually capable of giving meaningful consent.

That is part of our obligation to treat other persons as persons with dignity, not as objects we can abuse and manipulate for our own ends.

Our forefathers would disagree with you.

Our forefathers were wrong. And some of mine were slaves; I doubt they thought their master had a right to own them.

Also look at the law. Someone under the age of 18 is little better than a pet. The only difference is you can't sell it.

What the law states and what morality requires are different things.

this becomes an ethics question.
homosexuality should not be looked upon as a bad thing or a disease that you can try to breed out, but if the parents have certain views on gay people, religious or otherwise, then it should be their choice.

Dear lord...

I find it repulsive, disgusting, bigoted, and sick. However, it should be legal, because it isn't harming the child (it just isn't helping them either).

It should be illegal to genetically modify a child to harm them, like, say, blinding them. It should be legal to genetically modify them in a positive or neutral way.

But it's bigoted, disgusting, and people who do it are scum.

I find it repulsive, disgusting, bigoted, and sick. However, it should be legal, because it isn't harming the child (it just isn't helping them either).

How do you determine what is and is not harm?

I would consider it a very great harm for someone to forcibly turn me straight.

No - we ask the child only when the child is actually capable of giving meaningful consent.

That is part of our obligation to treat other persons as persons with dignity, not as objects we can abuse and manipulate for our own ends.

If you asked a child, without 'society' burging in by saying its okay or not okay, you just told him the facts. The child, like in human, would just want to fit in. At least concede there is a majority, maybe even 70% of children that are born gay would want to be like the rest of their peers. Straight.


Our forefathers were wrong. And some of mine were slaves; I doubt they thought their master had a right to own them.

I am just going to ignore this little tidbit, I couldn't give a damn if you are white, black or anything inbetween, were talking about children here, and you are taking it down a very dark path very fast.


What the law states and what morality requires are different things.
So what, where going to disregard any law that looks wrong to us because we consider it un-moral? A law is a law because the majority wants it, thats how democracy works and if you want something else, you can take the next Greyhound to whatever dictatorship you want.

Being drawn toward Allah and religion is one of the most basic instincts in every human being.


I disagree. I think we are a curious species, and are left with a lot of questions. I also think that, once we discovered language, we started finding ways to answer some of those questions that made it easier for us to compartmentalise them away... and that people have exploited that curiousity for personal gain for millenia, whilst ignoring the effects that their actions will have years down the line.

to erase that, is to erase the human race.

Considering that the thing that has come closest to erasing the human race probably is religion, that sounds like something of a Catch 22 situation.

Also - it has to be said, not everyone feels this need for assurance-from-the-unseen... so I think you are overplaying your cards a little.

Dear lord...

I find it repulsive, disgusting, bigoted, and sick. However, it should be legal, because it isn't harming the child (it just isn't helping them either).

It should be illegal to genetically modify a child to harm them, like, say, blinding them. It should be legal to genetically modify them in a positive or neutral way.

But it's bigoted, disgusting, and people who do it are scum.
If I don't agree with your opinion, your general viewpoint I appluad in its rightful thinking.

How do you determine what is and is not harm?

I would consider it a very great harm for someone to forcibly turn me straight.
Well, we could hold a referendum on it, straight people will win, and then it would be considered a neutral change. Not positive, new age America won't say its bad per say, but they'll accept it as something that should be done.

Sometimes democracy gives you a royal flush, sometimes you get flushed, luck of the draw, and for the most part your going to have to suck it up. Maybe do some protesting, and the lucky thing is, your can protest against the same foundations that could give your social welfare, protect you against destructive businesses, and let your protest freely. A straight flush right there!

The primary indications of the article seems to be that a percentage of mothers to be have a hormonal imbalance that affects the fetus development. IF it does in fact change the likelihood of the child developing different behaviors in the future then so be it.

We didn't know many reasons for folic acid and pre-natal vitamin supplements fifty years ago and we didn't know about Omega 3 supplements twenty years ago, and we will continue to learn more and more about the optimum variables for pregnant mothers as modern medicine advances. Anyone saying that a mother should not be allowed to medicate and or achieve a proper nutrient and vitamin balance via diet in her own body because her baby might turn out to NOT be gay, has a ethical problem IMO, that they want to render the very advancement of a medical science immoral is astounding... interesting that the tables have turned on some of you posters here.

First - folic acid is needed to stop the baby being 'damaged'. That is not what we are talking about with sexuality... despite what some narrow minds might think.

Second - you talk about mothers being able to 'medicate' and 'achieve a proper nutrient and vitamin balance'... and you constrast this against the 'risks' of gay foetuses...

But - what is the 'balance', and how do you determine it is 'right'?

How do you determine what is and is not harm?

I would consider it a very great harm for someone to forcibly turn me straight.

If your mother took a pre-natal supplement that helped ensure that she maintained a balanced hormones level while she was pregnant with you, and she took Folic acid to reduce your risk of having a serious birth defect of the brain or spinal cord, and took multivitamins to make up for any nutritional deficiencies known or unknown in her diet, and took omega 3 supplements to insure that your brain might be able to develop as many neuro-connections as possible so that you might be as smart as you could be when you are older, how then could you fault her for it now? How absurd to claim injury of it now, that’s what it will be like for the child of the future scenario being discussed.

If you asked a child, without 'society' burging in by saying its okay or not okay, you just told him the facts. The child, like in human, would just want to fit in. At least concede there is a majority, maybe even 70% of children that are born gay would want to be like the rest of their peers. Straight.

I'm not sure about that at all - certainly not if you really did take society out of it.

Actually I doubt it very much. I bet most would ask to be left alone, except for the ones actively pressured into it by fundamentalist parents - and those hardly meaningfully consent.

I am just going to ignore this little tidbit, I couldn't give a damn if you are white, black or anything inbetween, were talking about children here, and you are taking it down a very dark path very fast.

Me? He mentioned "our forefathers"; I pointed out that if "our forefathers" is to be a guide, we are guided in more than one direction.

So what, where going to disregard any law that looks wrong to us because we consider it un-moral?

We act morally, whatever the law says.

A law is a law because the majority wants it, thats how democracy works

So? The majority can decide to do an immoral thing. If the majority decided to gas all the gays in this country, that would be an atrocity even if it were democratically approved.

and if you want something else, you can take the next Greyhound to whatever dictatorship you want.

I think democracies tend to better approximate moral governance than dictatorships.

Well, we could hold a referendum on it, straight people will win, and then it would be considered a neutral change. Not positive, new age America won't say its bad per say, but they'll accept it as something that should be done.


'Straight people will win'?

That's good news. After all, I am straight (married, 2 kids)... so I will 'win'!

What is it I'm winning?

I'd certainly say that screwing around with the hormone levels of foetuses to produce 'tailored babies' is a greater 'harm' than there being a combination of straight and gay people being born...

Snippetus

Agree on the majority of your points except the part about religion being detremental to civilization.

If anything, aspiring to save, construct, and build for Christ (Allah, The Guy Up There, you get the idea) hs helped many people of many years. From Moorish scholars saving important books from bloodthirsty and relativly un-God fearing (more like Pope fearing) nobles. They were in Granada.

Of course the catch there is Granada was sacked, destroyed, entirely by the reconquista (spelling?) which was thought to be a God given cause.

Yet, many times religion is used as a means not a ends, so people's agendas are solved but at the expense of God. I hafly think religion has been so popular even in usually sinful people, because they can say everything from why they can't rule to why they executed that man was God's will.

Well, we could hold a referendum on it

Sorry, referendums don't determine what is and isn't harm.

Sometimes democracy gives you a royal flush, sometimes you get flushed, luck of the draw, and for the most part your going to have to suck it up. Maybe do some protesting, and the lucky thing is, your can protest against the same foundations that could give your social welfare, protect you against destructive businesses, and let your protest freely. A straight flush right there!

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

If your mother took a pre-natal supplement that helped ensure that she maintained a balanced hormones level while she was pregnant with you, and she took Folic acid to reduce your risk of having a serious birth defect of the brain or spinal cord, and took multivitamins to make up for any nutritional deficiencies known or unknown in her diet, and took omega 3 supplements to insure that your brain might be able to develop as many neuro-connections as possible so that you might be as smart as you could be when you are older, how then could you fault her for it now?

I wouldn't; those are all beneficial, done with the intention of securing my welfare, not to fulfill an arbitrary prejudice of hers.

First - folic acid is needed to stop the baby being 'damaged'. That is not what we are talking about with sexuality... despite what some narrow minds might think.

Second - you talk about mothers being able to 'medicate' and 'achieve a proper nutrient and vitamin balance'... and you constrast this against the 'risks' of gay foetuses...

But - what is the 'balance', and how do you determine it is 'right'?

The article says hormone balance.... you can pretend that it said something else if you want. But the basic truth is, the article says the scientists in question are suggesting that 10% of the sheep mothers have a hormonal balance deficiency that causes that future behavior of the offspring. IF it is fixable with a treatment like a daily nutrient supplement, so be it. IF that transfers into a better understanding of human paternity medicine and knowledge, then this is simply the advancement of medical knowledge. How is it not.

'Straight people will win'?

That's good news. After all, I am straight (married, 2 kids)... so I will 'win'!

What is it I'm winning?

I'd certainly say that screwing around with the hormone levels of foetuses to produce 'tailored babies' is a greater 'harm' than there being a combination of straight and gay people being born...

Well I am tacking into account that people want other people to be like them. So using that little theory, I say that everyone who is straight, or at least moderate, will vote for this hormone change as a neutral, if not positive, change to a baby. Making it legal. There will be some who see this as unnatural, or discriminatory, but all in all there would be a majority calling for this as a neutral change.

Of course restrictions will be placed characteristic by characteristic, to be deemed a negative-neutral-positive change.

Why stop at homosexuality? Why can't we breed out curly hair? Or Dark eyes? Or how about breeding out short people? Maybe we should look at breeding out fat people too. Then we can have a new species of SUPERMEN!!! :rolleyes:

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h183/sergggiiiooo/ItsnotFacismwhenwedoit.jpg

I would consider it a very great harm for someone to forcibly turn me straight.

I would too. What I think's interesting is that the greek aristocrats were all basically pedophiliac bisexuals. And damn, they had one of the best civilizations in history. Maybe we should look into that.

...

I wouldn't; those are all beneficial, done with the intention of securing my welfare, not to fulfill an arbitrary prejudice of hers.

Exactly right, but when trying to achieve the highest level of optimum health for the expecting mother, one of the side affects turns out to be that it reduces the number of children that develop homosexual tendencies later in life as well, but they are otherwise overall more healthy, how would it be a immoral medical field of study to discover the optimum balance variables for expecting mothers?

Its called a double standard Tirindor. Women can abort their baby, since its in their body, but they can't change the gender, sex, or anything else in it, because its a human being.


Missed it, huh?

A woman can abort a foetus... why?

Because abortion is about the woman - it is about whether or not a human being can be compelled to support a parasitic relationship with another entity. As the law stands at the moment, we actually don't even allow that where BOTH entities are considered 'human persons' - much less when one of them is a blob of jelly, surely?

But, what about altering the gender orientation of a baby?

In affecting the gender orientation, we are allowing that the woman will not abort. Thus, she is ceding her complete dominon over her uterus. Thus - this is all about the foetus.

And, as the law stands at the moment, you can't change someone's 'junk' without their consent.

How do you determine what is and is not harm?

That would be lessening the child's physical function and/or damaging their ability to be happy in life.

I would consider it a very great harm for someone to forcibly turn me straight.

And, at your age, it would be. For a fetus, who won't experience the change, who will simply be the sexuality forced off onto them. That isn't harming them, since being heterosexual is neither superior nor inferior to being homosexual.

Sorry, referendums don't determine what is and isn't harm.

That's how order and peace is maintained in a democracy, the needs of the greater are provided. Sometimes the results suck, sometimes they don't. That's just how it is, unless you sponser a dictatorship in some other unstable continent that could support your views.

If the people want it, they are provided it. Especially if something like 80-90% would agree to it. If a majority will agree to having homosexuality removed from a baby if it is the mother's will, then great! If not, that sucks. I won't get all poopy, complain and whine that my choice wasn't the winning choice. I'll get over it.

As for NC, you got some problems. Real problems, your fear of having a resurgent Nazi ideal shouldn't prevent mothers from having successful children. Why not give them curly hair or straight? Hell, why not make them have photographic memories, if that makes us Hitlerites, well then I am getting out my Swastika and start doing the goose-step.

snip

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h183/sergggiiiooo/ItsnotFacismwhenwedoit.jpg

That's my new wallpaper.

Agree on the majority of your points except the part about religion being detremental to civilization.

If anything, aspiring to save, construct, and build for Christ (Allah, The Guy Up There, you get the idea) hs helped many people of many years. From Moorish scholars saving important books from bloodthirsty and relativly un-God fearing (more like Pope fearing) nobles. They were in Granada.

Of course the catch there is Granada was sacked, destroyed, entirely by the reconquista (spelling?) which was thought to be a God given cause.

Yet, many times religion is used as a means not a ends, so people's agendas are solved but at the expense of God. I hafly think religion has been so popular even in usually sinful people, because they can say everything from why they can't rule to why they executed that man was God's will.

The problem is - there will always be the human dynamics of leader and follower, but our racial proclivity towards this superstition thing means that some leaders will always claim that they have a better (read, divine) reason why 'followers' should do the bizarre things they say.

Remove the tendency towards belief in the unprovable, and you remove the dynamic that allows a leader to claim 'a higher authority' for his acts of madness.

The article says hormone balance.... you can pretend that it said something else if you want. But the basic truth is, the article says the scientists in question are suggesting that 10% of the sheep mothers have a hormonal balance deficiency that causes that future behavior of the offspring. IF it is fixable with a treatment like a daily nutrient supplement, so be it. IF that transfers into a better understanding of human paternity medicine and knowledge, then this is simply the advancement of medical knowledge. How is it not.

I'm not 'pretending' anything.

The article does say 'hormone balance' perhaps... but what is the reasoning for saying what is and is not 'balanced'?

I appreciate you might not know... that is okay, neither do I, the question was out there to be asked, because you were making ridiculous claims that are - you must admit - somewhere between pure speculation and opinion.

I would too. What I think's interesting is that the greek aristocrats were all basically pedophiliac bisexuals. And damn, they had one of the best civilizations in history. Maybe we should look into that.

Of course so were countless civilizations, Victorian England for one, that were amazingly conservative and great. Once again, it is neutral change (if not positive, but that's beside the point, were talking about legality) and thus legal.

It's disgusting, unethical, and I recommend we slaughter anyone who would consider this. I know that sounds extreme, but this makes me sick.

Exactly right, but when trying to achieve the highest level of optimum health for the expecting mother, one of the side affects turns out to be that it reduces the number of children that develop homosexual tendencies later in life as well, but they are otherwise overall more healthy, how would it be a immoral medical field of study to discover the optimum balance variables for expecting mothers?

Of course it wouldn't be.

I actually don't think there's such a thing as an "immoral field of study."

Well I am tacking into account that people want other people to be like them. So using that little theory, I say that everyone who is straight, or at least moderate, will vote for this hormone change as a neutral, if not positive, change to a baby. Making it legal. There will be some who see this as unnatural, or discriminatory, but all in all there would be a majority calling for this as a neutral change.

Of course restrictions will be placed characteristic by characteristic, to be deemed a negative-neutral-positive change.

And, I think you are wrong.

I'm not gay - but I don't consider it my business to get into what other people like to do to each other - so long as everyone is consenting and legally capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

Gay or straight - it's all the same to me. Indeed, if I had the vote, I'd vote for variety.

Eugenics never was my cup of tea.

And, at your age, it would be. For a fetus, who won't experience the change, who will simply be the sexuality forced off onto them. That isn't harming them, since being heterosexual is neither superior nor inferior to being homosexual.

By the same 'logic', it should be okay to amputate all the limbs, right?

After all: "...a fetus, ...won't experience the change..." so, no harm, right?

The problem is - there will always be the human dynamics of leader and follower, but our racial proclivity towards this superstition thing means that some leaders will always claim that they have a better (read, divine) reason why 'followers' should do the bizarre things they say.

Remove the tendency towards belief in the unprovable, and you remove the dynamic that allows a leader to claim 'a higher authority' for his acts of madness.

If religion inspires people to put faith in unwise leaders, so be it. Civilizaions don't last long enough to do to much bad if they follow someone unwise. Mayans, Byzantine Empire, Aztects, Caphalites ect... ect...

No! (I want to head you off when you mention America. :D )

Here's the thing. If homosexuality is genetic (and I honestly am not qualified to speculate on that one way or the other) it can't be entirely harmful. This is the basic theory of natural selection, right?

By the same 'logic', it should be okay to amputate all the limbs, right?

After all: "...a fetus, ...won't experience the change..." so, no harm, right?

Hey! Let's chop out there kidneys! They won't notice the change!


Jesus people, it's goddamn obvious that just because you don't experience it doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

I'm not 'pretending' anything.

The article does say 'hormone balance' perhaps... but what is the reasoning for saying what is and is not 'balanced'?

I appreciate you might not know... that is okay, neither do I, the question was out there to be asked, because you were making ridiculous claims that are - you must admit - somewhere between pure speculation and opinion.

Oh that's funny, I didn't realize that your posts were anything other than speculation and opinion... perhaps I missed you links of proof of how we are damaging ourselves when we try to remove an unwanted medical traits (that we are delving into areas better left alone etc.,). Because frankly, your opinions in this thread sound an awful lot like scientology's reasons for claiming behavior modification medications are immoral. Or perhaps why the Amish think we shouldn't progress past the horse and buggy stage for fear of what the next 'advancement' might bring.

As to what is the proper hormonal balance of what an expecting mother should be, I do not know what it is, that is correct. But that does not mean that there isn’t a optimum level to be achieved. I believe we can both say that we know a hormonal system can be out of whack and not working properly can’t we?

Of course so were countless civilizations, Victorian England for one, that were amazingly conservative and great. Once again, it is neutral change (if not positive, but that's beside the point, were talking about legality) and thus legal.

Don't buy into the hype.

Victorian England was rife with pornography, and it was considered practically normal for a married man of means to also have a mistress. Add to which, the empire was fueled from the profits of drug-running, gun-running, and slave-trading.

Not that conservative. The 'great' is in the eye of the beholder.

And, I think you are wrong.

I'm not gay - but I don't consider it my business to get into what other people like to do to each other - so long as everyone is consenting and legally capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

Which then brings m to my first point that it is her child and she can do whatever she wants with the baby. Because the child cannot speak in the womb, and since other people aren't going to make the decision for the child, then the next best person should. Its mother-

I don't think homosexuality is caused by "hormonal imbalance". That makes it sound like some kind of psychological problem to be treated. We should treat it as just the way a person is. And nothing will change that.

If religion inspires people to put faith in unwise leaders, so be it. Civilizaions don't last long enough to do to much bad if they follow someone unwise. Mayans, Byzantine Empire, Aztects, Caphalites ect... ect...

No! (I want to head you off when you mention America. :D )

I wasn't going to mention America yet. I was going to point out the two main warring factions in this world at the moment, are basically waving one of two banners - both based on the teachings of the same people.

Here's the thing. If homosexuality is genetic (and I honestly am not qualified to speculate on that one way or the other) it can't be entirely harmful. This is the basic theory of natural selection, right?

The article isn't suggesting it's genetic, the article is suggesting that it's the hormonal balance in the uterus during pregnancy. Something cured with pre-natal supplements...entirely different if it's genetics.

Don't buy into the hype.

Victorian England was rife with pornography, and it was considered practically normal for a married man of means to also have a mistress. Add to which, the empire was fueled from the profits of drug-running, gun-running, and slave-trading.

Not that conservative. The 'great' is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, I knew I wasn't going to get of that easily with mentioning Victorian England if someone with half an once of reading on the subject was here.

Yet the point stands that they were at least to a large degree straight. Regardless, lets get back on subject by replying to my most recent post!

Jesus people, it's goddamn obvious that just because you don't experience it doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

Exactly.

So - we mess around in the 'gender' section, and we assume it won't suck.

But, how much do we really know?

For example - isn't it possible that transgender issues are rooted in a brain that was WIRED for one gender orientation, but received the 'hormone balance' for another?

This is so fucking disgusting. This should qualify as hate speech, since it's advocating the destruction of an entire people.

Now, if I suggested I had evidence we could "cure" being black by taking supplements during pregnancy, I would be screamed at. Now, why is it that if someone suggests breeding out homosexuality, quite a few people are like "jolly fine, doncha know?"

That's how order and peace is maintained in a democracy, the needs of the greater are provided.

There is no "need" here. The preferences of the majority are irrelevant - the issue does not concern them.

Sometimes the results suck, sometimes they don't. That's just how it is, unless you sponser a dictatorship in some other unstable continent that could support your views.

False dichotomy. There are other ways to protect minority rights.

And, at your age, it would be. For a fetus, who won't experience the change, who will simply be the sexuality forced off onto them. That isn't harming them, since being heterosexual is neither superior nor inferior to being homosexual.

It's still compulsion, though - forcibly taking away what was naturally given to them in favor of a parent's arbitrary preference.

And it's certainly not the stuff of "parent's right" either - parents don't have those kinds of rights over their children.

Oh that's funny, I didn't realize that your posts were anything other than speculation and opinion... perhaps I missed you links of proof of how we are damaging ourselves when we try to remove an unwanted medical traits (that we are delving into areas better left alone etc.,). Because frankly, your opinions in this thread sound an awful lot like scientology's reasons for claiming behavior modification medications are immoral. Or perhaps why the Amish think we shouldn't progress past the horse and buggy stage for fear of what the next 'advancement' might bring.

As to what is the proper hormonal balance of what an expecting mother should be, I do not know what it is, that is correct. But that does not mean that there isn’t a optimum level to be achieved. I believe we can both say that we know a hormonal system can be out of whack and not working properly can’t we?

Wow, you really are talking out of your arse tonight.

I don't claim links to proof of anything, because I am not the one CLAIMING anything. What I am doing, is present skepticism... and, strange though it may sound... doubt doesn't need to be proved.

I'll ignore your comments about scientology and the Amish (got to be the only time someone has linked them, right?) because I'm neither sure what you think you mean, or how to respond without telling you that your trousers are muffling your voice.


As to hormonal balance... you seem to think we are talking a binary scale... without even pausing for breath, to consider that some situations might have a multitude of 'balance' points. Instead, you barrel on with your on/off approach... the difference being, you seem to think you are somehow stating something, while I admit I am just asking questions.

I don't think homosexuality is caused by "hormonal imbalance". That makes it sound like some kind of psychological problem to be treated. We should treat it as just the way a person is. And nothing will change that.
When a majority is wearing green a selection of greens, and a minority is wearing bright red, there is a difference, a imblance of the normal green.

Of course variety I welcome, and would think the would a dull place if everyone was the same, but I wouldn't mind if some imbalances were changed.

I wasn't going to mention America yet. I was going to point out the two main warring factions in this world at the moment, are basically waving one of two banners - both based on the teachings of the same people.
Isn't that the truth, oh well, I could hairsplit it and say something like 'its more a version of hating America or not hating America, which just happens to automatically be hating Christians and not hating them.'

Yet, I fear the recent intermingling of church and state within America has left that arguement thin on the facts page. In the sense, it could just be vice-versa, they hate Christians thus Americans. Then a battle of opinions.

For the record, I feel obliged to tell that I am a devote Christian.

As to what is the proper hormonal balance of what an expecting mother should be, I do not know what it is, that is correct. But that does not mean that there isn’t a optimum level to be achieved. I believe we can both say that we know a hormonal system can be out of whack and not working properly can’t we?

if the only thing that this hormone imbalance causes is gay children and doesn't physically affect the mom then why should the mother change it?

The article isn't suggesting it's genetic, the article is suggesting that it's the hormonal balance in the uterus during pregnancy. Something cured with pre-natal supplements...entirely different if it's genetics.

Well you can't very well breed it out than, can you?

Which then brings m to my first point that it is her child and she can do whatever she wants with the baby. Because the child cannot speak in the womb, and since other people aren't going to make the decision for the child, then the next best person should. Its mother-

An interesting argument... but let's examine it for a second.

Would we allow the government to forcibly re-orient the gender of our citizens? I sincerely hope not, not in a 'civilised' society.

If they could do it with a course of medications - would we allow parents to change the gender orientation of their already-born children? I'm not sure we would.

Gender reassignment must be something that requires consent, AND the ability to take responsibility for that consent... in other words, we can only legitimately 'medicate' gender of consenting adults.


So - why should we plead special exception for the foetus? Going back to my other point - we don't allow parents to decide they want to have their foetus edited to remove it's limbs... so, simply the idea that a foetus RELIES on the parents to look out for it's best interests... doesn't answer the question.

There is no "need" here. The preferences of the majority are irrelevant - the issue does not concern them.

I would agree if straight people were completely ignored by both sides if they learned their child was not going to be straight, and thus changed him or her. Yet if the majority is even in the slightest influenced by the minority, then it becomes their issure, their problem.


False dichotomy. There are other ways to protect minority rights.
Like enforcing that you can't do this? You aren't enforcing anyone's rights, you are oppressing.



And it's certainly not the stuff of "parent's right" either - parents don't have those kinds of rights over their children.
Yet if a 5 year old is convicted of doing crime, the parent is given the time? If a child is just an extension of the parent till then, how much closer it must be before taking its first look outside?

Wow, you really are talking out of your arse tonight.

I don't claim links to proof of anything, because I am not the one CLAIMING anything. What I am doing, is present skepticism... and, strange though it may sound... doubt doesn't need to be proved.

I'll ignore your comments about scientology and the Amish (got to be the only time someone has linked them, right?) because I'm neither sure what you think you mean, or how to respond without telling you that your trousers are muffling your voice.


As to hormonal balance... you seem to think we are talking a binary scale... without even pausing for breath, to consider that some situations might have a multitude of 'balance' points. Instead, you barrel on with your on/off approach... the difference being, you seem to think you are somehow stating something, while I admit I am just asking questions.


Well isn't that about the most long winded way of saying, "I don't have an argument anymore so I'll just call you names and hope nobody notices that my position is weak..."

Well that's too bad then, medical knowledge and science will progress with or without your approval though, you might as well get used to it.

Isn't that the truth, oh well, I could hairsplit it and say something like 'its more a version of hating America or not hating America, which just happens to automatically be hating Christians and not hating them.'

Yet, I fear the recent intermingling of church and state within America has left that arguement thin on the facts page. In the sense, it could just be vice-versa, they hate Christians thus Americans. Then a battle of opinions.

For the record, I feel obliged to tell that I am a devote Christian.

And I'm an unapologetic atheist.

In reality - I have nothing against the pursuit of religion... and only raised the issue because someone else seems to think their 'religion' is a good reason to advocate the excision of a tendency towards a given gender-orientation.

I would agree if straight people were completely ignored by both sides if they learned their child was not going to be straight, and thus changed him or her. Yet if the majority is even in the slightest influenced by the minority, then it becomes their issure, their problem.

No - there has to be substantial effect. The fact that they might like, in the abstract, the thought of fewer gay babies has no non-negligible moral implications on the question.

For a comparable example, should I be able to decide who you do and do not have sex with?

Like enforcing that you can't do this? You aren't enforcing anyone's rights, you are oppressing.

No more than we "oppress" the murderer, or the rapist, or other people who violate human rights.

If a child is just an extension of the parent till then

A child is never an extension of the parent.

if the only thing that this hormone imbalance causes is gay children and doesn't physically affect the mom then why should the mother change it?

Exactly - I've tried to make this point already - although perhaps not so concisely.

By the same 'logic', it should be okay to amputate all the limbs, right?

After all: "...a fetus, ...won't experience the change..." so, no harm, right?

Slippery slope fallacy.

One might expect an equal logical conclusion from permission of abortion, but we do not see such a result.

A child is never an extension of the parent.

Then how do we justify abortion?

An interesting argument... but let's examine it for a second.

Would we allow the government to forcibly re-orient the gender of our citizens? I sincerely hope not, not in a 'civilised' society.

If they could do it with a course of medications - would we allow parents to change the gender orientation of their already-born children? I'm not sure we would.

Gender reassignment must be something that requires consent, AND the ability to take responsibility for that consent... in other words, we can only legitimately 'medicate' gender of consenting adults.

In gender, it is split very close to half and half (since more old peopl vote then young, and more women live to old age, I would say women would win. Contray to my gender, but if I had to say, I would guess women would give all and any rights to the mother on anything she wanted done.) and if one side wins, it wouldn't even have anywhere close to the same problems as having a minority dictate to a majority because the minority is a minority.


Going back to my other point - we don't allow parents to decide they want to have their foetus edited to remove it's limbs... so, simply the idea that a foetus RELIES on the parents to look out for it's best interests... doesn't answer the question.
If the the foetus can't rely on the parent, then it is up to others to decide. Like for instance a referendum, but we reached the end of that line quite some time ago. The main thing is, the only way to protect a minority's rights is to leave them both out of it. If you allow one, you allow the other.

As for detremental effects to the baby, I hardly think a mother would want her child deformed.

Well isn't that about the most long winded way of saying, "I don't have an argument anymore so I'll just call you names and hope nobody notices that my position is weak..."


No.

You said my argument was weak because it lacks sources.

The point is - my 'argument' is skepticism.


You compared my argument to 'scientology' and being Amish. I'm not sure why, or what you meant by it... and I notice you are no more forthcoming once called on it. I have to assume you were being insulting.

The point is - if one is going to start whining about ad hominem, one should really make sure one's own record is unimpeachable.


Well that's too bad then, medical knowledge and science will progress with or without your approval though, you might as well get used to it.

This is true. Medical knowledge doesn't require my approval. Fortunately, this thread is not the medical establishment canvassing support... it is merely a politcal game forum, on which some people are discussing how they feel about the issues.

I realise this game allows one to play the part of an almost godlike figure...

Well you can't very well breed it out than, can you?

Although some people did mention that in the thread, the OP and article did not, and neither did I. The article talked about treating an expecting mother’s hormonal condition, like taking pre-natal supplements now, and that this would somehow decrease the number of sheep that grow up to be homosexually inclined.

IF that treatment and medical understanding was transferred to humans and it had the same impact on us, that is, a hormonal treatment that reduced the number of homosexually inclined adults (speculatively) from before birth, that is what the topic is. Not genetics (DNA and family traits etc.), not hormonal impacts (environmental affect of the uterus condition on the development on the fetus).

Then how do we justify abortion?

A fetus is not an extension of the parent either. But it also is a being that lacks the full rights of personhood, because it does not possess the necessary mental faculties (sapience); the mother's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life.

Slippery slope fallacy.

One might expect an equal logical conclusion from permission of abortion, but we do not see such a result.

Not really a slippery slope, but I will admit to an appeal to ridicule. The 'logic' must be consistent. If we allow one form of 'harm' becasue it cannot be experienced, then we should allow others, right?

This obviously can't parallel abortion, because abortion never yields offspring at the end of it, to be affected by the choices we made.

A fetus is not an extension of the parent either. But it also is a being that lacks the full rights of personhood, because it does not possess the necessary mental faculties (sapience); the mother's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus's right to life.

Then how about a mothers right to change that which is within her?

As you said, (and as I agree) a fetus lacks the full rights of personhood, because it does not possess the necessary mental faculties (sapience); the mother's right to bodily autonomy trumps the fetus' right to anything.

By logical extension, the mother's right to determine things about said fetus ought to be treated equally as the mother's right to obliterate the fetus.

Then how do we justify abortion?

Easily.

Abortion is about unwanted conamination in the uterus.

The end product is an uncontaminated uterus, and the castoffs of the removal of a jellylike contaminant.


Editing foetuses that we INTEND to be born is a different matter, since we are then shaping a child that WILL be born.

Not really a slippery slope, but I will admit to an appeal to ridicule. The 'logic' must be consistent. If we allow one form of 'harm' becasue it cannot be experienced, then we should allow others, right?

This obviously can't parallel abortion, because abortion never yields offspring at the end of it, to be affected by the choices we made.

No, but it alters a potential person's future, much as this does.

Easily.

Abortion is about unwanted conamination in the uterus.

The end product is an uncontaminated uterus, and the castoffs of the removal of a jellylike contaminant.


Editing foetuses that we INTEND to be born is a different matter, since we are then shaping a child that WILL be born.

I really fail to see the difference.

Not really a slippery slope, but I will admit to an appeal to ridicule. The 'logic' must be consistent. If we allow one form of 'harm' becasue it cannot be experienced, then we should allow others, right?

No, Andaluciae is right; it's a slippery slope.

True, the fetus doesn't experience the severing - but the child experiences life without a limb.

Kinda Sensible people's legitimate objection to my statement was that if I had my sexual orientation forcibly changed, not only would I become straight (not in itself a harm), but I also would experience the transition - having the sexual orientation I have already experienced switched to a different one. This is indeed a harm; it is a kind of violation. The child in the example would not experience the transition; he or she would merely experience being straight, which is not a harm.

You compared my argument to 'scientology' and being Amish. I'm not sure why, or what you meant by it... and I notice you are no more forthcoming once called on it. I have to assume you were being insulting.


You advocated a position that essentially says, we are delving into things we do not understand, it is probably better if we don't venture there, we can't know all of the consequences of our actions, it could end up being more harmful than helpful, etc.

Now, look at the scientology message about medications, and the Amish beliefs about technology in general... same=same with your fear of the unknown so don’t mess with it argument.

No, but it alters a potential person's future, much as this does.

No, it really doesn't.

An amoebic blob has no future, unless we make it so.

Thus - the 'appeal to potential' ONLY applies in the instance of a foetus that we have ALLOWED the dominion over the uterus.

By logical extension, the mother's right to determine things about said fetus ought to be treated equally as the mother's right to obliterate the fetus.

Of course. But the mother has no such right to determine things about her future child, which will be possessed of the full rights of personhood.

if the only thing that this hormone imbalance causes is gay children and doesn't physically affect the mom then why should the mother change it?

For the same reason that proper nutrition does not affect just one thing, proper hormonal balance will not impact just one thing.

And I'm an unapologetic atheist.

In reality - I have nothing against the pursuit of religion... and only raised the issue because someone else seems to think their 'religion' is a good reason to advocate the excision of a tendency towards a given gender-orientation.
Good for you, be proud and free. I hope your as anti- Church-State as me. Yet, I'll be praying for you. (Don't take it as an insult one iota.)

Even though the Bible tells me laying with another man is bad, and my body shudders at the thought, I still won't object to it on those grounds. Even if they inspire me to object.

I don't really want to get mired in the issue of homosexuality as good or bad, so I hope we'll head off that discussion till another time.

No - there has to be substantial effect. The fact that they might like, in the abstract, the thought of fewer gay babies has no non-negligible moral implications on the question.

For a comparable example, should I be able to decide who you do and do not have sex with?

To say a minority has lesser say, and should be given the right at the expense of the majority, or at least more say because it is small, is wrong. Thus, the only way to make sure it is equal is to leave both parties over the sea, in the hills, nd under a rock with this issue.

If you are able to decide by yourself, who I can and cannot lay with, then I am moving to another land mass and making a democracy government.

If you are saying 'you' as in a 60+ percent majority, then hell yes.


No more than we "oppress" the murderer, or the rapist, or other people who violate human rights.

Bringing us back to the point of how should we consider all of this. Since in essence the majority rules that raping and murder are bad. Why not let democracy extend to this field of genetics also?
[/QUOTE]

A child is never an extension of the parent.
Just she can kill it if she wants, accepts all and any responsibility (with her husband, but he has lesser involved, thus lesser responsibility) that child entails. She can only adjust his outlook on life, what she feeds them, how she treats him, but she cannot change a hormone imbalance?

Although some people did mention that in the thread, the OP and article did not, and neither did I. The article talked about treating an expecting mother’s hormonal condition, like taking pre-natal supplements now, and that this would somehow decrease the number of sheep that grow up to be homosexually inclined.

IF that treatment and medical understanding was transferred to humans and it had the same impact on us, that is, a hormonal treatment that reduced the number of homosexually inclined adults (speculatively) from before birth, that is what the topic is. Not genetics (DNA and family traits etc.), not hormonal impacts (environmental affect of the uterus condition on the development on the fetus).

Take a look at the thread title.

I really fail to see the difference.

And, there isn't much I appear to be able to do about that.

If I were religious, I'd say something about praying you see the light.

Please allow me to try one more time... and I;m going to get kind of Star Trek about it.

Example: We have a teleport homer. This is a device that enables us to beam a 'person' into a place. There is no person there yet, but the presence of the teleport homer means there probably will be.

At this point we are allowed two choices.

Will be leave the device there? Or will we remove it?

If we remove the teleport homer, no one is ever the wiser. No one is hurt... they just didn't 'get there'. If we choose to leave the teleport homer where it is, we accept some responsibility for the teleporting person... so we are not allowed to plant mines in the floor of the room, for example... or fill the air with chlorine gas.

Two choices - remove the potential, or accept the potential and accept the responsibility to safeguard the passenger.

Of course. But the mother has no such right to determine things about her future child, which will be possessed of the full rights of personhood.

I'm having a tough time drawing the moral line that's being drawn with this.

I mean, couldn't I offer a test that would tell an expectant mother if the child would be gay or straight, and based off of that, would it be wrong for her to decide to abort the child? All I see as the difference here is that instead of obliterating the fetus, we are allowing it to continue, just altered to make it acceptable to the woman carrying it.

You advocated a position that essentially says, we are delving into things we do not understand, it is probably better if we don't venture there, we can't know all of the consequences of our actions, it could end up being more harmful than helpful, etc.

Now, look at the scientology message about medications, and the Amish beliefs about technology in general... same=same with your fear of the unknown so don’t mess with it argument.

And?

When has 'look before you leap' been bad advice?

Not really a slippery slope, but I will admit to an appeal to ridicule. The 'logic' must be consistent. If we allow one form of 'harm' becasue it cannot be experienced, then we should allow others, right?

This obviously can't parallel abortion, because abortion never yields offspring at the end of it, to be affected by the choices we made.
The choice still effects though, just not the child. It is just a matter of were the effect falls, not if it falls.

Harm's defenition is made by the people, if the majority decides altering a baby to fit with its peers is harmful, then so be it, if they think it will live a better and fuller live. Hurrah!

And, there isn't much I appear to be able to do about that.

If I were religious, I'd say something about praying you see the light.

Please allow me to try one more time... and I;m going to get kind of Star Trek about it.

Example: We have a teleport homer. This is a device that enables us to beam a 'person' into a place. There is no person there yet, but the presence of the teleport homer means there probably will be.

At this point we are allowed two choices.

Will be leave the device there? Or will we remove it?

If we remove the teleport homer, no one is ever the wiser. No one is hurt... they just didn't 'get there'. If we choose to leave the teleport homer where it is, we accept some responsibility for the teleporting person... so we are not allowed to plant mines in the floor of the room, for example... or fill the air with chlorine gas.

Two choices - remove the potential, or accept the potential and accept the responsibility to safeguard the passenger.

Yet it still stands that if you consider a unborn child a contamination of your body, can't homosexuality be considered a contaminate of the unborn child?

The reason abortion is allowed is yes, because it is unwanted. So it is changed, if homosexuality is unwanted. Why can't that be changed?

And, there isn't much I appear to be able to do about that.

If I were religious, I'd say something about praying you see the light.

Please allow me to try one more time... and I;m going to get kind of Star Trek about it.

Example: We have a teleport homer. This is a device that enables us to beam a 'person' into a place. There is no person there yet, but the presence of the teleport homer means there probably will be.

At this point we are allowed two choices.

Will be leave the device there? Or will we remove it?

If we remove the teleport homer, no one is ever the wiser. No one is hurt... they just didn't 'get there'. If we choose to leave the teleport homer where it is, we accept some responsibility for the teleporting person... so we are not allowed to plant mines in the floor of the room, for example... or fill the air with chlorine gas.

Two choices - remove the potential, or accept the potential and accept the responsibility to safeguard the passenger.

Of course, I could also fill the room with chocolates and flowers, not knowing what the inbound traveler would be like or what they want.

This is what I'd associate this technology with.

Good for you, be proud and free. I hope your as anti- Church-State as me. Yet, I'll be praying for you. (Don't take it as an insult one iota.)


I don't tak it as an insult. I have a number of people that I know pray for me. I take no insult from it.

I am very much anti Church-state, because I believe it is a bad idea (in and of itself), but also because I believe it absolutely removes the 'right' to freedom to worship - or not worship, as the case may be.

Also - it leads to laws that affect people who do not even follow the same religious convictions... like me not being able to buy a bottle of wine on the 'sabbath'.


Even though the Bible tells me laying with another man is bad, and my body shudders at the thought, I still won't object to it on those grounds. Even if they inspire me to object.


Good. I'm of the opinion that religion is personal... and should not be used to legislate what other people can be allowed to do.


I don't really want to get mired in the issue of homosexuality as good or bad, so I hope we'll head off that discussion till another time.


Happily.

I'm having a tough time drawing the moral line that's being drawn with this.

I mean, couldn't I offer a test that would tell an expectant mother if the child would be gay or straight, and based off of that, would it be wrong for her to decide to abort the child? All I see as the difference here is that instead of obliterating the fetus, we are allowing it to continue, just altered to make it acceptable to the woman carrying it.

Beatiful point, I wish I thought of it.

*Applauds*

To say a minority has lesser say, and should be given the right at the expense of the majority, or at least more say because it is small, is wrong. Thus, the only way to make sure it is equal is to leave both parties over the sea, in the hills, nd under a rock with this issue.

No, it shouldn't be given more say because it is small. It can be small, medium, large, whatever. I don't care. It still has rights that cannot be taken away - not by the majority and not by the minority. Not by anyone.

If you are saying 'you' as in a 60+ percent majority, then hell yes.

Really? So if the majority voted to force you to have sex with a male, and an ugly male you hate at that, you would think that legitimate?

Bringing us back to the point of how should we consider all of this. Since in essence the majority rules that raping and murder are bad.

The majority does believe that, yes - but they are not bad BECAUSE the majority believes it. They are bad because they violate our moral obligations to treat people with respect.

Just she can kill it if she wants,

Only as long as it is a fetus.

accepts all and any responsibility (with her husband, but he has lesser involved, thus lesser responsibility) that child entails.

She shouldn't have exclusive responsibility for the child; just the responsibility assumed as part of being a guardian.

She can only adjust his outlook on life, what she feeds them, how she treats him,

Of course she will influence the child. But she should not brainwash him, for the same reason she should not "cure" his or her homosexuality.

I don't tak it as an insult. I have a number of people that I know pray for me. I take no insult from it.

I am very much anti Church-state, because I believe it is a bad idea (in and of itself), but also because I believe it absolutely removes the 'right' to freedom to worship - or not worship, as the case may be.

Also - it leads to laws that affect people who do not even follow the same religious convictions... like me not being able to buy a bottle of wine on the 'sabbath'.



Good. I'm of the opinion that religion is personal... and should not be used to legislate what other people can be allowed to do.



Happily.

*Slaps Grave on the back*

Good man, even if we are slightly at odds on this point, it looks like you are overwhelmingly correct, for lack of a better word, in countless other views.

The choice still effects though, just not the child. It is just a matter of were the effect falls, not if it falls.

Harm's defenition is made by the people, if the majority decides altering a baby to fit with its peers is harmful, then so be it, if they think it will live a better and fuller live. Hurrah!


The choice of abortion doesn't affect the child though - because there will never BE a child.

Yes - you could argue that the 'effect' falls on the woman, and on her uterus - but that is okay, because she consented to that 'effect'.

On the otehr hand - if we engineer babies, we ARE expecting them to be born - we have have to accept the ramifications of our actions (and admit that, hey, we don't really know shit about this particular playground, yet).


Yet it still stands that if you consider a unborn child a contamination of your body, can't homosexuality be considered a contaminate of the unborn child?

The reason abortion is allowed is yes, because it is unwanted. So it is changed, if homosexuality is unwanted. Why can't that be changed?

Abortion is allowed because the foetus is unwanted by the person in which it is residing.

We do not know if the foetus wants to be 'gay' or not.

Once that foetus has become a person, and become a legal adult (if all that comes to pass), then that person can decide what to do about their gender.

I mean, I know the ethical issues, espescially those involving things like eugenics, are very, very nasty on this matter, but I'd rather not give the religious right ammunition, even if they would be loading it into the wrong gun.

Of course, I could also fill the room with chocolates and flowers, not knowing what the inbound traveler would be like or what they want.

This is what I'd associate this technology with.

Perhaps... but, even in your example, the Orchid-sensitivity of our teleporting traveller eventually leaves him dead in your room... and it is your fault, because you didn't know what the ramifications were of what you were messing with...?

Add to which - what looks like chocolates and flowers to you, might look like poison-oak and cyanide to our traveller... who judges what is 'good' for the traveller?

I mean, couldn't I offer a test that would tell an expectant mother if the child would be gay or straight, and based off of that, would it be wrong for her to decide to abort the child?

Yes, but it should not be illegal.

The difference is between actively changing something that will become a being with the rights of personhood, and just waiting for a child that will naturally be straight - without having her sexual orientation forced upon her by her parents.

Consider something else in the "immoral but not illegal" category - choosing friends based on sexual orientation. It would be wrong to violate a person's right to free association by making him be friends with gays, but we certainly would object if he instead just injected his gay friends with this "cure." Sure, the result is the same - he gets straight friends, just as the parent ultimately gets straight children - but there is a violation of people's rights contained within one method, and not within the other.

*Slaps Grave on the back*

Good man, even if we are slightly at odds on this point, it looks like you are overwhelmingly correct, for lack of a better word, in countless other views.

Thanks. It's appreciated. I like to find common ground, even if I disagree on a given issue. :)

yes

"Homosexuality, is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." -Plato.

There you go. :)

No, it shouldn't be given more say because it is small. It can be small, medium, large, whatever. I don't care. It still has rights that cannot be taken away - not by the majority and not by the minority. Not by anyone.

I don't care what the minority does (I feel handicaped when I have to say minority over and over so I'll switch it in with homosexuals). It is just that it is obvious to tell that it is the majority, breeding majority, that has all the cards here. Unless homosexuals want to start breeding (how they will go about that is beyond me) they are going to have to dictate to the majority.


Really? So if the majority voted to force you to have sex with a male, and an ugly male you hate at that, you would think that legitimate?

I would hardly think any majority would force someone to have sex with another, that he obviously disagrees with, and if for whatever forsaken reason that did happen. I would go and establish another government outside of my previous home, and make it 'straight'.


The majority does believe that, yes - but they are not bad BECAUSE the majority believes it. They are bad because they violate our moral obligations to treat people with respect.
Yes they are bad because the majority feels that way. Raping was considered depressing, but hardly on the scale it is now compared to th 1400s. Same goes with being homosexual copared to the 60s. When the majority changes its opinion to make something bad, it becomes bad.

Maybe not for murder, or maybe not even for rape, but essentially everything else except a couple other such extremes.


Only as long as it is a fetus.

So why can't she change the hormones? A difference of a few weeks?


She shouldn't have exclusive responsibility for the child; just the responsibility assumed as part of being a guardian.

If anthing, the father would be pulling for a straight kid, so it hardly matters anyhow.


Of course she will influence the child. But she should not brainwash him, for the same reason she should not "cure" his or her homosexuality.
She shouldn't brainwash him as in the sense she shouldn't brainwash him to go to the restroom when it is required, that you shouldn't go around buck-naked and that you should respect ladies? Once again it comes down to opinion, which is mainly made into law by those who have the most say. Which is of course, in a democracy system, the majority.

Even though this all sounds like Tryanny by Majority, it really isn't. I am just saying things that are bad are usually bad because of moral reasons influenced by the larger mass. We shouldn't subjugate our morals onto minorities, but vice versa also.



The choice of abortion doesn't affect the child though - because there will never BE a child.

Yes - you could argue that the 'effect' falls on the woman, and on her uterus - but that is okay, because she consented to that 'effect'.

On the otehr hand - if we engineer babies, we ARE expecting them to be born - we have have to accept the ramifications of our actions (and admit that, hey, we don't really know shit about this particular playground, yet).

Yes, we are expecting them to be born and straight. I am happy to have my son hate me, as long as he enjoys a good wife.


Abortion is allowed because the foetus is unwanted by the person in which it is residing.

We do not know if the foetus wants to be 'gay' or not.

Once that foetus has become a person, and become a legal adult (if all that comes to pass), then that person can decide what to do about their gender.
I thought this treatment was only an option when it is inside the womb. Even if it can work no matter the age, would ther person honestly continue to be a minority, homosexual, without any pressure at all from any groups. Just facts from lets say, a computer?

Yes, but it should not be illegal.

The difference is between actively changing something that will become a being with the rights of personhood, and just waiting for a child that will naturally be straight - without having her sexual orientation forced upon her by her parents.

Consider something else in the "immoral but not illegal" category - choosing friends based on sexual orientation. It would be wrong to violate a person's right to free association by making him be friends with gays, but we certainly would object if he instead just injected his gay friends with this "cure." Sure, the result is the same - he gets straight friends, just as the parent ultimately gets straight children - but there is a violation of people's rights contained within one method, and not within the other.
Even though it is a stretch to get from deciding if a unborn child is a extension of her mother to injecting gay friends with this hormone treatment; if "immoral but not illegal" exists, this would be to you the living breathing personification. Would it not?
yes

Now don't elaborate to much!

"Homosexuality, is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." -Plato.

There you go. :)

Of course being of bisexual tendencies, I am no Greek history guy, so I could be wrong, he can hardly be considered un-biased.

If he wasn't, is not heterosexuality the exact same thing, things of powerful friendships and both passionate lovers, yet greatly more encouraged?

Of course being of bisexual tendencies, I am no Greek history guy, so I could be wrong, he can hardly be considered un-biased.

If he wasn't, is not heterosexuality the exact same thing, things of powerful friendships and both passionate lovers, yet greatly more encouraged?

Anybody who thinks heterosexual love breeds strong friendships has never broken up with a girlfriend or been through a divorce. :p

"Homosexuality, is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." -Plato.

There you go. :)

Interesting that you misquoted pederasty or paederasty for homosexuality. I thought the modern homosexuality movement claimed to have no connection to pedophilia. What Plato was talking about was pederasty, which embraces a wide range of erotic practices between adult males and adolescent boys. Are you saying this is the same thing as homosexuality? If not then your quote is wrong.

"Homosexuality, is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." -Plato.

There you go. :)

You see, LG is super dangerous. Not only is he a clown with indestructable cojones, but he can bust out Plato.

By the by, there's a saying which I think sums this up perfectly. "They're Greeks. Wacky fun."

Anybody who thinks heterosexual love breeds strong friendships has never broken up with a girlfriend or been through a divorce. :p

So just because your homosexual you never have a lasting or meanigful relationship?

Not that I believe your gay, just dialouge in the form of us being the literal sides which we are promoting.

It hurts because it was so good.

I don't care what the minority does (I feel handicaped when I have to say minority over and over so I'll switch it in with homosexuals). It is just that it is obvious to tell that it is the majority, breeding majority, that has all the cards here.

Who holds the cards is irrelevant.

The only question is: does the majority have a moral right to restrict the rights of the minority? The answer is no, at least not without a compelling reason - of which arbitrary prejudice is not one.

I would hardly think any majority would force someone to have sex with another, that he obviously disagrees with, and if for whatever forsaken reason that did happen. I would go and establish another government outside of my previous home, and make it 'straight'.

Ah, so there are limitations to your tolerance of majority rule. Thought so.

Yes they are bad because the majority feels that way. Raping was considered depressing, but hardly on the scale it is now compared to th 1400s. Same goes with being homosexual copared to the 60s. When the majority changes its opinion to make something bad, it becomes bad.

No, rape was always bad, and homosexuality was never bad.

The fact that some people didn't think so is irrelevant.

Maybe not for murder, or maybe not even for rape, but essentially everything else except a couple other such extremes.

Why?

So why can't she change the hormones? A difference of a few weeks?

Because a child, not a fetus, is affected.

She shouldn't brainwash him as in the sense she shouldn't brainwash him to go to the restroom when it is required,

Not doing so is harmful to others. Homosexuality is not.

that you shouldn't go around buck-naked

Actually, yes, I think it's wrong for society to indoctrinate people into accepting this taboo.

and that you should respect ladies?

That you should respect people in general, yes - this, again, comes in under preventing harm to others (and also does not really need to be indoctrinated). Repressing homosexuality does not.

Once again it comes down to opinion, which is mainly made into law by those who have the most say. Which is of course, in a democracy system, the majority.

So?

Even though this all sounds like Tryanny by Majority, it really isn't. I am just saying things that are bad are usually bad because of moral reasons influenced by the larger mass. We shouldn't subjugate our morals onto minorities, but vice versa also.

We should "subjugate" our morals to nothing. We should pursue moral propositions without concern for whether or not the majority agrees with us.

I thought this treatment was only an option when it is inside the womb. Even if it can work no matter the age, would ther person honestly continue to be a minority, homosexual, without any pressure at all from any groups. Just facts from lets say, a computer?

I'm not gay, I'm bisexual, but I would. And I know a lot of gay people who would say the same.

Even though it is a stretch to get from deciding if a unborn child is a extension of her mother to injecting gay friends with this hormone treatment; if "immoral but not illegal" exists, this would be to you the living breathing personification. Would it not?

I don't follow. What are you saying?

You see, LG is super dangerous. Not only is he a clown with indestructable cojones, but he can bust out Plato.

By the by, there's a saying which I think sums this up perfectly. "They're Greeks. Wacky fun."

Wacky...

Great use of imagery...

Must destroy the pictures!
:headbang:

Interesting that you misquoted pederasty or paederasty for homosexuality. I thought the modern homosexuality movement claimed to have no connection to pedophilia. What Plato was talking about was pederasty, which embraces a wide range of erotic practices between adult males and adolescent boys. Are you saying this is the same thing as homosexuality? If not then your quote is wrong.

According to what source? I've seen this quote, as typed, in several places.

According to what source? I've seen this quote, as typed, in several places.

Do you know where it's from?

I've not read thru all 17 pages of replies, so apologies if it's been stated already:

Isn't ironic that the trolly fundies on this forum who support the idea of developing the technique talked about in the OP article for 'curing' gays are implicitly agreeing with the long-accepted (at least by everyone but themselves) premise that 'gayness' isn't a choice but an actual inherrent biological condition (for want of a better word)?


Funny how ppl will support anything that they think they can use against their pet peeves, even when it in fact contradicts their previous stated position. mmmm...can almost smell the cognitive disonance.