NationStates Jolt Archive

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."

YAY! :D

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.

:confused:

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!

Seconded.

Do you know where it's from?

I'm researching it further. It appears to be from a work called 'Phaedrus'.

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 don't care what the minority does, it can sit and twiddle, with or without its thumbs. The thing is the only rights which are in contention is the rights of the mothers, who are straight.


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

Of course, there is law, and then there is insanity. You are proposing something of extreme that you only see in religious far-far-right states. Ironic, no?


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

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

Meaningless opinion chest pounding, I'll stick to those facts and your's, yours.


Why?

Some things were just instantly, are close to it, ruled improper by everyone. So it become law.


Because a child, not a fetus, is affected.

A child which will be aborted by her mother, or at least could be, if the child isn't straight. Lets keep life, even if it 'just' gets a life of peer approval and congeniality.


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

Is respecting ladies harmful? If it isn't, then some forms of brainwashing are acceptable. Because, like I said, most things are dictated by whoever has the most say.


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

Something that fundamental will not be changed by facts, opinions, or anything in between. I would give the answer that going around naked would cause some harm, even minimal, but still harm.


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.

We are not talking about harming a baby, we are talking about a completely neutral change. Something like respecting and not respecting are widely held as negative, and positive.


So?

Thus, the people can have their babies straight. Without anyone butting in.


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

The baby isn't part of the minority yet, it is part of the mother. It is the mother's, or at least it is more associated with its mother than homosexual's.

I take that for fact, and thus, the majority and minority can live along side each other, not caring what a mother changes in her child.


I'm not gay, I'm bisexual, but I would. And I know a lot of gay people who would say the same.

Not all, and if there was a honest, avaliable option, over the counter stuff, how many would switch that they swear they wouldn't?


I don't follow. What are you saying?
If immoral but illegal can exist for you, why can't this? It'll be just another immoral thing. (Moral to the majority, and thus legal.)

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.
Trolly fundies, I wish I knew if you were agreeing with me or not...
Regardess, debate away!

:confused:
I reread my post and thought the same thing.

:)

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...?

No.

I'd make my kid gay *shrug*

No.
Don't elaborate too much!

I'd make my kid gay *shrug*
Interesting, care to explain a little?

:rolleyes:

They just don't want to give up, do they? Where Hitler and the Vatican failed, they want to succeed.

Cunts.

[QUOTE=Moorington;12157396]Don't elaborate too much!/QUOTE]

I feel no more explanation necessary to those with any kind of rational thought-process. NO. Would you say eugenics were ethical? It's the same deal.

:rolleyes:

They just don't want to give up, do they? Where Hitler and the Vatican failed, they want to succeed.

Cunts.

First off, we aren't killing millions, were changing hormones.

Secondly, it isn't so much if homosexuality is bad or not, as much as it is the mother's right to do whatever she wants with the child.

First off, we aren't killing millions, were changing hormones.

No, you're eradicating 5-10% of humanity because you don't like it.

Secondly, it isn't so much if homosexuality is bad or not, as much as it is the mother's right to do whatever she wants with the child.

Bullshit, and you know it.

First off, we aren't killing millions, were changing hormones.
Same goal, different means.

Secondly, it isn't so much if homosexuality is bad or not, as much as it is the mother's right to do whatever she wants with the child.

Mothers don't have that right.

I don't care what the minority does, it can sit and twiddle, with or without its thumbs. The thing is the only rights which are in contention is the rights of the mothers, who are straight.

No... the rights of the child are also in contention.

Of course, there is law, and then there is insanity. You are proposing something of extreme that you only see in religious far-far-right states. Ironic, no?

Um, I wasn't actually proposing forcing you to have sex with anyone. It was merely an illustrative example.

Meaningless opinion chest pounding, I'll stick to those facts and your's, yours.

You can go in two directions with this.

Either you can say that morality is not the stuff of fact, in which case this entire discussion is pointless if you wish to "stick to facts," or that morality is the stuff of fact, and is determined by the majority - which sounds like nonsense to me.

Which is your view?

Some things were just instantly, are close to it, ruled improper by everyone. So it become law.

You didn't answer the question.

Why are some things wrong without regard to what the majority thinks, and other things not? Why is the morality of anything at all dependent on the view of the majority?

A child which will be aborted by her mother, or at least could be, if the child isn't straight.

Then it won't ever exist, and as such, is not affected.

Something that fundamental will not be changed by facts, opinions, or anything in between.

Then it probably doesn't require brainwashing.

We are not talking about harming a baby, we are talking about a completely neutral change. Something like respecting and not respecting are widely held as negative, and positive.

No, you're missing the point.

One kind of indoctrination (teaching respect) involves preventing harm to others. The other kind (repressing homosexuality) does not. Thus, because indoctrination in and of itself is wrong, only the first is justifiable.

Thus, the people can have their babies straight. Without anyone butting in.

LEGALLY, perhaps.

The question asked by the OP was: is it ETHICAL? The two words mean different things.

I take that for fact, and thus, the majority and minority can live along side each other, not caring what a mother changes in her child.

You misunderstand. The act does not violate the rights of the gay minority as a whole, just of the child in particular.

Not all, and if there was a honest, avaliable option, over the counter stuff, how many would switch that they swear they wouldn't?

Probably very few. Most of us don't want to change.

If immoral but illegal can exist for you, why can't this? It'll be just another immoral thing. (Moral to the majority, and thus legal.)

The difference is that my "immoral but not illegal" category does not depend on the arbitrary whim of the majority, but rather applies to spheres where the infringement upon freedom necessitated by the coercion implicit in the law exceeds the gain derived from it. It's another moral judgment.

When I said "immoral but not illegal" what I meant was not "immoral but (factually) not illegal," but rather "immoral but SHOULD NOT be illegal," regardless of whether or not it is actually illegal.

No, you're eradicating 5-10% of humanity because you don't like it.

More like altering a charasteristic of 5-10% at the most.


Bullshit, and you know it.
Suprisingly enough (don't gasp) I feel that you have some un-alienable rights that can't be comprimised no matter how nutty the left gets. Just cause the Bible inspires people to disagree with you doesn't mean you can disregard it as bullshit.

Not only does that show the same outlook as far rightists (if it doesn't belive in the Bible its wrong) because for you anything that does is wrong. In addition, using phrases is like admitting your wrong, but to uneducated to admit anything of the sort.

Mothers don't have that right.

Ah damn, me and Soh have ben debating that forever it seems. I'll try to get you up to speed.

I think children are extensions of their mothers. For example, if a 5 year old is convicted of doing a crime, it mother pays the time. Another: if abortion is acceptable because there is a 'contamination' of the womb, thus a abortion. Why can the mother not consider homosexuality a 'contamination'? Thus remove it also.

Of course I am not debating if homosexuality is bad or not, that's for later.

More like altering a charasteristic of 5-10% at the most.

Yeah, and the Nazis were just "cleansing" humanity from "characteristics." My, my, how words can be used to attempt to fool the torpid into not seeing things for what they are. I don't know about you, but I am not an idiot and I do not buy your BS for a second.

Suprisingly enough (don't gasp) I feel that you have some un-alienable rights that can't be comprimised no matter how nutty the left gets. Just cause the Bible inspires people to disagree with you doesn't mean you can disregard it as bullshit.

Not only does that show the same outlook as far rightists, as in the sense if it doesn't belive in the Bible its wrong, just with a does for you, but using language makes you look lik you know your wrong. Thus, resorts to little phrases.

Could you repeat that again, but in English this time? Because it's incoherent and undecipherable, seemingly religious gobbledegook as it is now.

No, wait. Don't. I'm better off not understanding your babbling, and you're better off not having it understood by me. I am still residually drunk from new years eve partying and I feel like my inhibitions towards flaming your ass to pieces are considerably less strong than they would normally be.

I end my participation here now for that reason.

I think children are extensions of their mothers.
Would you surrender your free will to your mother?

It's about the rights of the individual.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the idea of breeding out homosexuality? Last time I checked two guys can't have any kids of their own. Neither can two women. So homosexuality really shouldn't be passable at all. I mean unless we're talking some kind of worm or microbe it takes two to make anything right?

No... the rights of the child are also in contention.

Which is merely a extension of the mother, thus her being the more intelligent (for lack of a better word) should make the decision.


Um, I wasn't actually proposing forcing you to have sex with anyone. It was merely an illustrative example.

Interesting example.


You can go in two directions with this.

Either you can say that morality is not the stuff of fact, in which case this entire discussion is pointless if you wish to "stick to facts," or that morality is the stuff of fact, and is determined by the majority - which sounds like nonsense to me.

Which is your view?

If you need to guess, I am deeply disappointed. People make law, and law is based off of morality. You cannot have a moral, lawless society, nor can you have a lawful, moraless society.


You didn't answer the question.

Why are some things wrong without regard to what the majority thinks, and other things not? Why is the morality of anything at all dependent on the view of the majority?

Any law, at least in a democratic system, is just merely a extention of the majority. Except taxes, which are used to help with enuring other laws like social security are carried out, all laws are just expressions of the majority.


Then it won't ever exist, and as such, is not affected.

Then the minority has its concerns of its larger well being, why the majority would let the mother do whatever. So who has the upperhand morally?

The minority would let the child die, the majority would also, but at the mother's discretion.


Then it probably doesn't require brainwashing.

Going around naked requires a hint of brainwashing. First thing Adam and Eve did (or the Neandethals if you prefer) did was cloth themselves. I hardly belive they had any issues on clothing, it came naturally to them.


No, you're missing the point.

One kind of indoctrination (teaching respect) involves preventing harm to others. The other kind (repressing homosexuality) does not. Thus, because indoctrination in and of itself is wrong, only the first is justifiable.

What it comes down to is if changing the sexual orientation is right or wrong. Since the child cannot be decided by mother, then it must be decided by everyone who could be effected by this. Meaning literally everyone.


LEGALLY, perhaps.

The question asked by the OP was: is it ETHICAL? The two words mean different things.

Breaking the law because it doesn't seem ethical to you is hardly a excuse.

Even if I was wrong in that point, what is moral is what laws are based off of. So whatever law is passed, which ever way, makes it thus fundamentally moral or umoral.


You misunderstand. The act does not violate the rights of the gay minority as a whole, just of the child in particular.

The only reason, I thought, we were discussing the child was because it violates rights of the minority. Besides, if abortion doesn't violate the child's rights, then why should this?


Probably very few. Most of us don't want to change.

I have nothing else to go on, I have hardly conducted a poll myself, so sure.


The difference is that my "immoral but not illegal" category does not depend on the arbitrary whim of the majority, but rather applies to spheres where the infringement upon freedom necessitated by the coercion implicit in the law exceeds the gain derived from it. It's another moral judgment.

When I said "immoral but not illegal" what I meant was not "immoral but (factually) not illegal," but rather "immoral but SHOULD NOT be illegal," regardless of whether or not it is actually illegal.
In the first part you lost me, but the general whiff seemed to me that laws should not be judged off of the majority, but by other means, other guidlines.

Which are dictated by whom again. Who says when the minority has to much or to little? When does the majority become oppressed by the wants of a smaller percent?

Would you surrender your free will to your mother?

It's about the rights of the individual.
It matters what is an individual, if somone under 5 cannot be counted as one at all. Cannot be held accountable for their own actions, I hardly see why they can be given precedence over the mother's right when they are even younger.

No, I am over the age of 5, thus I feel I have the individuality that negates any reason to force upoun me anything.

Yeah, and the Nazis were just "cleansing" humanity from "characteristics." My, my, how words can be used to attempt to fool the torpid into not seeing things for what they are. I don't know about you, but I am not an idiot and I do not buy your BS for a second.



Could you repeat that again, but in English this time? Because it's incoherent and undecipherable, seemingly religious gobbledegook as it is now.

No, wait. Don't. I'm better off not understanding your babbling, and you're better off not having it understood by me. I am still residually drunk from new years eve partying and I feel like my inhibitions towards flaming your ass to pieces are considerably less strong than they would normally be.

I end my participation here now for that reason.
Well peace, happy new year and whatnot.

Thanks for keeping your flame under control.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the idea of breeding out homosexuality? Last time I checked two guys can't have any kids of their own. Neither can two women. So homosexuality really shouldn't be passable at all. I mean unless we're talking some kind of worm or microbe it takes two to make anything right?
One of the reasons why being borned homosexual classifies as an imbalance. Only way it can work if your born by two heterosexuals, thus being different, it can classify as imbalanced and out of alignment.

Good point.

Ah damn, me and Soh have ben debating that forever it seems. I'll try to get you up to speed.

I think children are extensions of their mothers. For example, if a 5 year old is convicted of doing a crime, it mother pays the time. Another: if abortion is acceptable because there is a 'contamination' of the womb, thus a abortion. Why can the mother not consider homosexuality a 'contamination'? Thus remove it also.

Of course I am not debating if homosexuality is bad or not, that's for later.
Hm. Hazards of a topic over 18 pages like this, a lot of us just skip to the end. Definitely the first time I've heard that particular view about mother's responsibility, though. What about the father?

And, as to the whole contamination thing, I wouldn't accept that as a reason for abortion, simply because the meaning of "contamination" is very arbitrary and subjective. For the same reason, I wouldn't allow genetic alteration because a mother felt "contaminated", it's just too arbitrary to be useful, especially if homosexuality is considered an example of a "contamination".

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the idea of breeding out homosexuality? Last time I checked two guys can't have any kids of their own. Neither can two women. So homosexuality really shouldn't be passable at all. I mean unless we're talking some kind of worm or microbe it takes two to make anything right?

While the physical causes (if they are predominantly physical) of homosexuality are only vaguely understood, it looks like a fairly complex combination of brain structure and hormonal activity. In other words, if homosexuality is a physical trait, it isn't a single trait that has to be passed on by two homosexual parents. More likely, it is the result of several different traits that can be possessed by heterosexual parents in part and passed on to a child that becomes homosexual as a result of a combination of all of those traits together.

Hm. Hazards of a topic over 18 pages like this, a lot of us just skip to the end. Definitely the first time I've heard that particular view about mother's responsibility, though. What about the father?

And, as to the whole contamination thing, I wouldn't accept that as a reason for abortion, simply because the meaning of "contamination" is very arbitrary and subjective. For the same reason, I wouldn't allow genetic alteration because a mother felt "contaminated", it's just too arbitrary to be useful, especially if homosexuality is considered an example of a "contamination".

The father would most likely given the same rights in correspondance to the other limits he gets. I don't know all the intricate regulations of how much the dad can interfer, but it'll be lesser or greater depending on state laws.

I agree, the word contamination is to, harsh sounding. Just what Grave, someone who thought this was un-ethical, described in one way or another the difference between abortion and homosexuality.

I then said there was something wrong with labeling a life a "contamination" and not a characteristic. Mainly it gets down too how everyone feels about homosexuality in the first place. If I had to bet the farm, I would bet for human instinct, example: your Mark Twain quote. To make everyone closer copies of themselves, if not exactly alike. So, if any law was passed, it would consider this, if not positive, then just neutral. Making it allowable, at the mother's (or government panel's) discression.

Well goodnight! Hope I changed some opinions, or something along those lines.

If not, have a Happy New Year!

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'. What if the majority doesn't allow you to form your own government?

I think children are extensions of their mothers. Really? So mothers should be able to molest their children?

People make law, and law is based off of morality. You cannot have a moral, lawless society, nor can you have a lawful, moraless society.Completely false. Laws and morality need have nothing in common. Murder can be illegal whether or not people think it's morally acceptable to murder, for pragmatic reasons.

The only reason, I thought, we were discussing the child was because it violates rights of the minority. Besides, if abortion doesn't violate the child's rights, then why should this?<sigh>...
If the fetus is aborted, there is no child to have its rights violated.
If the fetus is not aborted, and just altered, once the woman gives birth, there is a child that has its rights violated.

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.


But, why should a son have a wife just because you are hung up on it?

You said you were a Christian, didn't you? What happened to the idea that God is responsible for creation. If he knows your child in the womb, what right would you have to interfere with His plan?

I have two kids, and a third dropping any day... and I would rather my kids married (or didn't marry) whoever floats their respective boats, then try to conform to my ideals and prejudices.


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?


As far as I know, we are talking about an option that is only relevent to the foetus... but that is the bone of contention... a foetus has no legal rights... cannot consent, certainly cannot make an informed decision. What makes it okay for us to make decisions regarding their sexuality that may come back to haunt them in later life?

As to whether people would choose to be in a minority... many people do... the goths, the punks, the technofreaks... choose to set themselves aside from the majority... there is even a degree of pride to be taken from being in the persecuted minority.

One of the reasons why being borned homosexual classifies as an imbalance. Only way it can work if your born by two heterosexuals, thus being different, it can classify as imbalanced and out of alignment.

Good point.

I'm confused... there is no reason that children can only be born to 'straight' parents. Not even allowing for bisexuality (which, in my experience, seems to be an occassional characteristic of far greater than the oft touted 10% figure), there is nothing to stop gay people having children. They just might not have those children by the people that they would normally choose.

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?

no. that's twisted and creepy.

if homosexuality is wrong: then it is something that you become stronger and a better person by dealing with and overcoming.

if homosexuality is morally neutral: then it is something that you become stronger and a better person by dealing with and integrating successfully into your life.

the whole idea of "fixing" people without asking their consent is revolting. how many of you want to be everything your mother wants you to be? seriously, think about it...

Hm. Hazards of a topic over 18 pages like this, a lot of us just skip to the end. Definitely the first time I've heard that particular view about mother's responsibility, though. What about the father?

And, as to the whole contamination thing, I wouldn't accept that as a reason for abortion, simply because the meaning of "contamination" is very arbitrary and subjective. For the same reason, I wouldn't allow genetic alteration because a mother felt "contaminated", it's just too arbitrary to be useful, especially if homosexuality is considered an example of a "contamination".

I introduced the concept of 'contamination'.

The reason being, abortion is not performed because people hate foetuses. It is performed because a woman enters the surgery with something in her uterus that she doesn't want there.

Thus, the thing that separates abortion from this debate, is the focus. In the instance of editing babies, we are redesigning the offspring we expect to bear. In the instance of abortion, we are purging the uterus of unwanted material... a 'contamination'.

Whether or not the phrasing is clumsy or harsh, it is an attempt to explain the difference between the two arenas, that some people insist are facets of the same thing.

If the fetus is aborted, there is no child to have its rights violated.
If the fetus is not aborted, and just altered, once the woman gives birth, there is a child that has its rights violated.

Exactly - once again, the things I have been trying to say, are explained far more concisely by another. :)

The father would most likely given the same rights in correspondance to the other limits he gets. I don't know all the intricate regulations of how much the dad can interfer, but it'll be lesser or greater depending on state laws.

A balanced responsibility for the actions of a child in proportion to the power a parent has over the child? Interesting idea.

I agree, the word contamination is to, harsh sounding. Just what Grave, someone who thought this was un-ethical, described in one way or another the difference between abortion and homosexuality.

I then said there was something wrong with labeling a life a "contamination" and not a characteristic. Mainly it gets down too how everyone feels about homosexuality in the first place. If I had to bet the farm, I would bet for human instinct, example: your Mark Twain quote. To make everyone closer copies of themselves, if not exactly alike. So, if any law was passed, it would consider this, if not positive, then just neutral. Making it allowable, at the mother's (or government panel's) discression.

I'm not too clear on what you meant with this last part, although you seem to be in favor of leaving the issue up to personal preference. When I earlier said that "contamination" was too arbitrary, I meant that leaving genetic alterations or abortions up to pure personal preference is a bad idea, especially if personal preference favors unnecessary medical operation in another individual to change their behavior. Any kind of behavior alteration should undergo heavy scrutiny and be performed only under dire necessity, in my opinion, not because of a parent's preference.

"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.

Yeah, and then the Romans kicked their ass.

I introduced the concept of 'contamination'.

The reason being, abortion is not performed because people hate foetuses. It is performed because a woman enters the surgery with something in her uterus that she doesn't want there.

Thus, the thing that separates abortion from this debate, is the focus. In the instance of editing babies, we are redesigning the offspring we expect to bear. In the instance of abortion, we are purging the uterus of unwanted material... a 'contamination'.

Whether or not the phrasing is clumsy or harsh, it is an attempt to explain the difference between the two arenas, that some people insist are facets of the same thing.

I have seen that confusion between abortion and genetic alteration, but my post on the subject was eaten by Jolt in a database error. Another hazard of the forum, I guess. Anyway, I see the difference, I just didn't see you use contamination in explaining it. Thanks for the clarification.

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?

No, the loss of the function of the limbs causes suffering. There is no suffering in being of one sexuality or another.

I have seen that confusion between abortion and genetic alteration, but my post on the subject was eaten by Jolt in a database error. Another hazard of the forum, I guess. Anyway, I see the difference, I just didn't see you use contamination in explaining it. Thanks for the clarification.

I keep having to pop back out to defend or explain my statements about every three pages, anyway. :) It seemed like the right time.

No, the loss of the function of the limbs causes suffering. There is no suffering in being of one sexuality or another.

How does loss of functions of limbs - before birth - cause suffering? The baby would be born never having known any different...

How does loss of functions of limbs - before birth - cause suffering? The baby would be born never having known any different...

Because they would be unable to take part in many activities that they would otherwise be able to take part in.

Because they would be unable to take part in many activities that they would otherwise be able to take part in.Yes, exactly.

Yes, exactly.

And? The difference is that those who change gender preferences will still be able to have sex and enjoy it, they will just have it with different people. It is not a case of harming them by diminishing their function.

How does loss of functions of limbs - before birth - cause suffering? The baby would be born never having known any different...

Oh my goodness.... The child born with no arms and raised to kindergarten most certainly does wish that they were born with two normal working arms... You could at least TRY to make rational and reality based arguments couldn't you?

This society and this world is not mature enough to responsibly apply eugenics. Frankly, I think it is playing God...and while I am liberal, the whole concept of an immature society playing God makes me more than just a wee bit squeamish.

I am also of the opinion that the actual application of eugenics would certainly breed conditions for another world war. The negatives far outweigh the positives.

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?

homosexuality is not a harmful trait
like childhood leukemia is, for example

no-one ever has the right to pre-determine another's fate, and because the decision for or against a 'homosexuality gene' is a moral not an obligational (life-saving) decision, we do not have the right to make it for another person

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?

the same question applies to breeding out unfavorable genetic features or conditions... or breeding in favorable genetic features or conditions.

the same question applies to "Breeding IN" Homosexuality tendicies (if such a thing is possible on either side.)

My stance is that let nature run it's course with as little human intervention as possible.

Wow...I just read through all that.

Let me just say that I, personally, find it rather sick that a pregnant woman would even be worried about her child-to-be's sexual orientation at that stage. I've never once encountered a single pregnant woman who was concerned about such a superficial thing. They always only hope for healthy children. So, since homosexuality is not a deformity, nor a disease, nor an illness of any kind, I don't see why anyone would take such extreme measures to prevent or change, as I assume the case would be, that.

As for abortion vs. genetic engineering, I am of neutral mindset on the subject of abortion. It all depends on the situation. However, genetic engineering is WRONG, in my opinion. It goes against all the morals I've been taught and I find it almost laughable that people would consider it as an alternative to giving birth to a gay baby. Aren't parents meant to love their children unconditionally? And if it's such a big deal, put the baby up for adoption. Just let it remain the way it was "coded" (for lack of a better term) to be, or, if you're religious, the way God meant them to be.

Which is merely a extension of the mother,

No, it isn't. The whole idea just makes no sense. The child is a person.

thus her being the more intelligent (for lack of a better word)

She won't be forever. She cannot usurp control of something this long-lasting from her child.

Interesting example.

I quite deliberately came up with something I was sure you would find repulsive. That was the point.

If you need to guess, I am deeply disappointed. People make law, and law is based off of morality. You cannot have a moral, lawless society, nor can you have a lawful, moraless society.

Um, yes, you can. You can have both.

Nazi Germany was a lawful, moraless society. A society without coercive enforcement could be populated by moral people.

Any law, at least in a democratic system, is just merely a extention of the majority. Except taxes, which are used to help with enuring other laws like social security are carried out, all laws are just expressions of the majority.

Taxes are extensions of the majority too - they are made by the democratically-elected legislature, right?

Of course, most democratic countries also have a Constitution, written or unwritten, which sets limits on what the government can or cannot do.

And if laws are just the extension of the majority, they cannot also be extensions of morality - or, at least, while one particular set of laws may meet that criterion, they need not necessarily do so. This is because the majority does not determine what is and is not true; the vote of the majority, for instance, certainly cannot decide that the sky is yellow instead of blue. It will stubbornly remain its prior color. And even if you deny that morality deals with moral facts, your case is not helped - for if morality is merely the stuff of subjective sentiment, then the fact that the majority feels that my sentiment is wrong need not be my concern at all. My sentiment is my sentiment, even if I am the odd one out.

Then the minority has its concerns of its larger well being, why the majority would let the mother do whatever. So who has the upperhand morally?

The minority would let the child die, the majority would also, but at the mother's discretion.

I see what you're saying now. No, the gay minority would have no more right to decide for the child, or permit anyone else to decide for the child, than the straight majority would.

Going around naked requires a hint of brainwashing. First thing Adam and Eve did (or the Neandethals if you prefer) did was cloth themselves. I hardly belive they had any issues on clothing, it came naturally to them.

There is undoubtedly an issue of climate. But as I said in my last post, it doesn't matter. There is a simple test to see whether or not it comes "naturally" - don't indoctrinate people either way. That's all I've been advocating.

What it comes down to is if changing the sexual orientation is right or wrong. Since the child cannot be decided by mother, then it must be decided by everyone who could be effected by this. Meaning literally everyone.

No - it must not be decided at all. It is the choice of the child's. No one else's.

Breaking the law because it doesn't seem ethical to you is hardly a excuse.

It's a fine excuse ethically, if I am right about the law's morality. If I am wrong, I must take the consequences, just as I must if I am wrong about any other moral decision.

Even if I was wrong in that point, what is moral is what laws are based off of.

No, it's not. There is such a thing as an amoral politician. And such a thing as people who are wrong about what is and isn't moral.

The only reason, I thought, we were discussing the child was because it violates rights of the minority.

You misunderstood. I apologize for being unclear.

The rights being denied here are that of the child, not of the minority as a whole. My point about the illegitimacy of majority oppression of minorities merely was a demonstration of the principle that what the majority says should not always go.

Besides, if abortion doesn't violate the child's rights, then why should this?

I echo Jello Biafra's sigh, and point you towards his reply and all of the ones I've made on the subject.

In the first part you lost me,

I'll explain, but it's not very relevant, so don't worry if you persist in lack of understanding.

All laws are founded upon coercion. The reason the law matters is that if you break it, your breaking of it is punished; a disincentive is attached to the proscribed behavior. If I murder, I go to prison. If I park illegally, I'm fined. And so on.

The consequences of a law can be divided into two broad categories. The first comprises the consequences of obedience - what will be the results of the shift in behavior caused by this law? The second comprises the consequences of enforcement - what will be the results of trying to enforce this law?

When I designate something as immoral, I don't think it should happen - the action is evil, it involves the mistreatment of sentient beings, and thus the world would be a better place if no one committed it. So the shift in behavior caused by something like a ban on killing fetuses to attain a child of a specific sexual orientation, or choosing friends based on immoral prejudices against gays, would, at least in theory (there would undoubtedly be problems in application), be a good thing.

But when we are dealing with laws, we are not only dealing with the first set of consequences, but also with the second set of consequences. One consequence of all kinds of coercion is the coerced person being degraded; he/she is forced into something he/she doesn't want to do. That is treating him/her not fully as a human with dignity and deserving of autonomy, but also partially as an object we can freely abuse.

Clearly this is justifiable in some instances. The degradation involved in preventing murder is a small cost to pay for saving the lives of all those who would otherwise be murdered. But when the gain from the shift in behavior is very small, or the degradation involved in the coercion quite substantial, we have a law that prohibits an immoral thing, but that should not be passed despite this. The action that it prohibits falls into the "immoral but should not be illegal" category.

Which are dictated by whom again.

Not by whom - what. Morality is dictated by, is synonymous with, the way we ought to treat sentient beings - as beings with rights and with legitimate claims to welfare that we, morally, cannot disregard.

Who says when the minority has to much or to little?

Again, not whom - what. The minority has too much either when someone's basic rights are violated, or when another non-rights-violating distribution of resources would attain a higher total of preference satisfaction.

(That is not exactly my position; it's more complicated than that. But the essence is there.)

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

Maybe we should use a similer approach to cure rascism.

I seriously doubt it is possible to remove homosexuality by breeding it out, as it is affected by environmental factors, although at most it could be made less likely. I don't really see why anyone would want to do eliminate something so harmless but still...

I disagree totally with modifying a fetus so that it is not gay, however if this type of genetic engineering took the form of aborting all the embryos with the 'gay gene' until you had one without it, though I disagree morally, I would not make it illegal. This may seem very stupid and immoral, but I operate on the principles of fetus=non conscious being and child=conscious being. A fetus that becomes a child therefore means that eventually a conscious being will have been modified in that way which is totally immmoral, though killing a fetus is just the same, or even less immoral, than killing an ant, rat or mouse.

Still I cant help but think that this 'anti-gay' modification is stupid.If we can do this, why don't we eliminate the gene that gives people black skin? Kids get bullied for being black at school, and many people would prefer to be white, right? So just 'whiten' the fetus so it loses all trace of being black and everyone's happy. I don't see how that's any different to 'straightening' them anyway. Also, what about bisexuals, do they have a gene to be eliminated too?

BTW: Not really racist, just trying to illustrate how stupid I think eliminating gayness is.

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.)
This creates a problem. I am pro-abortion, to be sure. However, if the foetus does not have rights, could the mother be faulted for genetically engineering the child to be mentally retarded? The only way I see around this is to argue that she harmed the person coming-into-being (and since the person will be, it is the victim of the action), and therefore initiated force, and thus should not be given such a "freedom". With abortion she terminated the foetus before it could come into personhood, and this is the crucial difference (the action becomes victimless). This raises the question whether all genetic engineering done to a foetus is wrong, given that it is done without the person-to-be's consent, and whether such a person would be able to sue their parent for the engineering if they are unhappy with it. One could argue giving a child blue eyes is harmless, but what if the child objects to it, and considers itself harmed?

Now, leaving motives aside, it is perfectly possible for a mother to abort a foetus for whatever reasons she may desire to do so - including if it is homosexual. I would not think highly of such a person, but it is her right. Changing its orientation via genetic engineering is another issue altogether...

No, you're eradicating 5-10% of humanity because you don't like it.
If the aggression is against non-persons, what is the problem? I would argue that aborting a homosexual child (before it comes into being human) is a victimless crime, hardly a crime at all in fact. Actively changing the would-be child's sexual orientation is another story.

I don't see the problem is. We're not talking about executing homosexuals here. We're just preventing it from ever occuring in the first place. If homosexuality was eliminated through voluntary, humane, peaceful methods of prevention like this then would it really be the end of the world?

voluntary

:confused:

I don't see the problem is. We're not talking about executing homosexuals here. We're just preventing it from ever occuring in the first place. If homosexuality was eliminated through voluntary, humane, peaceful methods of prevention like this then would it really be the end of the world?

It's a problem because you think homosexuality is a problem,or an illness,which it's not.If it doesn't affect you,then why are you so beat up about it?
Also,how the hell is it voluntary?The child is in a womb,it doesn't get a say.

It's a problem because you think homosexuality is a problem,or an illness,which it's not.If it doesn't affect you,then why are you so beat up about it?

It's okay. Let em fuck with nature. I'm sure it'll all work out exactly as planned. For the first time in human history. :)

It's okay. Let em fuck with nature. I'm sure it'll all work out exactly as planned. For the first time in human history. :)

You do have quite a dark side,don't you?
(Though I agree with you.It's all gunna go horribly wrong if it goes ahead.)

:confused:
I meant voluntary for the pregnant mother. I know it wouldn't be voluntary for the kid, but I don't see how that would matter. Kids are born with involuntary traits all the time, so I don't see why we should suddenly shrieking that one of them happens to be something as harmless as hetrosexuality.

I meant voluntary for the pregnant mother. I know it wouldn't be voluntary for the kid, but I don't see how that would matter. Kids are born with involuntary traits all the time, so I don't see why we should suddenly shrieking that one of them happens to be something as harmless as hetrosexuality.

Since when was homosexuality harmful?
Also, it's not up to the pregnant mother whether their child is homosexual or not. Surely that's a decision for the child itself, later in life?

Kids are born with involuntary traits all the time, so I don't see why we should suddenly shrieking that one of them happens to be something as harmless as hetrosexuality.

Because traits selected by nature are not the same as traits selected by the parents.

For the same reason, it would be immoral for a mother to "design" her child by severing a limb off the fetus, but it would not be immoral for a mother to give birth to such a child if the child naturally lacked a limb. It is the same with all disabilities - blindness, deafness, and so on.

Since when was homosexuality harmful?
Also, it's not up to the pregnant mother whether their child is homosexual or not. Surely that's a decision for the child itself, later in life?
But if sexuality is biological and involuntary then the child won't have the choice anyway.

Because traits selected by nature are not the same as traits selected by the parents.
What's so special about nature? A lot of what humans do goes against nature anyway.

You do have quite a dark side,don't you?
(Though I agree with you.It's all gunna go horribly wrong if it goes ahead.)

I have infinite sides, yet no sides. I am a sphere. :)

But if sexuality is biological and involuntary then the child won't have the choice anyway.
Nature is nothing but a personification of the workings of the universe, which includes genetics. Therefore, no one is initiating force in this case. A person, on the other hand, can initiate force, and be liable for so doing. If a mother engineered her child to be homosexual as opposed to heterosexual, could the child not blame her for any adversities it may suffer? By contrast, if it is so born due to the laws of biology, who is it to blame? There is a stark difference between something occuring due to impersonal forces and someone causing it to happen. In addition, the person affected cannot consent.

I have infinite sides, yet no sides. I am a sphere. :)

After all, you are a Goofball.

What rubbish!

If a gay man or woman feels that they no longer want to feel this way they then can have treatment, also if someone who is hetrasexual and feels that wish they were not they are also able to do this treatment.


Parents are the bakers of the bread not the buyers, they can choose to slightly highten the bread i.e put sultanas in it, but they can't make a cake!


That made little sense but if you think of a child as a loaf of bread it makes quite a lot of sense! I think.

What's so special about nature?

There is a connection between what is natural and what is free. If there is no intent of will behind a trait of mine, I am not degraded; such is the way of the universe. If, on the other hand, what I am is determined by someone else's will, then I am little more than an object to be manipulated; I am the subject of that person.

A lot of what humans do goes against nature anyway.

"Goes against nature" is too vague to respond to. I have no problem with unnatural things if they are truly consented to.

There is a connection between what is natural and what is free. If there is no intent of will behind a trait of mine, I am not degraded; such is the way of the universe. If, on the other hand, what I am is determined by someone else's will, then I am little more than an object to be manipulated; I am the subject of that person.
The fact that we're living in a heirarchicial society means our lives will always in some way or another be determined by somebody else's will. I don't see how the selection of sexuality is going to make a real difference to things. Face it, we're all objects to be manipulated.

The fact that we're living in a heirarchicial society means

...that we should overthrow it and build something better.

Trust me, I'm not too keen on societal hierarchies, either.

just to go back to my eirlier point it is not only the parents that can't turn the bread into cake it is anyone including doctors, scientists, even mother nature

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

*dying laughing*

Im with YOU!

I object to it strongly on similar grounds as Soheran and Grave n idle.

What rubbish!

If a gay man or woman feels that they no longer want to feel this way they then can have treatment,

Really? Is that the 'chemical castration' kind of treatment?

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

I would die to have a stock of that. So everytime someone came around here thinking we are 'killing' the children by making them straight, I'll give them one.

Voila, no more crazy fundamentals that belive death is akin to being straight!

Most people think fundamentals are the people who think homosexualiy is death. While I think there is another type, which is concerned more with a minority and its rights, then the part of the said minority that has the most to lose or gain.

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?

Why would a god create in nature a trait he found distasteful and or wrong?

http://www.a1nutritionproducts.com/graphics/products/bsn/no_xplode.jpg

Because they would be unable to take part in many activities that they would otherwise be able to take part in.

The same has historically been true for blacks. And for women.

Thus, the 'lack of access' argument is not proof of 'harm'.

Oh my goodness.... The child born with no arms and raised to kindergarten most certainly does wish that they were born with two normal working arms... You could at least TRY to make rational and reality based arguments couldn't you?

How do you know? Do you have arms?

But, regardless - wishing for what we do not have is not evidence of harm. At various times in my childhood I wished I'd been born with both wings and gills.

Your argument is no better than the 'access' argument. Neither comes close to proving 'harm'... and that's the point - we can't prove that changing the sexuality of the foetus causes 'harm'... but the same is true for de-limbing it.

Maybe we should use a similer approach to cure rascism.

Exactly - and that is the most worrying thing.

If we are going to genetically engineer out homosexuality because it is 'unfair' to face a child with such a 'disadvantageous condition', then what is to stop us treating colour, to prevent racism?

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 agree that science is beneficial but messing with the sanctity of life? I mean we have to draw a line somewhere. And that's where i draw it. At Babies.

I meant voluntary for the pregnant mother. I know it wouldn't be voluntary for the kid, but I don't see how that would matter. Kids are born with involuntary traits all the time, so I don't see why we should suddenly shrieking that one of them happens to be something as harmless as hetrosexuality.

Because the 'involuntary traits' children are conventionlly born with aren't deliberately induced on a whim.

that is interesting but it is impossible to change how your child looks

Yes. If one believes that sexual orientation is just a part of who a person is, and does not determine their value as a person, then no reason should exist to defend the existence of one particular sexual orientation. The way it seems to me, GLBT organizations have worked to make sexual orientation a non-issue. If this is really so, then why should anyone care if everyone is straight or everyone is gay (outside of the fact that reproduction would be more difficult/complicated if the latter was the case, but then again, so what?)?

Exactly - and that is the most worrying thing.

If we are going to genetically engineer out homosexuality because it is 'unfair' to face a child with such a 'disadvantageous condition', then what is to stop us treating colour, to prevent racism?

Because being alike to your parents wouldn't be considered an imbalance.

In racial color, the parents are managing their child, so saying they could or couldn't do something would be completely wrong. Even more so if you're letting other people dictate to another what they can and cannot do with their child.

NO! Making your baby straight via hormones is not ethical at all!

In fact, it should be illegal to make your child stragiht (or gay, if you wished him/her to be gay). It's not as though homosexuality is a disease that will make all humans gay in the future.

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?

No. Any parent that biggoted should not be alowed to have a child. Homosexuality is not a "disease" to be "cured". It's simply another way of life. There have been gay men and qomen for thousands of years, ancient Sparta as an example. Besides, a child is somthing beautiful. We shouldn't tamper with their body before they even know what is happening.

Because being alike to your parents wouldn't be considered an imbalance.


Why? We should base the concept of 'balance' on what is true for the parent? What about the situation where 'black' parents produce 'white-looking' children?


In racial color, the parents are managing their child, so saying they could or couldn't do something would be completely wrong. Even more so if you're letting other people dictate to another what they can and cannot do with their child.

I still don't buy this 'non-interventionist' idea... if parents are torturing their children, a society that doesn't protect the innocent has no remit to consider itself 'civilised'.

Yes. If one believes that sexual orientation is just a part of who a person is, and does not determine their value as a person, then no reason should exist to defend the existence of one particular sexual orientation. The way it seems to me, GLBT organizations have worked to make sexual orientation a non-issue. If this is really so, then why should anyone care if everyone is straight or everyone is gay (outside of the fact that reproduction would be more difficult/complicated if the latter was the case, but then again, so what?)?

Exactly! If it really was, why care if the mother chooses one path or another. If homosexuality was just as equal as heterosexuality, why not consider the change either way a 'neutral' one?

I would die to have a stock of that. So everytime someone came around here thinking we are 'killing' the children by making them straight, I'll give them one.

Voila, no more crazy fundamentals that belive death is akin to being straight!

Most people think fundamentals are the people who think homosexualiy is death. While I think there is another type, which is concerned more with a minority and its rights, then the part of the said minority that has the most to lose or gain.

Listen. This idea is wrong, period. A child is going to be born gay. If you intervene in that, the only 'rational' reason you would have is because you do not want that child to be gay. Two things follow from that - either you have a problem with gay people, or you think being gay is going to handicap your child's future.

If you are attempting to change the child's sexuality because you have a problem with it, you are a bigot who really shouldn't be raising a child because you don't have the ability to love it unconditionally. If you are trying the change because you think it will handicap the child's future, then you are illuminating a problem with society, which is better solved by changing societal opinions, which starts at home, which means having that gay kid and loving him/her regardless.

Why? We should base the concept of 'balance' on what is true for the parent? What about the situation where 'black' parents produce 'white-looking' children?

If black parents had a albino child, we call that a imbalance. Thus if a hetero couple has a homo, it is a imbalance.

Of course there is always the black couple that have a white influenced child, but they still have most of their genes in accordance to their mother and father's. So, they are just slightly different, if not completely.

How that would compare to this situation, I have no idea. Unless we consider being slightly influenced towards homosexuality produces bisexual, but hat is a little bit to much this early in the morning.

I still don't buy this 'non-interventionist' idea... if parents are torturing their children, a society that doesn't protect the innocent has no remit to consider itself 'civilised'.
Until changing the hypothetically equal sexual orientations of homo and hetero is considered akin to pretending to drown someone and using shock treatment, then we are not acting like barbarians.

Until changing the hypothetically equal sexual orientations of homo and hetero is considered akin to pretending to drown someone and using shock treatment, then we are not acting like barbarians.

In case you haven't been listening, people have been telling you that.

It might be less physically painful, but the desire is the same and the result is better. It's still ethically wrong.

If black parents had a albino child, we call that a imbalance. Thus if a hetero couple has a homo, it is a imbalance.

Of course there is always the black couple that have a white influenced child, but they still have most of their genes in accordance to their mother and father's. So, they are just slightly different, if not completely.

How that would compare to this situation, I have no idea. Unless we consider being slightly influenced towards homosexuality produces bisexual, but hat is a little bit to much this early in the morning.


I said nothing about albino babies. 'Black' parents do have 'white' looking children... by your logic, they are 'flawed'.

Also - I have to hit that one: "but they still have most of their genes in accordance to their mother and father's..."

And what, homosexuality shows through different genes?



Until changing the hypothetically equal sexual orientations of homo and hetero is considered akin to pretending to drown someone and using shock treatment, then we are not acting like barbarians.

By messing around in Pandora's box, we are acting like barbarians.

By carrying out eugenics, we are acting like barbarians.

By attempting to 'cure' children of something like homosexuality, we are acting like barbarians.

I am sadly a little done with debating, it was fun, but I think I need a new subject. I am just not feeling the reason anymore, I am starting to make mistakes, and generally hurting my cause more than I am helping.

So, Grave, I hope to see you around, and Lydania, well I didn't quite get your last post, but it could just be me.

I am sadly a little done with debating, it was fun, but I think I need a new subject. I am just not feeling the reason anymore, I am starting to make mistakes, and generally hurting my cause more than I am helping.

So, Grave, I hope to see you around, and Lydania, well I didn't quite get your last post, but it could just be me.

In case you haven't been listening, people have been telling you that.

It might be less physically painful, but the desire is the same and the result is better. It's still ethically wrong.

The desire to 'correct' homosexuality is the same whether shock therapy or chemical therapy is used. Shock therapy doesn't work, but the chemical therapy theoretically would. Homosexuality is just as valid as heterosexuality, and eliminating homosexuals through one manner or another is ethically wrong, whether you're 'treating' gay people, killing them, or preventing them from existing in the first place.

That's what my post was about.

I don't see the problem is. We're not talking about executing homosexuals here. We're just preventing it from ever occuring in the first place. If homosexuality was eliminated through voluntary, humane, peaceful methods of prevention like this then would it really be the end of the world?


Yes. It would be taking away people's right to develop naturally. Have you ever read The Giver? Basically, people can't see colors, are assigned jobs based on aptitude, including one job that simply involves having babies for 4 years. People who don't fit into this are killed. The elderly, babies deemed "unlikely to survive", the less heavy of two twins. Etc. This would be a lower-grade version of that.

This is a disgusting attempt to treat homosexuality as an illness to be treated, and should be stopped at once.

If you are trying the change because you think it will handicap the child's future, then you are illuminating a problem with society, which is better solved by changing societal opinions, which starts at home, which means having that gay kid and loving him/her regardless.
That may be true but it won't change a thing. I wouldn't want to let my kids become social outcasts (Particularly if it's something that's easily preventable without the child's knowledge) because I have some grandiose belief that I can change the world. It's always very easy to say that it's society that should change when it isn't you on the recieving end of abuse and discrimination.

That may be true but it won't change a thing. I wouldn't want to let my kids become social outcasts (Particularly if it's something that's easily preventable without the child's knowledge) because I have some grandiose belief that I can change the world. It's always very easy to say that it's society that should change when it isn't you on the recieving end of abuse and discrimination.

Nothing worth doing is easy. An attitude where the victims are the ones who bend and break to the will of their oppressors is inappropriate and wrong.

Nothing worth doing is easy. An attitude where the victims are the ones who bend and break to the will of their oppressors is inappropriate and wrong.
But would you be willing to put your family in the firing line just so you can latch onto a cause and feel good about yourself? I wouldn't.

Who's placing bets on the size of the lawsuit when the first people to have this procedure end up giving birth to a fairy anyway?

Not only unethical...but simply horrible. What would civilisation...ALL civilisations/societies be like without homosexuals? I shudder to think. Seriously. Among my people, two-spirited people were the arbitrators, the law givers, because they had the capacity to see things from both gender perspectives. In any case, I'm sorry, I simply refuse to live in a world where there are no gay men. Gay women, I love you too, I'm not putting you down here, I just honestly couldn't bear a world full of only straight males. I'm sure you could understand why.

But would you be willing to put your family in the firing line just so you can latch onto a cause and feel good about yourself? I wouldn't.

It's not a matter of mindlessly following a cause and feeling good about myself. It's about standing up for what's right - which just happens to come with that 'feel good about yourself' stuff.

I would certainly put myself on that line, and I wouldn't change my unborn out of fear of what could happen because not everyone is going to do the right thing.

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 your post the closest to my own opinion. Now if we could cure bigotry in the womb.

I find your post the closest to my own opinion. Now if we could cure bigotry in the womb.

Would we really want that, I wonder? To all get along? I live for the times I get to smack down bigots...

Then again, I'd like fucking homophobic pieces of shit to stop attacking my transgendered brother.

Tough call, that.

Would we really want that, I wonder? To all get along? I live for the times I get to smack down bigots...

Then again, I'd like fucking homophobic pieces of shit to stop attacking my transgendered brother.

Tough call, that.Doubtless some of our favorite trolls would have never been born. Ya take the good with the bad.

That may be true but it won't change a thing. I wouldn't want to let my kids become social outcasts (Particularly if it's something that's easily preventable without the child's knowledge) because I have some grandiose belief that I can change the world. It's always very easy to say that it's society that should change when it isn't you on the recieving end of abuse and discrimination.

The worrying thing is that you automatically equate non-heterosexual orientation with becoming 'social outcasts'.

Just like the people who conclude that homosexuality is a 'disorder' we need to 'cure', this is part of the problem, not the solution.

It's not ethical. I don't really believe that it's possible. There are so many factors that contribute, including genetic, that I don't think it's possible to account for all of them.

But would you be willing to put your family in the firing line just so you can latch onto a cause and feel good about yourself? I wouldn't.

We already have. Willingly. Why, might you ask? Because my family loves me, that's why. Yes, it took them some getting used to the fact that I am homosexual; but in the end they chose unconditional love.

My younger brother would beat the snot out of someone who attacked me or hurt me because of my homosexuality. Being the big brother I find this touching and fills me with pride because my brother did not take the easy path.

My conservative father and grandfather feel the same way. In a family full of "macho" men, their love for me is more important to them than who I spend my life with. Of course, they want me to have a good man as my partner. All of this boggled my mind. But even now I get tears in my eyes knowing how much my family loves me.

This solution, while having the convenience of being "out of sight, out of mind" is...how shall I say it? Morally and ethically repugnant. You see, life is full of traps, pitfalls and tragedies...but what is life without those pitfalls and tragedies? Vanilla. Passionless. It is the hardest lesson in life to learn that we do not appreciate the good times without the bad times.

I will take my life of pain, insults and unhappiness because I much more keenly appreciate my good times and happiness. With such a convenient solution we take one more step towards dull, passionless controlled lives.

This might be something you can accept, but I won't. You can take this "cure" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. It is unethical and immoral and to couch it any other way is dishonest.

This creates a problem. I am pro-abortion, to be sure. However, if the foetus does not have rights, could the mother be faulted for genetically engineering the child to be mentally retarded? The only way I see around this is to argue that she harmed the person coming-into-being (and since the person will be, it is the victim of the action), and therefore initiated force, and thus should not be given such a "freedom". With abortion she terminated the foetus before it could come into personhood, and this is the crucial difference (the action becomes victimless). Exactly. As I said, aborting the fetus does not harm a child. Genetically engineering it does. I think many people are caught up on when the genetic engineering takes place, but when it occurs isn't relevant.

This raises the question whether all genetic engineering done to a foetus is wrong, given that it is done without the person-to-be's consent, and whether such a person would be able to sue their parent for the engineering if they are unhappy with it. One could argue giving a child blue eyes is harmless, but what if the child objects to it, and considers itself harmed?I would say that most genetic engineering would be, yes. A few rare exceptions might be along the lines of genetically engineering the child to not be mentally retarded.

Now, leaving motives aside, it is perfectly possible for a mother to abort a foetus for whatever reasons she may desire to do so - including if it is homosexual. I would not think highly of such a person, but it is her right. Changing its orientation via genetic engineering is another issue altogether...I concur completely.

Yes. If one believes that sexual orientation is just a part of who a person is, and does not determine their value as a person, then no reason should exist to defend the existence of one particular sexual orientation. The way it seems to me, GLBT organizations have worked to make sexual orientation a non-issue. If this is really so, then why should anyone care if everyone is straight or everyone is gay (outside of the fact that reproduction would be more difficult/complicated if the latter was the case, but then again, so what?)?Genetically engineering your children to be of a particular sexual orientation is the epitome of making it an issue.

I want a poll.

Interesting.

So if they can "correct" it; does this mean Religion is no longer going to call it a choice.

If that is the case, then how do you explain it in the terms of the plans of God?

That may be true but it won't change a thing. I wouldn't want to let my kids become social outcasts (Particularly if it's something that's easily preventable without the child's knowledge) because I have some grandiose belief that I can change the world. It's always very easy to say that it's society that should change when it isn't you on the recieving end of abuse and discrimination.

Yes, and we can breed out black people because they are sometimes discriminated against. Short people. Tall people. Skinny people. Fat people. Everyone who is ever mistreated or discriminated against, let's just breed them out. See how this is a slippery slope. Not some distant slippery slope, but one that is right there. Because your reasoning equally applies to black people or any of a million traits that are not diseases or disadvantages.

Yes, and we can breed out black people because they are sometimes discriminated against. Short people. Tall people. Skinny people. Fat people. Everyone who is ever mistreated or discriminated against, let's just breed them out. See how this is a slippery slope. Not some distant slippery slope, but one that is right there. Because your reasoning equally applies to black people or any of a million traits that are not diseases or disadvantages.
If we are planning to breed out all people who experience significant discrimination, then we're going to run into a serious problem because we will have to breed out all the women right away.

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?

on the bolded bit, i say yes.

increase strengh, IQ, longer life, etc..
if these traits can be passed on to future generations, all the better.

about the whole gay thing.... I would'nt do it, but if the parents want to, its there choice. Same way as i'm for abortion, but would do it myself.

But i'm also for a lesbian mother wanting the reverse.

If we are planning to breed out all people who experience significant discrimination, then we're going to run into a serious problem because we will have to breed out all the women right away.

Of course, Bottle. We're obviously genetically flawed, I mean, our reproductive systems bleed for several days every four weeks or so. That's not a trait we want to pass on to posterity, now is it?

I would say that most genetic engineering would be, yes. A few rare exceptions might be along the lines of genetically engineering the child to not be mentally retarded.
The problem being that homosexuality could be construed to be akin to being mentally retarded - i.e. an inhibition of a sort, a limitation for the person involved (certainly all the more so in socially conservative societies). Genetic engineering (aside from perhaps being unstable, and causing side effects) should as a rule be considered the initiation of force against the person-to-be. The parent after all may abort a mentally retarded child instead. The equivalent, you see, would be forcing a mentally retarded person to be genetically engineered, whether they like it or not (assuming they can assent or decline).

This is a difficult conclusion for me to come to, as I was previously in favour of pre-natal genetic engineering, but I think it's a gross violation of the person-to-be's freedom. Surely, a high level of genetic engineering should allow a person to experience post-natal engineering, should they desire it, and this is fine.

Didn't i read somewhere that a womans body and what she does with it is her own bussiness.It may not be pouplar in this case amongst those of us who believe in the concept but it stands none the less.

Didn't i read somewhere that a womans body and what she does with it is her own bussiness.It may not be pouplar in this case amongst those of us who believe in the concept but it stands none the less.

Heretic! ;)

Heretic! ;)
I know.Might not be ethical but what does it matter what sexual preference the kid is born with anyway and how they came by that preference.

Didn't i read somewhere that a womans body and what she does with it is her own bussiness.It may not be pouplar in this case amongst those of us who believe in the concept but it stands none the less.

the fetus isnt a woman's body. her right is to continue a pregnancy or not, not to experiment with the fetus inside her. society has a right to regulate medical procedures on fetal life.

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

I love this attitude. What but a machine unprogrammed with flawed human concepts of morality can decide what's "right" or "wrong"? A human trying to decide such concepts for the rest of the human race is pure hubris.

/2¢ about something hardly anyone cares anymore

the fetus isnt a woman's body. her right is to continue a pregnancy or not, not to experiment with the fetus inside her. society has a right to regulate medical procedures on fetal life.
We don't legislate against women who want drink, smoke, or take meds do we?The difference here is that it would be a desired outcome the womans choosing.Wouldn't it be more of an issue for you if she decided to abort purely on the grounds that the child may or may not be gay??

the fetus isnt a woman's body. her right is to continue a pregnancy or not, not to experiment with the fetus inside her. society has a right to regulate medical procedures on fetal life.
No, "society" has no rights. An individual, on the other hand, can exercise their right to self-defence, and sue a person who initiated force against them, in the form of prenatal genetic engineering. The entire practice can be called into question given that it is an initiation of force against a person unable to consent.

Lest we consider it "society"'s right to regulate individuals' sexuality and order them to "cure" themselves for their own sake (the flipside of the coin)...

We don't legislate against women who want drink, smoke, or take meds do we?The difference here is that it would be a desired outcome the womans choosing.Wouldn't it be more of an issue for you if she decided to abort purely on the grounds that the child may or may not be gay??

there are many medical procedures that arent legal in the united states. that includes some that are proposed to be done on the fetus.

no it would not be more of an issue unless the fetus had to be older than 20-24 weeks for the diagnosis.

No, "society" has no rights. An individual, on the other hand, can exercise their right to self-defence, and sue a person who initiated force against them, in the form of prenatal genetic engineering. The entire practice can be called into question given that it is an initiation of force against a person unable to consent.

Lest we consider it "society"'s right to regulate individuals' sexuality and order them to "cure" themselves for their own sake (the flipside of the coin)...

sure society has the right to keep one person from doing harm to another. a woman would have no more right to adjust her fetus' sexuality than she would have the right to adjust its gender using fetal surgery.

society makes bad medical procedures illegal all the time. at least we do in the united states. thats why we have medical boards and the fda.

sure society has the right to keep one person from doing harm to another. a woman would have no more right to adjust her fetus' sexuality than she would have the right to adjust its gender using fetal surgery.

society makes bad medical procedures illegal all the time. at least we do in the united states. thats why we have medical boards and the fda.
Of course you do ; I am hardly surprised. But let's not call it "society" - let's call it by what it is ; certain government officials acting on behalf of a "concerned" pressure group, forcing any situation they see fit to come about. Not as romantic, but that is what it consists of.

Of course you do ; I am hardly surprised. But let's not call it "society" - let's call it by what it is ; certain government officials acting on behalf of a "concerned" pressure group, forcing any situation they see fit to come about. Not as romantic, but that is what it consists of.

ok. personally im fine with it. theres so much quackery out there that having to prove medical treatments do what they are supposed to do and do not cause excessive harm along with it is a good thing.

i thought eugenics was always unethical?

I think this whole idea is pointless

What problems are there with homosexuality?

My answer would be none. There are too many womanising imoral men in the world as it stands so it just meens one less man going along that path.

And for all you womanising imoral men out there, you gain from homosexuality as well. More wimmin to go around.

And before you ask I am actualy straight, I just dont see any problem WHATSOEVER with homosexuality.

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?

Just as ethical as using medical advances to "design" your baby.

Besides, maybe we could use discoveries made in this area of research to increase the number of homosexuals? It'd be one way to deal with a population problem.

Besides, maybe we could use discoveries made in this area of research to increase the number of homosexuals? It'd be one way to deal with a population problem.
More appositely, we could mass-breed Randroids to be ruled by us, their Austrian overlords and intellectual superiors. :) I am sure Professor Doktor Hoppe has some tricks up his sleeve to serve this purpose.

"Breeding" human beings for any goal is wrong... so no its not ethical.

"Breeding" human beings for any goal is wrong... so no its not ethical.

What about the survival of the human race?

"Breeding" human beings for any goal is wrong... so no its not ethical.
Whoever said Randroids are human? :eek:

What about the survival of the human race?
Still unethical - why should an individual be forced besides their will to support a goal they personally have no desire to favour?

"Breeding" human beings for any goal is wrong... so no its not ethical.
Whoever said Randroids are human? :eek:

What about the survival of the human race?
Still unethical - why should an individual be forced besides their will to support a goal they personally have no desire to favour?

Maybe I missed something in the previous pages as I havent read all of the thread, but what does the article have to do with the OP? The article talks about breeding all straight rams in order to make the flocks of sheep more profitable. This is fine in my opinion. The OP talks about humans and breeding out homosexuality entirely for purely idealistic reasons by a method that hasnt even been researched yet, so what have they to do with each other?

i thought eugenics was always unethical?

This isnt eugenics.

The problem being that homosexuality could be construed to be akin to being mentally retarded - i.e. an inhibition of a sort, a limitation for the person involved (certainly all the more so in socially conservative societies). Genetic engineering (aside from perhaps being unstable, and causing side effects) should as a rule be considered the initiation of force against the person-to-be. The parent after all may abort a mentally retarded child instead. The equivalent, you see, would be forcing a mentally retarded person to be genetically engineered, whether they like it or not (assuming they can assent or decline).

This is a difficult conclusion for me to come to, as I was previously in favour of pre-natal genetic engineering, but I think it's a gross violation of the person-to-be's freedom. Surely, a high level of genetic engineering should allow a person to experience post-natal engineering, should they desire it, and this is fine.To echo Soheran's point, I think we should keep in mind what the person-to-be would want us to do. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I don't think mentally retarded people would wish to remain so if there was a way to change the mental retardation. If there's something that is universally undesired, there's no loss of freedom in changing it, because the person would want it to be changed.
While I agree that post-natal genetic engineering could do so, we currently don't have such technology. Once such technology is developed, sure, then all fetal engineering is unethical.

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

darn. that was my idea, you are saying shooting up some gays isn't a good thing? dobbel-darn.

To echo Soheran's point, I think we should keep in mind what the person-to-be would want us to do. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I don't think mentally retarded people would wish to remain so if there was a way to change the mental retardation. If there's something that is universally undesired, there's no loss of freedom in changing it, because the person would want it to be changed.
As I said, if this person feels they've been violated they may initiate a lawsuit against their parent or whomever is responsible. They'd have grounds to do so, although I would consider it odd, so I agree essentially. :)

As I said, if this person feels they've been violated they may initiate a lawsuit against their parent or whomever is responsible. They'd have grounds to do so, although I would consider it odd, so I agree essentially. :)Oh, okay. That seems fine, then.

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?

For people, yes.

For sheep, yes.

The farmer who has 1 out of 10 male sheep unwilling to breed is suffering an economic loss. If there's a means to alleviate that economic loss, so much the better.

Parents can already choose their baby's presumed gender by seeing the fetus in ultrasound and then choosing whether or not to abort.

This is no different. If you're for a woman's right to choose whether, how, and under what conditions she'll carry a fetus, then the woman's right will always supersede that of the fetus.

This means that she is free to choose whether or not to have a gay baby.

From a conceptual standpoint, if a hormonal patch can be made to make a baby Not Gay, then a similar patch could be made to make a baby Real Gay.

So it would be a choice.

For people, yes.
[snip]

Parents can already choose their baby's presumed gender by seeing the fetus in ultrasound and then choosing whether or not to abort.

[snip]



In which country do they conduct abortions based on parents dislike of the babies gender? Can you provide a reference for it, otherwise I have to call BS on that. Aborting a foetus is a drastic measure and potentially harmful to the mother possibly rendering her unable to have more children in extreme cases.

There are far less stressfull ways to choose gender using seperation of the sperm and IVF techniques. In case you didnt know the gender of the foetus is determined by the sperm that fertilises it. There are X and Y chromosome carrying sperm. These can be sorted and then an then used for IVF and the resulting embryo can then be implanted in the mother.

Sperm sorting allows sex selection without IVF by separating the X and Y carrying sperm before they are used to impregnate a woman. Separation is possible because the X chromosome contains more DNA than the Y chromosome. It has recently been developed for use with human sperm by the Genetics and IVF Institute in Virginia.

The method attaches fluorescent probes to the sperm DNA. When illuminated by a laser, the larger X chromosomes will fluoresce brighter than the Y chromosomes. A flow cytometer can then separate the two leaving an X or Y enriched sample. The technique (given the trade name MicroSort) is claimed to have a 91% success rate to select a girl, and 73% for a boy.

MicroSort is currently only available in the USA, and is currently only offered to couples who either wish to avoid passing an X-linked genetic disorder to their children; or who already have one or more children of one sex, and wish their next to be of the opposite gender. They charge $2500 per try, which is not refunded if you do not become pregnant or conceive a child of the other gender.

In which country do they conduct abortions based on parents dislike of the babies gender? Can you provide a reference for it, otherwise I have to call BS on that. Aborting a foetus is a drastic measure and potentially harmful to the mother possibly rendering her unable to have more children in extreme cases.

Here in the US for one. India for another.

Sure, it's illegal to put that down as the sole reason. But in a country where abortion is legal (like the US), you don't have to have a reason. You only have to have the money.

In which country do they conduct abortions based on parents dislike of the babies gender? Can you provide a reference for it, otherwise I have to call BS on that. Aborting a foetus is a drastic measure and potentially harmful to the mother possibly rendering her unable to have more children in extreme cases.

There are far less stressfull ways to choose gender using seperation of the sperm and IVF techniques. In case you didnt know the gender of the foetus is determined by the sperm that fertilises it. There are X and Y chromosome carrying sperm. These can be sorted and then an then used for IVF and the resulting embryo can then be implanted in the mother.

Sperm sorting allows sex selection without IVF by separating the X and Y carrying sperm before they are used to impregnate a woman. Separation is possible because the X chromosome contains more DNA than the Y chromosome. It has recently been developed for use with human sperm by the Genetics and IVF Institute in Virginia.

The method attaches fluorescent probes to the sperm DNA. When illuminated by a laser, the larger X chromosomes will fluoresce brighter than the Y chromosomes. A flow cytometer can then separate the two leaving an X or Y enriched sample. The technique (given the trade name MicroSort) is claimed to have a 91% success rate to select a girl, and 73% for a boy.

MicroSort is currently only available in the USA, and is currently only offered to couples who either wish to avoid passing an X-linked genetic disorder to their children; or who already have one or more children of one sex, and wish their next to be of the opposite gender. They charge $2500 per try, which is not refunded if you do not become pregnant or conceive a child of the other gender.


Besides, this does not alter the validity of my point. Here you give another legal means of gender selection.

If gender selection is legal....

MicroSort is currently only available in the USA, and is currently only offered to couples who either wish to avoid passing an X-linked genetic disorder to their children; or who already have one or more children of one sex, and wish their next to be of the opposite gender. They charge $2500 per try, which is not refunded if you do not become pregnant or conceive a child of the other gender.

which is why people dont use it. ivf too often fails, too often results in multiple births, and it only available to those people with the time and money to use it.

its much cheaper to abort the "wrong" fetus when you realize that you dont want a child of that gender. this is legal in any country where the technology is available and abortion is legal at the stage that the test is done. most places severly discourage it but that doesnt stop couples from getting around any rules against it.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting gender selection, just saying there are safer ways of doing it. I'm just shocked that people would use abortion for that purpose.

I'm also pro-choice though I believe that, particularly in the UK and US, given the number of contraceptive methods available there is no reason for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't want to. And of course it's a choice that the mother (and preferably the father) should give a great deal of consideration to before opting for it.

I myself was hoping for a girl when my son was born. I still love him more than anything in the world of course :) and I haven't been disappointed in the slightest.

(Incidentally, the "microsort" is $2500 a throw, how much is an abortion in the US?)

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting gender selection, just saying there are safer ways of doing it. I'm just shocked that people would use abortion for that purpose.

I'm also pro-choice though I believe that, particularly in the UK and US, given the number of contraceptive methods available there is no reason for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't want to. And of course it's a choice that the mother (and preferably the father) should give a great deal of consideration to before opting for it.

I myself was hoping for a girl when my son was born. I still love him more than anything in the world of course :) and I haven't been disappointed in the slightest.

(Incidentally, the "microsort" is $2500 a throw, how much is an abortion in the US?)

As low as 280 dollars.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting gender selection, just saying there are safer ways of doing it. I'm just shocked that people would use abortion for that purpose.

I'm also pro-choice though I believe that, particularly in the UK and US, given the number of contraceptive methods available there is no reason for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't want to. And of course it's a choice that the mother (and preferably the father) should give a great deal of consideration to before opting for it.

I myself was hoping for a girl when my son was born. I still love him more than anything in the world of course :) and I haven't been disappointed in the slightest.

(Incidentally, the "microsort" is $2500 a throw, how much is an abortion in the US?)


i dont know that sex selection abortion is common in the US but it probably does happen.

i have no idea how much an abortion costs.

its misleading to think that the cost of microsort is only $2500. there are so many other expenses associated with ivg and the chances of needing only one try are pretty small, the best ivf facilities have less than a 25% success rate.

And to put me back on topic I do believe that "curing" homosexuality in this fashion would be unethical. I think the only thing that makes homosexuality [in humans] a "problem" is treating it like a "problem".

And to put me back on topic I do believe that "curing" homosexuality in this fashion would be unethical. I think the only thing that makes homosexuality [in humans] a "problem" is treating it like a "problem".

Doesn't mean people won't do it.

And to put me back on topic I do believe that "curing" homosexuality in this fashion would be unethical. I think the only thing that makes homosexuality [in humans] a "problem" is treating it like a "problem".

and the drive to eliminate homosexuality from the population would cause more problems than it would "solve". its not good to have a standardized population.

and the drive to eliminate homosexuality from the population would cause more problems than it would "solve". its not good to have a standardized population.

Inventing nuclear weapons doesn't sound too smart, but everyone wants to do it now, even though you can't really use the damned things, and if you do, everyone gets turned into overdone pudding.

Inventing nuclear weapons doesn't sound too smart, but everyone wants to do it now, even though you can't really use the damned things, and if you do, everyone gets turned into overdone pudding.

the 2 arent all that dissimilar if you think about how drastic the measures would have to be in order to eliminate all homosexuality in the population.

the 2 arent all that dissimilar if you think about how drastic the measures would have to be in order to eliminate all homosexuality in the population.

I'm just saying that just because something isn't a very good or very practical idea, doesn't keep everyone from wanting to do it.

Besides even if you could eliminate homosexuality in the population (by whatever means) I think the probability of recurrence would be high. The treatment would need to be ongoing for the rest of humanities history.

No more Gays? Damn... what a dull world considering the influence of gays in the entertainment industry and fashion.

On a serious note;

1. There doesn't exist something like a 100% gay and 100% heterosexual. Just like a lot people might be offended by the extreem gay, the same will be for the testosterone agressive male. A 'treatment' like this might have some serious negative results.

2. I do believe that gayness is genetic. I have seen way to many examples in my live where it was seemed to be at least partially genetic. Because often those people are not 100% gay, it wil stay in the population.

3. Acting straight due hormones doesn't have to mean that you are straight. An strong example is that of transgender, where people have the wrong body. Research already has sufficiently proved that it isn't a psychological problem, but a fysical problem. If gayness is an genetic variance, it will only be subdued by hormono therapy and perhaps leaving the individual with an identity crisis.

Aside from the whole discussion, I think that the researchprojecet is an oxymoron, because it doesn't check if the changed behaviour of the animal is only caused by the hormones and not if he actually feels himself (or herself!) an homosexual or heterosexual being.

If the treatment is moral is a whole different question.

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?

Absolutely.

Should parents have the right to design their babies the way they want them

You bet.

or should parents be made to live with what nature has given them?

No.

If the woman chooses to ensure that her child is born normal and will not become a sexual deviant, that's it. It's her body and it's her choice. Right, pro-choicers?

BTW: the "critics" are right to fear that this could lead to breeding homosexuality out of the human race. That is exactly what is going to happen. Bye-bye, "gay culture." :D

If the woman chooses to ensure that her child is born normal and will not become a sexual deviant, that's it. It's her body and it's her choice. Right, pro-choicers?While there may be an alternative argument that can be made, given that this isn't what the pro-choice movement says, no, it isn't.

If the woman chooses to ensure that her child is born normal and will not become a sexual deviant, that's it. It's her body and it's her choice. Right, pro-choicers?

BTW: the "critics" are right to fear that this could lead to breeding homosexuality out of the human race. That is exactly what is going to happen. Bye-bye, "gay culture." :D

the fetus is NOT part of the woman's body. her right is to remove it, not to do what she will with it.

While there may be an alternative argument that can be made, given that this isn't what the pro-choice movement says, no, it isn't.

Looks like I didn't make the sarcasm obvious enough.

You're right, of course, with respect to the so-called "pro-choice" crowd. The only choice they're in favor of is the choice to murder unborn babies. But since they choose to use a misleading euphemism for their real beliefs, I choose to turn it around and throw it back in their faces.

But regardless of their actual agenda, the same logic applies. If the woman chooses to undergo hormone therapy, for any reason or no reason, that's between her and her doctor and nobody else. Pro-choicers can't have it both ways.

My own position doesn't rely on the pro-choice argument. I favor any medical advance that will enable me to ensure that none of my children develop into dead-ends and wastes of my investment as a parent, and that will increase the likelihood of the continuance of my genetic legacy.

You're right, of course, with respect to the so-called "pro-choice" crowd. The only choice they're in favor of is the choice to murder unborn babies. But since they choose to use a misleading euphemism for their real beliefs, I choose to turn it around and throw it back in their faces. "Unborn babies" is an oxymoron.

But regardless of their actual agenda, the same logic applies. If the woman chooses to undergo hormone therapy, for any reason or no reason, that's between her and her doctor and nobody else. Pro-choicers can't have it both ways. The pro-choicers are in favor of a woman's right to control her body. In this case, there is another human being involved. In abortion, there is not.

My own position doesn't rely on the pro-choice argument. I favor any medical advance that will enable me to ensure that none of my children develop into dead-ends and wastes of my investment as a parent, and that will increase the likelihood of the continuance of my genetic legacy.And if you believe this, then your investment as a parent is by definition wasted.

Looks like I didn't make the sarcasm obvious enough.

You're right, of course, with respect to the so-called "pro-choice" crowd. The only choice they're in favor of is the choice to murder unborn babies. But since they choose to use a misleading euphemism for their real beliefs, I choose to turn it around and throw it back in their faces.

But regardless of their actual agenda, the same logic applies. If the woman chooses to undergo hormone therapy, for any reason or no reason, that's between her and her doctor and nobody else. Pro-choicers can't have it both ways.

My own position doesn't rely on the pro-choice argument. I favor any medical advance that will enable me to ensure that none of my children develop into dead-ends and wastes of my investment as a parent, and that will increase the likelihood of the continuance of my genetic legacy.

there are 2 people in any medical procedure. the doctor and the patient. the woman might legally undergo any hormonal treatment she wishes for herself. her doctor is barred from treating a pregnant woman with a hormonal treatment for her that will have an unlawful effect on her fetus.

if a doctor starts giving women medical treatments that damage their fetuses he will lose his license.

there are 2 people in any medical procedure. the doctor and the patient. the woman might legally undergo any hormonal treatment she wishes for herself. her doctor is barred from treating a pregnant woman with a hormonal treatment for her that will have an unlawful effect on her fetus.

if a doctor starts giving women medical treatments that damage their fetuses he will lose his license.

Technically, it's not damaging. So the doctor would be under no restriction in such a case.

Technically, it's not damaging. So the doctor would be under no restriction in such a case.

technically, it is. legally, it may some day be considered standard medical practice.

technically, it is. legally, it may some day be considered standard medical practice.

How is treating a fetus with hormones to come out heterosexual (or homosexual) harmful?

The treatment can obviously be used either way.

It's no more "harm" than selecting your child's eye color - and you're not destroying the fetus or an embryo in order to do so.

How is treating a fetus with hormones to come out heterosexual (or homosexual) harmful?

The treatment can obviously be used either way.

It's no more "harm" than selecting your child's eye color - and you're not destroying the fetus or an embryo in order to do so.Several people in this thread have said that if their sexual orientation had been changed without their consent, that they'd feel violated. Likely, they'd sue the person who changed it.

Several people in this thread have said that if their sexual orientation had been changed without their consent, that they'd feel violated. Likely, they'd sue the person who changed it.

How do you know what your sexual orientation would have been?

It looks like the treatment has to be given to every woman in order to get the results. So they can't tell in advance if you were going to be homosexual or not.

You would have to prove that, in the absence of their action, you would definitely have been homosexual.

Kind of hard to prove that.

How do you know what your sexual orientation would have been?

It looks like the treatment has to be given to every woman in order to get the results. So they can't tell in advance if you were going to be homosexual or not.

You would have to prove that, in the absence of their action, you would definitely have been homosexual.

Kind of hard to prove that.No. The treatment would be given to a woman who shows a low level of the particular hormone. The low level of this hormone is said to often lead to homosexuality in the sheep.
All one would have to do is have the test results of the woman who is tested for the hormone, and any papers which say that she was treated with the hormone therapy.

How is treating a fetus with hormones to come out heterosexual (or homosexual) harmful?

The treatment can obviously be used either way.

It's no more "harm" than selecting your child's eye color - and you're not destroying the fetus or an embryo in order to do so.

it would be very damaging to do something to select your child's eye color since that is a genetic thing.

you may not regard the changing of a persons natural sexuality as damage or maybe you think its is such a slight damage as to be unimportant. you have a right to your opinion and im not inclined to debate whether its a good one or not. its sufficient to say that i disagree with you.

however the point was that its not a matter of a woman's right to choose. she does not have final say over the child she carries, she does not have the right to insist on medical procedures that affect the fetus. she probably doesnt even have the right to make the choice of a minor "designer" change in the fetus without the expressed consent of the father. when its not her body in question, her rights are limited.

it would be very damaging to do something to select your child's eye color since that is a genetic thing.

you may not regard the changing of a persons natural sexuality as damage or maybe you think its is such a slight damage as to be unimportant. you have a right to your opinion and im not inclined to debate whether its a good one or not. its sufficient to say that i disagree with you.

however the point was that its not a matter of a woman's right to choose. she does not have final say over the child she carries, she does not have the right to insist on medical procedures that affect the fetus. she probably doesnt even have the right to make the choice of a minor "designer" change in the fetus without the expressed consent of the father. when its not her body in question, her rights are limited.

If I'm a woman in the US, and the doctor tells me the child will be blue-eyed, there's nothing to stop me from going to the abortion clinic later and aborting the baby.

Absolutely nothing.

How is treating a fetus with hormones to come out heterosexual (or homosexual) harmful?

The treatment can obviously be used either way.

It's no more "harm" than selecting your child's eye color - and you're not destroying the fetus or an embryo in order to do so.

It sucks that you are right. I'd find that changing a baby's sex, sexual orientation, eye color, skin pigmentation to be immoral and unethical but that is a personal opinion.

If I'm a woman in the US, and the doctor tells me the child will be blue-eyed, there's nothing to stop me from going to the abortion clinic later and aborting the baby.

Absolutely nothing.Certainly not. The difference is, that in this instance, there is no human being other than the woman who is affected by this. There is no child to have its rights violated.
In the case of the hormone therapy, there is a child to have its rights violated.

It sucks that you are right. I'd find that changing a baby's sex, sexual orientation, eye color, skin pigmentation to be immoral and unethical but that is a personal opinion.

Note that I am not saying that designer babies are great, and that everyone should run out and make sure they have a good looking heterosexual baby with the potential intellect of Einstein, but that's what's going to happen, especially if it can be done without dumping a fetus.

Certainly not. The difference is, that in this instance, there is no human being other than the woman who is affected by this. There is no child to have its rights violated.
In the case of the hormone therapy, there is a child to have its rights violated.

The hormone therapy is being done to the fetus.

The hormone therapy is being done to the fetus.But a child is being affected. It's irrelevant when the therapy is being done.

But a child is being affected. It's irrelevant when the therapy is being done.

You have to prove the child in question would have, without the hormone therapy, most certainly have come out the other way.

Note that I am not saying that designer babies are great, and that everyone should run out and make sure they have a good looking heterosexual baby with the potential intellect of Einstein, but that's what's going to happen, especially if it can be done without dumping a fetus.

If I'm planning on having a baby with my wife, I would deal with what nature gave us. Abortion is one thing but this pursuit of perfection is frightening to me. When does it stop? I just imagine Soccer Mom to the extreme. What happens when a baby who's had all the designer enhancements fails to be perfect in the real world?

If I'm planning on having a baby with my wife, I would deal with what nature gave us. Abortion is one thing but this pursuit of perfection is frightening to me. When does it stop? I just imagine Soccer Mom to the extreme. What happens when a baby who's had all the designer enhancements fails to be perfect in the real world?

Someone will get sued.

Several people in this thread have said that if their sexual orientation had been changed without their consent, that they'd feel violated. Likely, they'd sue the person who changed it.

Complainant:
Your honor, I’m suing my Mother because she watched her diet and balanced her medications for her hormones and took pre-natal nutrition supplements and additional Folic acid and Omega 3 doses, all while she was pregnant with me and created the conditions in her uterus that were likeliest for me to develop a healthy body. However, I am not homosexually inclined now and I think I might have been otherwise, so I would like to sue her for loss of quality of life.

Judge:
You want to be a homosexual now you say, but you are not? Why is that? If you want to be a homosexual, be a homosexual. I’d like to know what’s stopping you from participating in homosexuality now?

Complainant:
I tried homosexual sex your honor, and I don’t like it, so I’m suing my mother for damages…

Judge:
*Long blank stare*
I dismiss this case after finding it to be without merit.
*bangs hammer on gavel*

The hormone therapy is being done to the fetus.

The hormone therapy is being done to the mother. The article used the example that someday the mother could wear the treatment like a anti-smoking patch on her arm while she is pregnant.

The hormone therapy is being done to the mother. The article used the example that someday the mother could wear the treatment like a anti-smoking patch on her arm while she is pregnant.

I'm still failing to see something that would meet the legal definition of "harm".

Unless, of course, you already happen to be a homosexual, and realize that if the technology works, and catches on, there will be a sudden historical vanishing of homosexuals from the face of the Earth, without anyone being killed or forced to do something against their will.

I'm still failing to see something that would meet the legal definition of "harm".

Unless, of course, you already happen to be a homosexual, and realize that if the technology works, and catches on, there will be a sudden historical vanishing of homosexuals from the face of the Earth, without anyone being killed or forced to do something against their will.

True. There is no killing, no eradication. The word harm cannot be used. The only side-affect to the woman putting "a patch" on "her" body would be that it would inadvertantly have some affect on the child. If the women decides to eat healthy or just go to burger king everyday also has an affect on the child, but do I see these people suggest banning that unhealthy food is given to pregnant mothers because it might weaken their child?

Indeed the only people who are getting the flakside of this are homosexuals, who will run out of lovers or people likethemselves to fraternize with. For the rest there will be no significant change.

Like the person earlier said, the idea of a court case is ludicruous. If you are unhappy with being heterosexual nothing is stopping you from being homosexual.

I do not necessarily see it as right, but I am pragmatic and realistic. I see little future for homosexuals as technology progresses, they are somewhat becoming a fossil of the past. As such "cures" and their certain implication show.

Whether or not it's ethical is completely a matter of opinion. But it is practical.

True. There is no killing, no eradication. The word harm cannot be used. The only side-affect to the woman putting "a patch" on "her" body would be that it would inadvertantly have some affect on the child. If the women decides to eat healthy or just go to burger king everyday also has an affect on the child, but do I see these people suggest banning that unhealthy food is given to pregnant mothers because it might weaken their child?

Indeed the only people who are getting the flakside of this are homosexuals, who will run out of lovers or people likethemselves to fraternize with. For the rest there will be no significant change.

Like the person earlier said, the idea of a court case is ludicruous. If you are unhappy with being heterosexual nothing is stopping you from being homosexual.

I do not necessarily see it as right, but I am pragmatic and realistic. I see little future for homosexuals as technology progresses, they are somewhat becoming a fossil of the past. As such "cures" and their certain implication show.

Ridiculous. This suggests that people will continue to be so narrow-minded which doesn't bear out in history. A hundred years ago it would have seemed logical that such technology might bread out black people. Except that people have changed and the idea today would seem ludicrous.

Not all people are rich enough to do this nor are all people or even most people so ignorant.

Meanwhile, homosexuality would only disappear if people did away with not only homosexual children but chose not to have children at all if they discovered they could have a homosexual child, because unless the genes are completely wiped out which is unlikelly it would continue to be passed on and eventually manifest.

Whether or not it's ethical is completely a matter of opinion. But it is practical.

How do you find it practical? I think I just don't understand your intention behind using that word.

If I'm a woman in the US, and the doctor tells me the child will be blue-eyed, there's nothing to stop me from going to the abortion clinic later and aborting the baby.

Absolutely nothing.

nor should there be as long as you are within the legal time period for abortion on demand. if you are outside of that window, your doctor has an ethical and legal responsibility to make sure that your choice is based on medical criteria. that window and those criteria depends on what jurisdiction you are operating in.

You have to prove the child in question would have, without the hormone therapy, most certainly have come out the other way.

No, you don't.

You just have to prove that it happens often enough that the practice should be banned. Which, since the whole point is to prevent homosexuality, is presupposed.

No, you don't.

You just have to prove that it happens often enough that the practice should be banned. Which, since the whole point is to prevent homosexuality, is presupposed.
The issue, as I said to Jello, arises when it comes to deciding whether or not homosexuality is a disease. A large enough proportion of the population is mentally retarded - if one arrogates the use of genetic engineering to eliminate this in their child, the same argument could be mounted against it. One must either wholly reject the idea of prenatal genetic engineering, accept it in the case only of corrective procedures (which may subsume eliminating homosexuality, and can be considered the initiation of force if the subject is not pleased) or accept it in its entirety.

The issue, as I said to Jello, arises when it comes to deciding whether or not homosexuality is a disease. A large enough proportion of the population is mentally retarded - if one arrogates the use of genetic engineering to eliminate this in their child, the same argument could be mounted against it. One must either wholly reject the idea of prenatal genetic engineering, accept it in the case only of corrective procedures (which may subsume eliminating homosexuality, and can be considered the initiation of force if the subject is not pleased) or accept it in its entirety.


the good has to outweigh the bad. since there are not deliterious effects of being gay, its pretty hard to find enough good to weigh at all

A large enough proportion of the population is mentally retarded - if one arrogates the use of genetic engineering to eliminate this in their child, the same argument could be mounted against it.

Except in that case, there is a justification for the act - namely, to substantially improve the welfare of the future person.

There is no such justification for this.

Except in that case, there is a justification for the act - namely, to substantially improve the welfare of the future person.

There is no such justification for this.
In a homophobic society I'd think it would substantially improve the welfare of the future person, don't you?

the good has to outweigh the bad. since there are not deliterious effects of being gay, its pretty hard to find enough good to weigh at all
In the context of a tolerant society, of course not. In a society where the future person's life would be made difficult by social non-acceptance, perhaps making it more difficult for the parents to raise it too, things change. To disambiguate, this is not my opinion on the matter - I would consider all genetic engineering an initiation of force, which it is up to the person affected to sue against.

Wait a minute.

Is this thread about eugenics or homosexuality? :confused:

In a homophobic society I'd think it would substantially improve the welfare of the future person, don't you?

Depends on how homophobic. Maybe in Iran.

Even then, I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea of societal prejudice determining these kinds of questions.

In a homophobic society I'd think it would substantially improve the welfare of the future person, don't you?


In the context of a tolerant society, of course not. In a society where the future person's life would be made difficult by social non-acceptance, perhaps making it more difficult for the parents to raise it too, things change.

sure in the future we might design our children for all sorts of things from body shape to skin color to athletic ability to inquisitiveness. that doesnt mean it would ever be right.

Depends on how homophobic. Maybe in Iran.

Even then, I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea of societal prejudice determining these kinds of questions.
To my understanding you're evoking a utilitarian argument. In the case of a homophobic society, genetically engineering a person to be heterosexual would clearly benefit them. This is obviously a matter of opinion, but the same applies to the case of mental retardation and similar situations. In both cases, the engineering is taking place in spite of the will of the future person.

sure in the future we might design our children for all sorts of things from body shape to skin color to athletic ability to inquisitiveness. that doesnt mean it would ever be right.
I agree. It's always a violation of a freedom in the end - personally, I'd leave it up to the party affected whether or not they'll sue for it. I'd certainly consider them entitled to do so.

To my understanding you're evoking a utilitarian argument.

Not really. My position on this issue is incompatible with utilitarianism. The pure utilitarian would let the mother go ahead with it; it satisfies her preference without interfering with the happiness of the child. This is one of the places where utilitarianism does not merely encounter trouble, but crumbles to pieces and becomes pretty useless.

That said, I remain a consequentialist, and as such, I think that compelling circumstances (like the basic welfare of the child) can justify certain would-be evils (designing the child.)

In the case of a homophobic society, genetically engineering a person to be heterosexual would clearly benefit them.

Probably, but I'm not sure that that's a good enough justification.

Okay... Having read through the entire backlog of posts, a few comments.

First off, anything that gives us a greater degree of control over the human genome and over environmental factors that have similar effects is a GOOD thing. Speaking figuratively, Mother Nature is a mean old bitch, and speaking literally, the very idea of "nature" is flawed - it assumes that there's some kind of entity or predetermined pattern to the way life works, when in reality there's not much to it besides probability and survival.

That said, why anyone intelligent would waste time altering a trait like homo/heterosexuality when there are things like IQ, physical strength, reflexes, genetic diseases, immortality and even appearance to be altered is beyond me. That still leaves the massive number of non-intelligent people to be considered, but one of the main points of a eugenic society in the first place is to let stupid people fade out of existence. =)

With regard to the abortion / altering a child argument - let me put it this way.

If we assume that altering a fetus's DNA or hormonal balance affects the child and the rights of the child, then it is necessary for the abstract concept of the "future child" to be relevant even while it's only a fetus.

That way, altering the fetus affects the abstract concept of the child, and the abstract concept of the child exists even if it is a fetus.

With that in mind, abortion IS nothing but an extreme and rather blunt manifestation of altering the child - the "future child" is affected in that it ceases to exist, when it WOULD exist by default.

However, I am not opposed to abortion - with the possible exception of banning it in cases where the fetus is healthy and the average IQ of the parents is above a certain threshold. =)

On the actual subject of this thread itself, I'd say that altering an unborn child's DNA or hormones to make it gay or straight is immoral, mostly on the grounds that it's a waste of resources, and on the grounds that it's altering something which is personal, undamaging, and philosophical rather than practical. If I were in a position to dictate policy, I wouldn't make it illegal, but I would tax it enough to make it very, very expensive. =)

Finally, to the handful of posters who oppose altering a fetus's future sexuality but make comments like, "let's eliminate religion in the womb" or "let's eliminate bias in the womb" - please, at least PRETEND to be consistent, or don't waste our time. It takes long enough just to read all the relevant posts in this thread.

Meanwhile, homosexuality would only disappear if people did away with not only homosexual children but chose not to have children at all if they discovered they could have a homosexual child, because unless the genes are completely wiped out which is unlikelly it would continue to be passed on and eventually manifest.

You've lurched uncontrollably into the truth. That will indeed be the next step in the progression. Eventually biological science will identify and eliminate the defective gene or genes involved. Speed the day :D

The pro-choicers are in favor of a woman's right to control her body. In this case, there is another human being involved. In abortion, there is not.

I see. So, if the woman chooses to undergo hormone therapy that affects her unborn baby, er, fetus, there is "another human being involved," while if she chooses to undergo a saline injection or a surgical procedure that burns, dismembers or otherwise affects that same fetus, "there is not."

Please explain precisely when "another human being" becomes involved in the former procedure but not the latter.

You've lurched uncontrollably into the truth. That will indeed be the next step in the progression. Eventually biological science will identify and eliminate the defective gene or genes involved. Speed the day :D

What if there are no defective genes involved at all? What if, much like skin color, which is another human trait which exists along a spectrum, all genes involved are perfectly functional and the sexuality that is eventually expressed is highly dependent (although not completely dependent) upon the particular combination of said genes?

I see. So, if the woman chooses to undergo hormone therapy that affects her unborn baby, er, fetus, there is "another human being involved," while if she chooses to undergo a saline injection or a surgical procedure that burns, dismembers or otherwise affects that same fetus, "there is not."

Please explain precisely when "another human being" becomes involved in the former procedure but not the latter.

If a woman drinks a great deal of alcohol and never has a child, can she be held responsible for anyone's fetal alcohol syndrome?

If a woman is aware of her pregnancy, plans on carrying to term, and drinks a great deal of alcohol while pregnant, should she be held responsible for her infant's fetal alcohol syndrome?



As for the original question:

Would it be ethical for a mother to take a pill to make sure that her child was not heterosexual? To try and ensure homosexuality instead?

If one is unethical, the other is as well.

Please explain precisely when "another human being" becomes involved in the former procedure but not the latter.

another human being becomes involved when its born. when the pregnant woman agrees to carry the fetus to term, she has a responsibility to not harm it. in no case does she "own" anything but her own body

With that in mind, abortion IS nothing but an extreme and rather blunt manifestation of altering the child - the "future child" is affected in that it ceases to exist, when it WOULD exist by default.

But since it does not exist, it has no claim. The only relevance of the "future child" is the possibility of interference with actual freedom and welfare of an existing person at a future point in time.

...
As for the original question:

Would it be ethical for a mother to take a pill to make sure that her child was not heterosexual? To try and ensure homosexuality instead?

If one is unethical, the other is as well.

I would have thought that you of all people would not have played word games with the blatant misunderstanding and disinformation of hormone treatments and their affects on the human anatomy.

Try reading the OP's article again and then apply the research to what we already know. To pretend that it is not useful is disingenuous at best or purposefully misleading at worst.

Hormones like androgens have more than 200 actions in women, androgen deficiency and hyperandrogenism can both cause problems.

In women, androgens are produced in the ovaries, adrenal glands and fat cells. In fact, women may produce too much or too little of these hormones -- disorders of androgen excess and deficiency affect an estimated 5 to 10 percent of women and are among the more common hormonal disorders in women.
http://www.healthywomen.org/healthtopics/androgen/q/L2/5/L1/3/

If the OP’s article is correct, then the 5 to 10 percent of women with androgen disorders (previously existing condition or caused by the pregnancy, etc.,) could go a long way in explaining what the scientists are trying to achieve with the treatment of the sheep.

IF this corresponds to a similar treatment in women, then we are NOT talking about an anti-gay treatment for pregnant mothers, we are talking about a hormonal treatment for women who’s systems are out of whack and would benefit from treatment. Hormones do NOT only treat the sexual aspects of the child or the mothers, hormones affect all aspects of the mothers physical well being and overall mental health. This sort of treatment could not affect ONLY the child’s sexual identity, that’s an impossibility. What is far more likely, and even predictably expected (if the science in the OP’s article stands up to peer review and turns out to be applicable to humans) then everything from ADHD and Depression disorders for the children to Post partum depression in the mother’s and a multitude of physical ailments can be treated before they occur.

Hormonal changes can also make you feel more anxious than usual. Anxiety is another condition that can and should be treated during pregnancy.

Depression and anxiety may go undiagnosed because women often dismiss their feelings, chalking them up to the temporary moodiness that often accompanies pregnancy. So don't be shy about letting your doctor or midwife know if you feel low. Your emotional health is every bit as important as your physical health. And in fact, it can affect your physical health.

Research has shown, for instance, that depression and anxiety can increase your risk for preterm labor. Untreated, these conditions can hamper your ability to care for yourself and your developing baby. http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/pregnancy/prenatalhealth/9179.html

Treatment of these conditions would result in exactly what the OP’s article was talking about. It is NOT unethical to treat hormonal balance in women, even while they are pregnant. And if there are less homosexually inclined children born because of this treatment, then so be it, because IF you really believe that homosexuals are the result of hormone imbalances while in the womb, then homosexuality does not deserve to be preserved any more than alcohol syndrome in babies deserves to be preserved, as both would simply be products of a poisoned or unhealthy pregnancy environment.

So it's wrong for people to try to breed out the homosexuality, but yet, its ok to abort a child because he's handicapped/disabled.

Whoo Whooo, here comes the hypocrite train!

I would have thought that you of all people would not have played word games with the blatant misunderstanding and disinformation of hormone treatments and their affects on the human anatomy.

Try reading the OP's article again and then apply the research to what we already know. To pretend that it is not useful is disingenuous at best or purposefully misleading at worst.

Hormones like androgens have more than 200 actions in women, androgen deficiency and hyperandrogenism can both cause problems.

In women, androgens are produced in the ovaries, adrenal glands and fat cells. In fact, women may produce too much or too little of these hormones -- disorders of androgen excess and deficiency affect an estimated 5 to 10 percent of women and are among the more common hormonal disorders in women.
http://www.healthywomen.org/healthtopics/androgen/q/L2/5/L1/3/

If the OP’s article is correct, then the 5 to 10 percent of women with androgen disorders (previously existing condition or caused by the pregnancy, etc.,) could go a long way in explaining what the scientists are trying to achieve with the treatment of the sheep.

IF this corresponds to a similar treatment in women, then we are NOT talking about an anti-gay treatment for pregnant mothers, we are talking about a hormonal treatment for women who’s systems are out of whack and would benefit from treatment. Hormones do NOT only treat the sexual aspects of the child or the mothers, hormones affect all aspects of the mothers physical well being and overall mental health. This sort of treatment could not affect ONLY the child’s sexual identity, that’s an impossibility. What is far more likely, and even predictably expected (if the science in the OP’s article stands up to peer review and turns out to be applicable to humans) then everything from ADHD and Depression disorders for the children to Post partum depression in the mother’s and a multitude of physical ailments can be treated before they occur.

Hormonal changes can also make you feel more anxious than usual. Anxiety is another condition that can and should be treated during pregnancy.

Depression and anxiety may go undiagnosed because women often dismiss their feelings, chalking them up to the temporary moodiness that often accompanies pregnancy. So don't be shy about letting your doctor or midwife know if you feel low. Your emotional health is every bit as important as your physical health. And in fact, it can affect your physical health.

Research has shown, for instance, that depression and anxiety can increase your risk for preterm labor. Untreated, these conditions can hamper your ability to care for yourself and your developing baby. http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/pregnancy/prenatalhealth/9179.html

Treatment of these conditions would result in exactly what the OP’s article was talking about. It is NOT unethical to treat hormonal balance in women, even while they are pregnant. And if there are less homosexually inclined children born because of this treatment, then so be it, because IF you really believe that homosexuals are the result of hormone imbalances while in the womb, then homosexuality does not deserve to be preserved any more than alcohol syndrome in babies deserves to be preserved, as both would simply be products of a poisoned or unhealthy pregnancy environment.

Wow, talk about just blatantly making things up. The purpose of the experiments according to the article is to change the sexual orientation of the rams, nothing else. The lead researcher discusses sexuality as the purpose of the experiments. Yet, you call her disingenuous while suggesting that this simply because this could apply to postive issues that it makes it okay to use it for ill means. That has been the justification for nearly every form of unethical medical experimentation or procedure since the beginning of time.

The OP article, the OP and the discussion is about whether or not it is ethical to breed for sexuality. Trying to pretend this is about something else is what is purposefully misleading. She addressed the point. Your turn.

So it's wrong for people to try to breed out the homosexuality, but yet, its ok to abort a child because he's handicapped/disabled.

Whoo Whooo, here comes the hypocrite train!

We're not talking about abortion. With abortion, there is no child. No one is in existence to claim harm. However, we are talking about a procedure where a child is born with a sexuality that was chosen by the parents, not the child.

We're not talking about abortion. With abortion, there is no child. No one is in existence to claim harm. However, we are talking about a procedure where a child is born with a sexuality that was chosen by the parents, not the child.

Well, I guess no one will be able to use the tired out phase "They don't choose to be gay." :p . There really is no difference between the two. A child can't help the way he is born physically and sexually, and to try to change one, or to prevent one is wrong.

Looks like I didn't make the sarcasm obvious enough.

You're right, of course, with respect to the so-called "pro-choice" crowd. The only choice they're in favor of is the choice to murder unborn babies. But since they choose to use a misleading euphemism for their real beliefs, I choose to turn it around and throw it back in their faces.

But regardless of their actual agenda, the same logic applies. If the woman chooses to undergo hormone therapy, for any reason or no reason, that's between her and her doctor and nobody else. Pro-choicers can't have it both ways.

My own position doesn't rely on the pro-choice argument. I favor any medical advance that will enable me to ensure that none of my children develop into dead-ends and wastes of my investment as a parent, and that will increase the likelihood of the continuance of my genetic legacy.

Your lack of understanding does not an argument make. When there is no child, harm to the child is impossible. The only choice to be made is that of the woman. When there is a child, which undoubtedly happens if a child is born, then harm is most certainly possible, anyone who cared for that child at any time, including prior to its birth, should be held responsible for it's welfare. I can't sign a child into slavery just because I did it before the child was born. An action of harm, any action of harm, is considered to have been performed at the time at the point the injured party experienced that harm.

Well, I guess no one will be able to use the tired out phase "They don't choose to be gay." :p . There really is no difference between the two. A child can't help the way he is born physically and sexually, and to try to change one, or to prevent one is wrong.

Again, a child cannot be harmed if it does not exist. To prevent the birth of a child, any child, for any reason, does not actually harm any child, since none exist. However, to 'edit' a child, any child, for any reason, could most certainly be construed as harm to the child. Now, their is a debate as to whether any particular 'edit' is harm when the child is born, however, when no child exists or ever existed, the lack of harm is logically obvious.

Meanwhile, the hormone therapy proves it is not a choice. That's the point. If the choice is made prior to their birth, they cannot choose to be gay or not gay, someone would have to choose as a proxy. Your prejudices and misunderstandings are not an argument.

Again, a child cannot be harmed if it does not exist. To prevent the birth of a child, any child, for any reason, does not actually harm any child, since none exist. However, to 'edit' a child, any child, for any reason, could most certainly be construed as harm to the child. Now, their is a debate as to whether any particular 'edit' is harm when the child is born, however, when no child exists or ever existed, the lack of harm is logically obvious.

So let me get this straight. It's harmful to the child that he be turned straight while in the womb, because he's born, and yet, it's not harmful to abort a disabled/handicapped child because it's not a child. Wow.... That is the biggest load I've ever heard in my entire life. You can't have it both ways!

So let me get this straight. It's harmful to the child that he be turned straight while in the womb, because he's born, and yet, it's not harmful to abort a disabled/handicapped child because it's not a child. Wow.... That is the biggest load I've ever heard in my entire life. You can't have it both ways!

Pardon? So can you please point me to the harmed person when none exists or ever exists?

By your argument, I could claim that a child is harmed when a woman turns me down for sex because she might be preventing the birth of a child.

There is only one way to prove harm, prove that a person was harmed. Here you've not done any of the work. Show that a person exists in the case of abortion and I've yet to see that in any abortion thread, ever. Once cognition begins in the third trimester the only abortions performed are to protect the life of the mother or if the child will not survive. Absent brain activity, we do not consider a human entity to be alive and have basically since we came to understand the brain in any real way. By any objective standard, there is not an existing person to claim harm.

However, undoubtedly when a birth occurs a person exists and claim harm. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I am trying to treat two different things as if they are *gasp* different. You're complaining because you want them to be the same and I refuse to ignore the differences simply because you order me to.

Pardon? So can you please point me to the harmed person when none exists or ever exists?

By your argument, I could claim that a child is harmed when a woman turns me down for sex because she might be preventing the birth of a child.

There is only one way to prove harm, prove that a person was harmed. Here you've not done any of the work. Show that a person exists in the case of abortion and I've yet to see that in any abortion thread, ever. Once cognition begins in the third trimester the only abortions performed are to protect the life of the mother or if the child will not survive. Absent brain activity, we do not consider a human entity to be alive and have basically since we came to understand the brain in any real way. By any objective standard, there is not an existing person to claim harm.

However, undoubtedly when a birth occurs a person exists and claim harm. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I am trying to treat two different things as if they are *gasp* different. You're complaining because you want them to be the same and I refuse to ignore the differences simply because you order me to.

Look, either the change that happens to a child in the womb is either harmful period, or not harmful. Why, because to you they are not a person until they are born. So, until the child is born, it's not a child, it's not a person, so anything done to it in the womb is not harmful because you don't recognize it as a child. You can't just say "Well it's harmful to the fetus because as soon as the fetus is born, then it'll be harmful. However if we abort the fetus, no that's not harmful because it's a fetus and not a living human being."

Either pick one or the other. It's either a child or fetus.

Look, either the change that happens to a child in the womb is either harmful period, or not harmful. Why, because to you they are not a person until they are born. So, until the child is born, it's not a child, it's not a person, so anything done to it in the womb is not harmful because you don't recognize it as a child. You can't just say "Well it's harmful to the fetus because as soon as the fetus is born, then it'll be harmful. However if we abort the fetus, no that's not harmful because it's a fetus and not a living human being."

You don't get it. The harm to the fetus is harm, but irrelevant - in both cases.

The relevant question is, is the child harmed? If the child doesn't exist (abortion), clearly the child isn't harmed. If the child is born, however, and has been affected by whatever was done to the fetus, then this effect could reasonably be construed as harmful.

Look, either the change that happens to a child in the womb is either harmful period, or not harmful. Why, because to you they are not a person until they are born. So, until the child is born, it's not a child, it's not a person, so anything done to it in the womb is not harmful because you don't recognize it as a child. You can't just say "Well it's harmful to the fetus because as soon as the fetus is born, then it'll be harmful. However if we abort the fetus, no that's not harmful because it's a fetus and not a living human being."

Either pick one or the other. It's either a child or fetus.

So can I sign my unborn into slavery? Nope, because according to the law if a person is harmed, then it doesn't matter when the action that harmed them was performed, it simply matters when the harm occurred. In the case of changing sexuality, the sexuality doesn't actually exist until the child does. It's the same if plant a land mine in my yard. Or if I set up a shotgun in case someone opens the door of my apartment. It doesn't matter if the person that stepped on the landmine or opened the door didn't exist when I set up the harm, it only matters that a person WAS harmed.

It's a fetus. That's a fact. But if it is born, once it is born, it's a child. That's also a fact. If that child is harmed, it doesn't matter when the harm was performed. It's really very simple. I'm not sure if your just being obtuse or if you're struggling the simply concept of a person being necessary to claim harm.

You don't get it. The harm to the fetus is harm, but irrelevant - in both cases.

The relevant question is, is the child harmed? If the child doesn't exist (abortion), clearly the child isn't harmed. If the child is born, however, and has been affected by whatever was the fetus, then this effect could reasonably be construed as harmful.

It's a relatively simple concept to be exposed to once one takes one's fingers out of one's ears and stops yelling "lalala, I can't hear you!!"

So let me get this straight. It's harmful to the child that he be turned straight while in the womb, because he's born, and yet, it's not harmful to abort a disabled/handicapped child because it's not a child. Wow.... That is the biggest load I've ever heard in my entire life. You can't have it both ways!Makes perfect sense to me. Let's see if another person explaining it to you makes a difference.
Abortion makes sure that there is no child. One does not develop. You cannot harm a child because a child never existed. So abortion cannot harm a child because- Ta-Da- a child doesn't exist.

If you change the sexual orientation of a fetus and then the fetus is allowed to develop into a child, Ta-Da- the child is born. So now you have a child. It was a fetus and thus had no rights at the time. But now it's a child who has been denied the right to make a choice that will effect him/her for the rest of his/her life.

It's the same way a woman who takes drugs during her pregnancy is responsible for the health effects on the child once it's born. If she is going to continue the pregnancy to full term, she is responsible for harm done to the child in its pre-child state because it's now a human being that has to deal with the health problems she stuck it with.

Just me, but I think it's more responsible to have an abortion than to carry a child to term when you're on drugs. Only people capable of properly caring for a child should have one.

Looking at my post I'm not so sure it's any clearer than the other one, but sometimes coming from a different angle makes things clearer.

I don't really see anything wrong with this by itself, it just gives the choise to the mother instead of having it be random.
However, there are almost certainly going to be side effects, and this would have to have a decent positive effect to justify those.
Which it doesn't.
So let's stick it into Soheran's "immoral but not illegal" catagory.

I see. So, if the woman chooses to undergo hormone therapy that affects her unborn baby, er, fetus, there is "another human being involved," while if she chooses to undergo a saline injection or a surgical procedure that burns, dismembers or otherwise affects that same fetus, "there is not."

Please explain precisely when "another human being" becomes involved in the former procedure but not the latter.

It really isn't that complex.

If a woman aborts, she is not going to be responsible for any future 'harm' to her offspring... because there will be no 'offspring'.

If a woman chooses to continue her pregnancy, any decisions she makes will affect her and her future offspring.

Look, either the change that happens to a child in the womb is either harmful period, or not harmful. Why, because to you they are not a person until they are born. So, until the child is born, it's not a child, it's not a person, so anything done to it in the womb is not harmful because you don't recognize it as a child. You can't just say "Well it's harmful to the fetus because as soon as the fetus is born, then it'll be harmful. However if we abort the fetus, no that's not harmful because it's a fetus and not a living human being."

Either pick one or the other. It's either a child or fetus.

Don't be ridiculous. A foetus is different to a born child. That's why we have two different words. And the two states have (and should have) very different legal status.

In case of abortion, only the 'mother' has 'rights'. In case of actually carrying a genetically-engineered baby to term, there is a second entity with 'rights'.

Don't be ridiculous. A foetus is different to a born child. That's why we have two different words. And the two states have (and should have) very different legal status.

In case of abortion, only the 'mother' has 'rights'. In case of actually carrying a genetically-engineered baby to term, there is a second entity with 'rights'.

There is a second entity with rights, once it is born and only once it is born. However, it is possible to infringe upon those rights even before it is born, the same way one can by rigging a trap or setting up a minefield.

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?

only if they use protection, or if one of them is asian

This means they've finally admitted homosexuality occurs in natue, and may actually be a genetic trait! I'm suprised. I'd never thought we'd get there.

How do you find it practical? I think I just don't understand your intention behind using that word.

Well, in the long run (as in over a million years) it'll help out humanity. Gay couples can't have kids. If all couples were straight, then we'd have more people in the world. But thinking about it, trying to set it up now would probably just cause conflict. Not that that's a bad thing, but at the moment it would either be banned or underused.

I would have thought that you of all people would not have played word games with the blatant misunderstanding and disinformation of hormone treatments and their affects on the human anatomy.

Try reading the OP's article again and then apply the research to what we already know. To pretend that it is not useful is disingenuous at best or purposefully misleading at worst.

I read the OP's article. Interestingly enough, it talks only about reducing the incidence of homosexuality. There is nothing in there about postpartum depression, anxiety, or any such thing.

And, unless you have some sort of evidence that women whose sons turn out to be homosexual suffer from such problems at a higher rate than those whose sons are not homosexual, it is completely irrelevant.

We aren't talking about a treatment that would have the purpose of making the woman or the infant healthier. The goal of the researchers in question is not to make the sheep - the ewe or the ram - healthier. The entire goal is to reduce the incidence of rams who prefer other rams. There is no evidence that said rams or the ewes that bear them are unhealthy.

IF this corresponds to a similar treatment in women, then we are NOT talking about an anti-gay treatment for pregnant mothers,

Actually, that is precisely what we are talking about. To pretend otherwise is, what was your word? Disingenuous?

we are talking about a hormonal treatment for women who’s systems are out of whack and would benefit from treatment.

In the current discussion, they are only "out of whack", if you consider homosexuality "out of whack." The mother could just as well, as I said, prefer to have a homosexual child and attempt to achieve that.

Hormones do NOT only treat the sexual aspects of the child or the mothers, hormones affect all aspects of the mothers physical well being and overall mental health.

And yet, as I already pointed out, there is no evidence whatsoever that mothers who bear homosexual children are, in any way, less healthy than those who bear heterosexual or bisexual children. While it seems that hormonal balance within the womb can affect sexuality, it obviously doesn't have to go into the unhealthy range to do so.

Treatment of these conditions would result in exactly what the OP’s article was talking about. It is NOT unethical to treat hormonal balance in women, even while they are pregnant.

If it is for health, no, it isn't, but that isn't what we're talking about. The entire discussion is about treatments designed with the express purpose of reducing the incidence of homosexuality. Any other health effects would be side effects, rather than being the purpose of the treatment.

If it is because she doesn't want her son to be gay, then it is equally unethical with a hormonal treatment used to make her son gay.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the hormone balances that may contribute to sexuality are unhealthy, whether they contribute to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Unless you can produce such evidence, like I said, this entire post is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

I read the OP's article. Interestingly enough, it talks only about reducing the incidence of homosexuality. There is nothing in there about postpartum depression, anxiety, or any such thing.

And, unless you have some sort of evidence that women whose sons turn out to be homosexual suffer from such problems at a higher rate than those whose sons are not homosexual, it is completely irrelevant.

We aren't talking about a treatment that would have the purpose of making the woman or the infant healthier. The goal of the researchers in question is not to make the sheep - the ewe or the ram - healthier. The entire goal is to reduce the incidence of rams who prefer other rams. There is no evidence that said rams or the ewes that bear them are unhealthy.



Actually, that is precisely what we are talking about. To pretend otherwise is, what was your word? Disingenuous?



In the current discussion, they are only "out of whack", if you consider homosexuality "out of whack." The mother could just as well, as I said, prefer to have a homosexual child and attempt to achieve that.



And yet, as I already pointed out, there is no evidence whatsoever that mothers who bear homosexual children are, in any way, less healthy than those who bear heterosexual or bisexual children. While it seems that hormonal balance within the womb can affect sexuality, it obviously doesn't have to go into the unhealthy range to do so.



If it is for health, no, it isn't, but that isn't what we're talking about. The entire discussion is about treatments designed with the express purpose of reducing the incidence of homosexuality. Any other health effects would be side effects, rather than being the purpose of the treatment.

If it is because she doesn't want her son to be gay, then it is equally unethical with a hormonal treatment used to make her son gay.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the hormone balances that may contribute to sexuality are unhealthy, whether they contribute to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Unless you can produce such evidence, like I said, this entire post is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Excellent reply. He essentially attacked you for responding to the actual experiments rather than some random experiments that are at best tenuously related and haven't been cited. It's clear the purpose of the experiments were solely and expressly related to reducing the incidence of homosexuality.

Excellent reply. He essentially attacked you for responding to the actual experiments rather than some random experiments that are at best tenuously related and haven't been cited. It's clear the purpose of the experiments were solely and expressly related to reducing the incidence of homosexuality.

the whole article has little relation to human beings even if they did end up connecting it to the idea that there might come a day when one could detect incipient homosexuality in utero and treat it before birth.

inducing an animal who mates on instinct to choose a more conceptionistically appropriate mount is hardly the same as changing a human beings sexual orientation.

the whole article has little relation to human beings even if they did end up connecting it to the idea that there might come a day when one could detect incipient homosexuality in utero and treat it before birth.

inducing an animal who mates on instinct to choose a more conceptionistically appropriate mount is hardly the same as changing a human beings sexual orientation.

The experiment had little to do with human beings but the article suggested that it would have broader applications. Regardless, the point is that the experiment had only one purpose to prevent rams from being homosexuals, it had nothing to do with making them hormonally healthier as implied by our fine friend.

The relevant question is, is the child harmed? If the child doesn't exist (abortion), clearly the child isn't harmed. If the child is born, however, and has been affected by whatever was done to the fetus, then this effect could reasonably be construed as harmful.
I don't see how making sure a child is hetrosexual, before they're even born and without their knowledge, could ever be construed as harmful.

Also, considering how much against 'harming' a child you are, would you object to pregnant women being banned from smoking and drinking? (Things which will undoubtabley harm the child when it's born)

Also, considering how much against 'harming' a child you are, would you object to pregnant women being banned from smoking and drinking? (Things which will undoubtabley harm the child when it's born)
I don't think Soheran has argued for it to be banned, although I may be wrong. Is it unethical though? If doing something to someone against their will is considered such, then it always is.

I don't think Soheran has argued for it to be banned, although I may be wrong. Is it unethical though? If doing something to someone against their will is considered such, then it always is.

of course it should be banned. there are no treatments that would alter a fetus' hormonal or genetic balance that dont have side effects. no benefit + side effects = we dont do that.

I don't see how making sure a child is hetrosexual, before they're even born and without their knowledge, could ever be construed as harmful.

Could making sure a child is homosexual, before they're even born and without their knowledge, be construed as harmful?

What about making sure they are asexual? Bisexual?

Also, considering how much against 'harming' a child you are, would you object to pregnant women being banned from smoking and drinking? (Things which will undoubtabley harm the child when it's born)

It isn't undoubtedly. Quite a few women have done both without any measurable effects to the born child. However, if she engages in such behaviors after she knows she is pregnant, and the child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome or some other disorder with a recognizable tie to her behavior, I think she should be held responsible for that.

I read the OP's article. Interestingly enough, it talks only about reducing the incidence of homosexuality. There is nothing in there about postpartum depression, anxiety, or any such thing.

And, unless you have some sort of evidence that women whose sons turn out to be homosexual suffer from such problems at a higher rate than those whose sons are not homosexual, it is completely irrelevant.

We aren't talking about a treatment that would have the purpose of making the woman or the infant healthier. The goal of the researchers in question is not to make the sheep - the ewe or the ram - healthier. The entire goal is to reduce the incidence of rams who prefer other rams. There is no evidence that said rams or the ewes that bear them are unhealthy.



Actually, that is precisely what we are talking about. To pretend otherwise is, what was your word? Disingenuous?



In the current discussion, they are only "out of whack", if you consider homosexuality "out of whack." The mother could just as well, as I said, prefer to have a homosexual child and attempt to achieve that.



And yet, as I already pointed out, there is no evidence whatsoever that mothers who bear homosexual children are, in any way, less healthy than those who bear heterosexual or bisexual children. While it seems that hormonal balance within the womb can affect sexuality, it obviously doesn't have to go into the unhealthy range to do so.



If it is for health, no, it isn't, but that isn't what we're talking about. The entire discussion is about treatments designed with the express purpose of reducing the incidence of homosexuality. Any other health effects would be side effects, rather than being the purpose of the treatment.

If it is because she doesn't want her son to be gay, then it is equally unethical with a hormonal treatment used to make her son gay.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the hormone balances that may contribute to sexuality are unhealthy, whether they contribute to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Unless you can produce such evidence, like I said, this entire post is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Ah, I see how it is then. You take the negative comments by the ignorant and offended critics of the research and the negative and accusatory manner of the journalist's tone, as the significant measure of the article.

Then you can’t see the forest because of the trees. If every scientific effort is to be considered only by what it’s worst critiques say of it, then no research would ever be allowed to take place.

The very few times that the actual researchers words and opinions are used in the OP’s article, an article that is otherwise filled with mostly fear-mongering opinions of others, is to say this…

But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality.

And…

He said: “In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don’t want science looking into what determines sexuality.”
*bolding by me for counterpoint to your claims that the research is intended to treat or cure homosexuality... It is not, it is to discover the actuality of sexual orientation.

Those two phrases alone are enough to tell us that the journalist's agenda and the critics of the researchers work are nothing more than zealots on a witch hunt.

The results of the research itself is suggesting that the cause of the sexual orientation might be hormones, the cause is not genetics (and I’m sure that you understand the ramifications of that difference, or this conversation is pointless). The treatment of the mothers hormones during pregnancy could not otherwise affect the child’s sexual orientation if it were otherwise.

IF the research turns out to be onto something legitimate, and you continue to hold onto your preconceived notions of what is and what is not sexual orientation, then that is a sign that there is nothing more to be said here because your demand to end the research itself nothing different than just another flat Earther trying to stifle the research of Galileo because you don't like finding out that your preconcieved notions were incorrect… You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think this idea is fucked up! Me and my b.f.:fluffle: are perfectly happy being who we are. I don't belive anyone should have a say in another individuals sexual orentation esspecially an unborn childs!!

Even though the intention here may not be to "cure" homosexuality, the way it's being done leaves the door open for other researchers to try it.
And that's what we're talking about.

Ah, I see how it is then. You take the negative comments by the ignorant and offended critics of the research and the negative and accusatory manner of the journalist's tone, as the significant measure of the article.

It's what the article was about, my boy. I believe you are intending to refer to the research. Meanwhile, the expressed and only purpose of the research even according to the lead researcher was to make there be less homosexual rams. You are quite simply just making things up.


Then you can’t see the forest because of the trees. If every scientific effort is to be considered only by what it’s worst critiques say of it, then no research would ever be allowed to take place.

No, it's to be considered by what it's purpose is and whether it is ethical. It's purpose is to make homosexuals into heterosexuals. You pretend it has a different purpose and then act as if becuase you made up an unrelated purpose that changes the discussion.


The very few times that the actual researchers words and opinions are used in the OP’s article, an article that is otherwise filled with mostly fear-mongering opinions of others, is to say this…

But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality.

And…

He said: “In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don’t want science looking into what determines sexuality.”
*bolding by me for counterpoint to your claims that the research is intended to treat or cure homosexuality... It is not, it is to discover the actuality of sexual orientation.

Which is completely different than what you claimed it was about. You claimed it was about hormone therapy for disorders of pregnant mothers. Now, you're changing your tune. Anything to remain on the attack. How sad. Meanwhile, the purpose of the research is to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. Call that a cure or whatever you like, but that's the purpose of the research. She didn't call the research about a cure. She said it was about changing sexuality, which is exactly what we are discussing.


Those two phrases alone are enough to tell us that the journalist's agenda and the critics of the researchers work are nothing more than zealots on a witch hunt.

The results of the research itself is suggesting that the cause of the sexual orientation might be hormones, the cause is not genetics (and I’m sure that you understand the ramifications of that difference, or this conversation is pointless). The treatment of the mothers hormones during pregnancy could not otherwise affect the child’s sexual orientation if it were otherwise.

Dude, seriously, open a book. What do you think is determining these hormones among sheeps that live and grow in the same environment and receive the exact treatment and have a 10% occurrance of homosexuality? Because it is hormonal doesn't make it not be genetic. Hormones obviously affect the expression of genetics which is something that Dem has brought up again and again, however, that doesn't change the genetic link. You're taking one thing and pretending it means another. Please link to where this research suggests that a genetic link doesn't exist or at all evidences it or stop making crap up.

And while you're at, as she asked, please show that in order to 'correct' homosexuality that hormones must be at unhealthy levels. Please show that this research evidences ANY of your claims. We are discussing the article, but if you want to make this all about the research while claiming facts not in evidence, how about you introduce evidence.



IF the research turns out to be onto something legitimate, and you continue to hold onto your preconceived notions of what is and what is not sexual orientation, then that is a sign that there is nothing more to be said here because your demand to end the research itself nothing different than just another flat Earther trying to stifle the research of Galileo because you don't like finding out that your preconcieved notions were incorrect… You should be ashamed of yourself.

She didn't demand that they end the research. There is nothing in the article that suggests they are actually treating mother's hormones in order to correct this. According to the article the hormones are being changed in the brains of the homosexual rams, the part about mother's was an extrapolation of the article.

Meanwhile, the only preconceived notions you're claiming are not evidenced by things she's said, but instead things found in the article. She said the changing the sexuality of your offspring in any way was unethical. This says nothing about the ethics of the research. Once again you've posted an irrelevant attack on Dem when it says nothing about the topic of discussion which is whether or not it is ethical to perform a procedure designed to change the sexuality of a future human being. She stuck to the topic. Question - can you?

Even though the intention here may not be to "cure" homosexuality, the way it's being done leaves the door open for other researchers to try it.
And that's what we're talking about.

Obviously, we're discussing whether or not the act of changing the sexuality of a fetus is ethical, suggesting this is specfically about the ethics of the research is fallacious.

Hopefully by the time we have the ability to "cure" homosexuality we'll have come to the conclusion it's not something we need to cure. It's merely part of the normal spectrum of sexual preferences.

Obviously, we're discussing whether or not the act of changing the sexuality of a fetus is ethical, suggesting this is specfically about the ethics of the research is fallacious.

The OP's article was all about people trying to get the research stopped.

As to you other tired post addressed to me, perhaps you should have some understanding of the field of study before slamming your foot into the back of your mouth as hard as you can over and over again, it's quite absurd... But to address the majority of your complaints, about the argument not changing the genetic aspect of it, and what the objectives of the research is or is not...

The nerve bundles being studied were about 1.8 cubic millimeters in the rams that preferred females, and .44 cubic millimeters in the rams that preferred males.

An important aspect of the study is that homosexuality does not produce offspring, so researchers believe it is not a genetic trait, but a physical one.

"It wouldn't be passed down," he said. "It's got to be some type of biological phenomenon."

To continue their experiments, Stormshak helped design a test for their hypothesis using pregnant sheep.

On Nov. 18 of this month, Stormshak will begin treating pregnant females with a drug which will interfere with the conversion of testosterone to estrogen.

"It's the estrogen, surprisingly, in the male that causes masculinization of the brain," he said. "One would think it would be just the testosterone. It's not. It's the conversion of testosterone to estrogen."

An enzyme called aromatase is responsible for the conversion in the brain.
"The drug will block the activity of aromatase," Stormshak said.

If the treated sheep give birth to rams which mate with other males, it will confirm the researchers' hypothesis that reduced testosterone production in the uterus is one reason for homosexual behavior in sheep.

The estrogen produced in female sheep before birth is never in sufficient quantity to affect the brain, Stormshak said. "They have neutral brains."

OSU has already performed a similar experiment, but the drug was introduced from day 50 to day 80 of the gestation period. Since the brain has begun developing by day 30, he said, it was too late.

For the new experiment, Stormshak said they will administer the drug from day 30 to day 80 of gestation -- almost twice as long as the original experiment.
http://barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2002/11/08/News/Osu-Professor.Studies.Sexual.Preference.In.Sheep-2294650.shtml?norewrite200611131817&sourcedomain=barometer.orst.edu

Perhaps I assumed too much for thinking you would recognize the significance of the research and how it attacks previously held conceptions of causes of sexuality identification, but then again, I didn’t address you because I know you don’t understand it. I addressed Dem because I think she should be able to see the distinction between what the two concepts propose and how they differ. The basic element is, if the research proves to be right, then the mothers hormonal system forces the fetus ram’s brain to not fully develop by not giving it the required hormones to grow during gestation… the research is supposing this and despite the fact that in runs contrary to your world view of how these things should work in your opinion, it is what it is.

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

lol.... "fix"... lol...

But to address the majority of your complaints, about the argument not changing the genetic aspect of it, and what the objectives of the research is or is not...

[INDENT]The nerve bundles being studied were about 1.8 cubic millimeters in the rams that preferred females, and .44 cubic millimeters in the rams that preferred males.

An important aspect of the study is that homosexuality does not produce offspring, so researchers believe it is not a genetic trait, but a physical one.

"It wouldn't be passed down," he said. "It's got to be some type of biological phenomenon."

Stormshak, a professor of animal science is going to have his research laughed at by geneticists and neuronatologists around the world for those two quotes alone.


The basic element is, if the research proves to be right, then the mothers hormonal system forces the fetus ram’s brain to not fully develop by not giving it the required hormones to grow during gestation… The research does nothing of the sort as no consideration of the variety and incidence of natural alleles is made. It's like deciding that blue is the only correct eye color, and then manipulating the fetus in vivo to assure that all are born blue-eyed. And frankly I'm sure someone has already told you this already.

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?

If this "straightening" occurs in utero then I have no problem with it. I do strongly oppose any of this after birth, however. Everyone should be able to become their own person, and any retardation or confusion of this process would be unethical to me.

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.

For one thing, there is nothing that states that this is a matter of being able to love the child. While I agree that anyone who would be able cease to care for their child upon finding that it is homosexual is an abysmal parent, I would not preclude people who would prefer that their future child is not homosexual.

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

And if the parents believe that being heterosexual will improve the life of the child, how is this different?

In the end, what is the ethical problem of changing the sexuality of a child that does not exist, assuming that the procedure has no lingering affects on the child.

The OP's article was all about people trying to get the research stopped.

As to you other tired post addressed to me, perhaps you should have some understanding of the field of study before slamming your foot into the back of your mouth as hard as you can over and over again, it's quite absurd... But to address the majority of your complaints, about the argument not changing the genetic aspect of it, and what the objectives of the research is or is not...

The nerve bundles being studied were about 1.8 cubic millimeters in the rams that preferred females, and .44 cubic millimeters in the rams that preferred males.

An important aspect of the study is that homosexuality does not produce offspring, so researchers believe it is not a genetic trait, but a physical one.

"It wouldn't be passed down," he said. "It's got to be some type of biological phenomenon."

To continue their experiments, Stormshak helped design a test for their hypothesis using pregnant sheep.

On Nov. 18 of this month, Stormshak will begin treating pregnant females with a drug which will interfere with the conversion of testosterone to estrogen.

"It's the estrogen, surprisingly, in the male that causes masculinization of the brain," he said. "One would think it would be just the testosterone. It's not. It's the conversion of testosterone to estrogen."

An enzyme called aromatase is responsible for the conversion in the brain.
"The drug will block the activity of aromatase," Stormshak said.

If the treated sheep give birth to rams which mate with other males, it will confirm the researchers' hypothesis that reduced testosterone production in the uterus is one reason for homosexual behavior in sheep.

The estrogen produced in female sheep before birth is never in sufficient quantity to affect the brain, Stormshak said. "They have neutral brains."

OSU has already performed a similar experiment, but the drug was introduced from day 50 to day 80 of the gestation period. Since the brain has begun developing by day 30, he said, it was too late.

For the new experiment, Stormshak said they will administer the drug from day 30 to day 80 of gestation -- almost twice as long as the original experiment.
http://barometer.orst.edu/media/storage/paper854/news/2002/11/08/News/Osu-Professor.Studies.Sexual.Preference.In.Sheep-2294650.shtml?norewrite200611131817&sourcedomain=barometer.orst.edu

Perhaps I assumed too much for thinking you would recognize the significance of the research and how it attacks previously held conceptions of causes of sexuality identification, but then again, I didn’t address you because I know you don’t understand it. I addressed Dem because I think she should be able to see the distinction between what the two concepts propose and how they differ. The basic element is, if the research proves to be right, then the mothers hormonal system forces the fetus ram’s brain to not fully develop by not giving it the required hormones to grow during gestation… the research is supposing this and despite the fact that in runs contrary to your world view of how these things should work in your opinion, it is what it is.


Amusing. You continue to fail. We are disccusing whether such an act as choosing the sexuality of a fetus is ethical, the article brings it up. That is the purpose of the article being included and the OP makes that clear. Your feelings on what the research can and should be used for is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, any scientist that says that a phenomena that makes you not breed cannot be genetic doesn't know crap about genetics. That guy would get laughed out the room if he ran in nearly any science circle. See, scientists are aware of these things called recessive traits which will not manifest in everything that carries the genetics for the phenomena. They may not be expressed but they are still carried and passed.

And, while we're at it, it's a widely held view that sexuality is a combination of genetic and hormonal forces. The research referenced in the original article supports that view.

Now, since you're squirming here and I enjoy it when you squirm, let's see if your other claims bear out and that this is not about changing homosexuality to heterosexuality and that it's really about treating hormanal disorders in pregnant women.

And I quote -
"Our model is the ram model, and we have no interest in getting involved in the human aspect of this," Stormshak repeated his colleague's concerns. "Our research pertains specifically to the sheep. We are not trying to extrapolate our data that we've acquired from studying these rams to the human being."

Well, jeez, that just makes your claims look silly. And, of course, they're not trying to "cure" homosexuality in humans. They haven't even considered the effect on humans.


And, again, I quote -
Aside from his goal to understand the animals better, Stormshak says the knowledge could help breeders choose rams in the future.

He says clearly it is his intent for this study to be used by breeders to prevent the existance of homosexual sheep, precisely what anyone would mean by "cure" homosexuality. This may not be an effort to cure homosexuality in humans, but it certainly is an effort to cure homosexuality in sheep. He just doesn't like the word.

If I said I was researching how to make cats not be born blind and that I intended to pass this research on to breeders of cats that they might use it for that purpose, I'd be just playing a semantic game if I suggested I wasn't trying to cure it.

If this "straightening" occurs in utero then I have no problem with it. I do strongly oppose any of this after birth, however. Everyone should be able to become their own person, and any retardation or confusion of this process would be unethical to me.



For one thing, there is nothing that states that this is a matter of being able to love the child. While I agree that anyone who would be able cease to care for their child upon finding that it is homosexual is an abysmal parent, I would not preclude people who would prefer that their future child is not homosexual.



And if the parents believe that being heterosexual will improve the life of the child, how is this different?

In the end, what is the ethical problem of changing the sexuality of a child that does not exist, assuming that the procedure has no lingering affects on the child.

Would you take the same hands off approach if parents were choosing to make their children homosexual?

And it does have lingering effects on the child. The lingering effects are the purpose of the procedure. The child does exist once it is born, and once thta happens anything done in utero to that child that alters it is certainly a question of ethics. Can I make it four feet tall, provided I do it in utero? Three? Two? One? Where is the line and who makes it when we're talking about designer children?

There is a second entity with rights, once it is born and only once it is born. However, it is possible to infringe upon those rights even before it is born, the same way one can by rigging a trap or setting up a minefield.

Yes, that is pretty much the point I was making.

You don't infringe the rights of the foetus by editing it in utero... because jell-o doesn't have rights. However, you may be storing up trouble for yourself after the foetus is carried full term, and the born child is found to have been 'damaged' by actions you took while it was gestating.

(Obviously, this is the communal 'you'... not a specific 'you'.) :)

I wish I remembered the study or find a copy of it on the net, but I read one that hypothesized that homosexuality is in fact a biological population control phenomenon. There was also that study which suggested a man's probability of being gay was determined by the number of older male siblings.

Which of course means the last Baldwin will be flaaaaaming.

Ah, I see how it is then. You take the negative comments by the ignorant and offended critics of the research and the negative and accusatory manner of the journalist's tone, as the significant measure of the article.

Then you can’t see the forest because of the trees. If every scientific effort is to be considered only by what it’s worst critiques say of it, then no research would ever be allowed to take place.

The very few times that the actual researchers words and opinions are used in the OP’s article, an article that is otherwise filled with mostly fear-mongering opinions of others, is to say this…

But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality.

And…

He said: “In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don’t want science looking into what determines sexuality.”
*bolding by me for counterpoint to your claims that the research is intended to treat or cure homosexuality... It is not, it is to discover the actuality of sexual orientation.

Those two phrases alone are enough to tell us that the journalist's agenda and the critics of the researchers work are nothing more than zealots on a witch hunt.

The results of the research itself is suggesting that the cause of the sexual orientation might be hormones, the cause is not genetics (and I’m sure that you understand the ramifications of that difference, or this conversation is pointless). The treatment of the mothers hormones during pregnancy could not otherwise affect the child’s sexual orientation if it were otherwise.

IF the research turns out to be onto something legitimate, and you continue to hold onto your preconceived notions of what is and what is not sexual orientation, then that is a sign that there is nothing more to be said here because your demand to end the research itself nothing different than just another flat Earther trying to stifle the research of Galileo because you don't like finding out that your preconcieved notions were incorrect… You should be ashamed of yourself.

If a person says a thing, is it so?

If the researcher says he has no ulterior motive, is it automatically true? When 'nationalistic' partisans promote 'experiments' to find out if one 'race' is inferior to another, is their assurance that they are merely interested in science believable? Is it sufficient disclaimer to allow their arguments to be considered purely objective?

The acid test is criticism. If the research data (and the claimed platform) stand up to criticism, then the objectivity of the process can be assumed. The confusing thing, then, is why you seem to think criticism of the science or scientist is a negative thing?

An important aspect of the study is that homosexuality does not produce offspring, so researchers believe it is not a genetic trait, but a physical one.


I have to admit, I started ignoring the rest of your citation at this point.

Anyone who claims to be 'in the field', and yet argues that "homosexuality does not produce offspring" (which presupposes that ALL activities by 'homosexual' entities MUST be 'homosexual' activity), and continues to argue "so... it is not a genetic trait" (which ignores the simple fact that it could be something that is genetically encoded in EVERY entity, but only MANIFESTED in some) is of questionable objectivity/reliability at the outset.

Maybe we can just give it to people who we are pretty sure are going to jail when they grow up. I mean think about it. The prisoners will also complain a lot less about human rights violations if Big George isn't trying to break down their back door with a jackhammer. Of course then we'll have to discuss whether it's ethical to make a person think their whole life will end with them in prison as a result of the little patch. I say we just kill everyone and get it over with. You can't hate someone if you're dead. :mp5: :sniper:


-Note- These last two sentences were taken from George W. Bush's secret plan on what to do if McDonald's didn't bring back the McRib.

A resounding YES!!!

I certainly can´t think of anything better than a good eugenics program. It may be the only option for the long term survival of our hopelessly screwed up species to survive. Sure, it´s a million to one gamble. But you´ve gotta love those odds!!!! :D

A resounding YES!!!

I certainly can´t think of anything better than a good eugenics program. It may be the only option for the long term survival of our hopelessly screwed up species to survive. Sure, it´s a million to one gamble. But you´ve gotta love those odds!!!! :D

Au contraire, mon ami... if we can't get along without eugenics, is there really any point in us reproducing?

I have to admit, I started ignoring the rest of your citation at this point.

Anyone who claims to be 'in the field', and yet argues that "homosexuality does not produce offspring" (which presupposes that ALL activities by 'homosexual' entities MUST be 'homosexual' activity), and continues to argue "so... it is not a genetic trait" (which ignores the simple fact that it could be something that is genetically encoded in EVERY entity, but only MANIFESTED in some) is of questionable objectivity/reliability at the outset.


That one statement was so ignorant, I have a hard time believing he even said it. What scientist wouldn't laugh at that?

You have a biological phenomena that occurs with pretty much the same regularity on different farms, in different climates, in different parts of the world, with different diets, with different treatments AND never occurs with a much higher regularity despite all of a herd being treated identically. To suggest, that it is environmental is simply bizarre. And if it is not environmental, then there must be something tying all of these animals together. If not genetics, what else?

No matter how you slice it, the FACT that it occurs sometimes and not always or never is evidence enough that environment cannot be the only component and that at some place in the chain genetics must play in. Does that mean that genetics drives it, or works alone, no, of course not, but to suggest that because they don't breed, that genetics cannot be involved is so willfully ignorant that I have a hard time picking up my jaw from the floor.

Meanwhile, I suspect that the "scientist" intended to say heriditary, since disease like progeria kill children before they can reproduce and are reliable concluded to be genetic, while not necessarily heriditary. I sincerely question the credentials of a scientist working in his area who doesn't know the difference between heriditary and genetic.

And if the parents believe that being heterosexual will improve the life of the child, how is this different?

Their belief does not dictate reality.

assuming that the procedure has no lingering affects on the child.

The intention is that it does... otherwise it is pointless.

Au contraire, mon ami... if we can't get along without eugenics, is there really any point in us reproducing?

:D Point well taken! But, have you ever thought whether there´s ever really been a point in reproducing? Isn´t it just the same old record playing over and over and over? Or do you perhaps believe in the star trek utopia theory? Yes, yes, we will evolve to the ultimate peaceful race of bland non-bigoted wonderful Mr. Ed people. Yay! ;)