NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, there are still plenty of tasks that require a human mind, and that does not seem likely to change in the foreseeable future--and "better" humans will sell better than natural ones.


Most jobs today can be made by robots in future from cashiers to toilet cleaners to factory workers to call centers to accountants etc...


More importantly, you're missing the point: even if the market shifts so that THIS PARTICULAR development won't occur, it is a feature of competitive markets that they can drive unwilling majorities to keep up with the "latest" new enhancement, whether they want to or not. I've already mentioned the real-world example of the SUV market. In some industries (entertainment especially) the same is true of cosmetic medical procedures. (And not just entertainment--recent research has shown that physical appearance affects performance evaluations and salaries in a wide range of service jobs, including teaching.)


Food market advertises about fat foods like hell. But still there are large groups of people who keep it healthy. There are also civil societies which call better control of industry. And this is done to an extent. Like banning soda machines from schools.
My point is some people may stick a computer to their heads for better performance but there will be those who will keep it natural or at least biological (genetic treatment on increasing intelligence rather than machine implants)


People used to praise the advancement of civilization and technology because they free human beings from the clutches of nature: we have more choices, fewer necessities.

If competitive markets increasingly thrust constructed "needs" upon us, then in what sense have they made us more free? Have we not merely traded one set of necessities outside of our individual control... for another?

We use tech to better ourselves, not to turn into freaks. Besides, while neccessities change, need to getting an education is wholly different experience than need to find food.

You speculate. They speculate. Yours is somehow more valid because you repeatedly claim that they must only have a high school level understanding of biology? I think not.

Any speculation that "can't breed" = "can't be genetic" is, quite simply put, wrong. It doesn't hold up to examination, as there are numerous counter-examples. This isn't a matter of speculation. It is a matter of biological fact. Even if homosexual animals (or humans) were actually incapable of breeding, that would not rule out genetic contribution or even direct genetic cause. Anyone who says otherwise simply does not understand what we know of biology.

And BTW; my initial attack on you was nothing more than a mild reprimand, and that was merely for the fact that you were feeding the anger frenzy of the misinformed and ignorant masses of this thread, that like the OP's article’s journalists were, they don't even understand the questions being asked in the proper manner and they are supporting OP's article as in being full of people that want the research itself stopped. And I reprimanded YOU because of all the people here that look up to you in that aspect and you should not be actively supporting those that oppress research of any kind... THAT was my original point when I addressed your post, that you should have commented on the actuality of the study and not that ridiculous false facsimile of it.

I never advocating suppressing this research. That was something you inferred because you wanted to see it.

I addressed the OP's question - would it be ethical to undergo a treatment designed specifically to prevent homosexuality in a child? That is it. I never suggested that the research in question was meant to lead to such a treatment for humans. I saw no need to explictly state otherwise, as the the researcher's statement in the article made that exceedingly clear.

Additionally, you asked for proof that anyone is claiming that prenatal hormones might ‘cause’ sexual orientation in the fetus later in life as adults…

When did I ask for that?

I have been exceedingly clear in pointing out that the evidence supports a contribution from hormone balance in utero. Not only have I never denied this, but I have stated it numerous times. The fact that you continue to ignore this makes me wonder if you have any intention of answering my posts at all.

I have asked you for one thing: Evidence that the hormone levels that may contribute to homosexuality are unhealthy. You have claimed that regulating hormone levels to control sexuality would simply be correcting an unhealthy level of hormones. I want you to back up that claim. As of yet, you have not done so.

I also pointed out that the studies out there on hormonal contribution suggest just that - contribution. Not a single study has ruled out genetic contributions, and some studies actually support such contributions. The fact that something is affected by hormones does not mean that hormones are a "magic bullet" cause, with no other factors contributing. In order to demonstrate that hormone balance was the sole cause of sexual orientation, one would have to disprove the studies suggesting otherwise.

Here is another study about female same sex attraction that suggests that hormones may cause a change in fetal development… This is in addition to the fact that Roselli is currently testing the theory by testing to see if the male ram fetus' can be turned homosexual by blocking certain androgens during their fetal stages (if that works, unknown, not my test, not published yet to my knowledge, then genetics would serve no purpose in the explination of the low growth of that section of the ram brain, but that study is not yet completed so I will link to this one about women)...

IIRC, the study that Roselli is planning on doing has, to a point, already been done. Like most scientists, he is continuing work that he has already been a part of - work that, believe it or not, I have read and already incorporated into my overall view of sexuality.

Again, I'm not saying they're right or wrong, I don't think we can know yet. Unlike you, you've already made up your mind about what they can or cannot possibly be able to discover or prove... Or so your past few posts and tone would indicate about your opinion of their opinions.

There you go making unfounded attacks, yet again. I made it exceedingly clear that I am open to new research and that, in fact, my opinion is not derived from any single study or source of studies, but from everything I have been able to get my hands on - INCLUDING ROSELLI'S WORK. I am not going to base my entire opinion of the matter solely in Roselli's work, because there is quite a bit out there and he is one researcher among many.

Now, they obviously cannot prove that biology doesn't work the way it works. We know for a fact that there is nothing in a trait that affects the ability to breed or the frequency of breeding to suggest that it cannot be genetically controlled or affected. There are plenty of traits that affect the ability to breed, but are genetic in nature.

If Roselli can actually disprove all studies suggesting other contributors and can demonstrate that the same mechanism is present in every species exhibiting homosexuality (as it is entirely possible that different factors control sexuality to varying degrees in different species), then he can claim to have found the one sole cause of homosexuality. However, as long as there is more research out there, I am not going to ignore it just because you want everything to boil down to one researcher's opinion or one researcher's studies.

You seem to think I am arguing against the idea that hormonal balance contributes to sexuality. This would suggest that you either aren't reading my posts, or are intentionally twisting them. Which is it?

This may be my longest post ever.

Alright, there are two central justifications for the protection of the fetus from eugenics via in vitro genetic manipulation. While I will address the second of the two eventually, the focus of this discussion has been on the first justification I will address: a natural right to self-determination/self-ownership.

Now, while there has been no justification rendered for this natural right (outside of my brief attempt to address homesteading and the conscious will), it has been stated that there exists a natural right to self-determination that extends infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future.

So let us attempt to address this idea of natural rights first. To do this we must first determine what constitutes a right. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary offers us two similar definitions that are relevant to our discussion:



In other words, a right consists of two things, a claim and a justification. This seems obvious (at least to me); for someone to have any meaningful right, they must first have a will to act in a certain way and that the claim have merit, with merit typically determined by those who the claimant interacts with. This is demonstrable in many ways, to own property a person must first make a claim for the property and then have those around him recognize his claim, if a person has a right to life, he has a claim to his person that is not to be infringed by any person that he interacts with. Generally rights are thought of also as being universal, in that a right can only be a right when extended to all.

Now we can extend this definition to that of natural rights. The term "natural" is a very difficult term to use as it is probably the most widely used source of equivocation in any discussion of ethics or politics or what have you. To avoid this I will define it as I believe a general consensus would. So for our discussion we can from here on refer to this usage of the word natural to imply an inherent quality. So "natural rights" would imply a claim that is justified as an inherent quality within us.

Now we bring this back to the natural right of self-determination/self-ownership. Typically all natural rights base rights in the rational resolution of competing claims. The right to self-ownership is no different. The claims to the ownership of the individual are weighed and the individual claiming himself is deemed most appropriate, any other result would lead to a logical contradiction. Now what is important here is the not the rational resolution, but the claims themselves. When we argue for abortion, we argue that there is no person to claim themselves, and therefore they cannot claim their right to life, their right to self-determination. The claim is dismissed because there is no claim and because there is no life to claim.

Now when we consider our current discussion, we ask what claim is being made: the child is making a claim to determine his own sexuality, or alternatively he is seeking to claim his in vitro self-determination. The problem is not that there is no claim, but that there is nothing to claim. There never existed an ability to determine your own sexuality (as far as genes are concerned) and there never existed an ability to determine your in vitro development. If he claims a right to being a properly developed child, that is also dismissed because there never existed a properly developed child.

You create false requirement. Rights are not so specific and that is your flaw. When we first created the ability to have your heart exchanged for another, it was nothing something you could choose or not choose under your right to self-determination. It is now. It falls on your right to self-determination.

The fact it doesn't exist now has already been addressed and your argument is not founded in any current understanding of rights. Now are you going to just ignore that this isn't a requirement of rights like you did the last time I annihilated this argument or are you going to adjust? Better do the former, because if you adjust you might fall under the same criticism of inconsistency you pressed upon me. Wouldn't want that, now would we?

Man, all that work, and your argument comes down to relying on something you completely made up. That if you didn't have the ability to do something before, or even if you don't know, that it doesn't convey a right. It's false and it's proven by the way we handle each new technology.


Now there also exists those universal legal entitlements that we rightly refer to as rights. Now these rights don't bear those objective themes, where we have rights because we are people and all people deserve them. These are rights that we get together and agree upon. These are rights that we want, not that we have ingrained upon our personhood. This, of course, really devalues rights, (the reason they have been and are still argued against vehemently) and brings them down to the nihilistic level that I like. We are now dealing with your emotions and rationale versus mine. We now begin weighing how much we value the ability for parents to choose their children's sexuality against how much we appraise the harm to be to the child. In this situation, while I don't greatly value the ability of the parents to choose the traits of the child (the mother's ability to control the pregnancy and what her body produces is the only value), I see absolutely no loss to the child in being born homosexual or heterosexual. If we are to assume that no benefit is gained from being born heterosexual, then we can consider no harm from being born homosexual. From the perspective of the child, there is no harm from the parents choosing the sexuality, as it had no control in the first place.

Again, this is false. It has no control over being born short or tall or fat or thin or black or white or male or female, however, these are all traits of the child, and undoubtedly if you were to change your change your child from male to female once it was born, it would be considered unethical. Changing it in utero is no different. When you purpose to violate the rights of a person, then it doesn't matter if the fetus is your means for doing so.


This brought us to the part about intent, and there are two reasons why it is irrelevant. One, the consideration of the child is one of harm alone, and intent is never measured in harm, I am harmed as much from the accidental rock to the head as I am by the intentional rock to the head. Two, intent is considered when there is an intent to do wrong, since the argument is whether this is wrong or not, intent is irrelevant.

False. It's not a requirement. Again, you add something to definition of something in order to make an argument. This is why your arguments are not founded in reality. I can open the door to your home and hand you a television or a million dollars and I've still committed a crime because violating your rights is inherently harmful.

The question is whether or not you have a right to self-determination, you do, and whether or not that right is being intentionally violated. When you violate rights, harm is irrelevant, in fact. I can incarcerate you to keep you from overeating, but that doesn't change that I've violated your rights and this doesn't change that I do not have the right to do so. Intent and a violation of rights are the ONLY requirements. They are both present unless you change the meaning of both those words in order to make an argument, something you've, sadly, done repeatedly.


I claimed nothing of the sort, I agree that will address your property rights after you are dead, and are perfectly viable in that. My counterpoint was that individuals without wills lose their property rights without prior consent.

I've addressed this. Your lack of understanding at this point seems willful. A proxy is assigned in your stead just as would be if you were in a coma. Your rights aren't ignored. There is an attempt to address your will as much as possible and tons of laws designed to specifically address this. However, absent an expressed will, and given the fact that one will never be addressed it is necessary to handle your estate. There is a compelling public interest to do so.



Never said this either. It is quite obvious that we observe the last wishes of the living and permit their bodies to go undesturbed. My counterpoint was that the laws on this were based in our desire to see the dead go undisturbed, not some ridiculous eternal right. If our rights were eternal then we obviously would not see bodies exhumed and moved.

No, they aren't. I can actually will that my body is disturbed, burned, parted out, etc. Again, you fail to understand how a proxy works. There is the case where a right is not expressable by you so a proxy must be used, wills often assign this proxy. If they do not, the law establishes one as is best possible. That proxy can choose to reinter you and operates just like a right of attorney in life. The second way is when there is a compelling government interest, just like in imminent domain.

You keep using exceptions as examples to prove that these rights are not observed, except similar "violations" occur during life or have you never heard of moving a home because a freeway was coming through?



You are correct.

Of course the child experiences slavery in one situation, but never experiences the change in sexuality in the other.

Of course they do. They never experience the original sexuality but they do experience the new sexuality. Just like the child never experiences freedom in my example, but they do have the right to experience that. The change is not a requirement for a violation of rights. That's just another add-on to the definitions of things you simply made up. Can you not make your argument with addendums that don't actually exist?

Yes, Jocabia, you as a person, and not your arguments, are of poor consistency.

Ah, more ad hominems. How sad. Desperation is not a good color on a debater. Yes, I as a person am weird in that I make decisions on various issues by their individual merits rather than trying to create some blanket ideology. As I get new information, I alter my position to incorporate this information. It's what intelligent people do. The alternative is to take up an untenable position like yours and continue to beat it into the ground when your argument has been soundly defeated, by simply ignoring the arguments that show you to be wrong.

I do have a question, how are these rights established, what is the method?

Existence.


The law finds it relevant because it punishes people who do wrong, since we have not determined that it is wrong, I don't think we should be bringing the law into it.

No, the law establishes that it is inherently wrong to violate the rights of another intentionally. It does not require any other component to qualify as harm. I can't enter your home without your permission even if my intent is to clean your house or give you a television.


You are correct patent rights can be lost while you are alive, although I think copyrights extend 30 or 70 years after death. I guess you were right that rights were eternal.... oh wait.

Oh, wait, have you examined what they do when they apply to a person or thing that doesn't die? Hmmmm... they expire after 120 or 95 years. That makes the average length of a copyright approximately the same regardless of who owns them or if the entity that owns them expire or do not. A corporation can have a copyright and that copyright is not eternal even if the corporation is. Yep, another argument where you fail to address the current understanding.


By who's decision must your estate be cared for?

Estates have costs. Taxes. Fees. Fines. Grass must be cut. You can't abandon things even if you are living. An abandoned bank account is eventually handled by the government as well. Again, these things have nothing to do with death and have to do with not having abandoned property laying around all over the place.


And if you have no eligible heirs?

A proxy is assigned through legal channels, the same as happens if you lapse into a coma and have no heirs or are unconscious and need medical attention. Again, these are things that happen in life. You again fail to address reality.


What if you specifically designate that no one gets your property. I am not sure of the law on this, but can you designate that your property never gets touched again?

If you have the funds to sustain your estate you can actually dictate that your property is cared for as necessary by people you assign. However, in death, as in life, you may not abandon your property. There have been people who have left their property to their cats.


So abortion should never be considered the prevention of the birth of a child? The potential child is never the point?

The ending of the pregnancy is the point. Women don't say they want to continue the pregnancy as long as they can kill the child. We aren't trying to give women the right to kill children. We give people the right to prevent going through pregnancy and a birth, a condition of them. Until a child exists, there are no others for whom they are addressing a condition.


I have seriously never heard this before you mentioned it earlier. Could you link me to something that states that rights are eternal?

Seriously? You've never heard of it before? Again, then what is the purpose of a will? What is the purpose of suggesting that I cannot violate your rights before you are born? Rights are eternal. That's the point. It is our ability to administer them that is not.

Take up a law book, an ethics book, or a Shakespearean play.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/about/inalienablerights.html
"and seizes hither his eternal rights,
which hang above, inalienable
and indestructible as stars themselves."

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/arts/ar-mclk3.htm
'In The Mutual Flame Knight pays this tribute to the inner man: "every person or thing in Shakespeare is expressed as a being of eternal rights: the soul-life of each is touched, and the rest follows; . . . every least person . . . enjoys this royalty . . . shares in the elixir, is known by the atman, or divine spark within." And he continues, quoting from sonnet CXIV: '


http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/externalisation/exte1184.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1905/suttner-lecture.html

Nevermind. I made it up. Seventy years before I was born.

You speculate. They speculate. Yours is somehow more valid because you repeatedly claim that they must only have a high school level understanding of biology? I think not.

It's not speculation. They said that if they can't breed it can't be genetic, which is clear misunderstanding of the function of genetics and clearly uses the wrong term as well. It's clear that in that context only heriditary would make sense (even though it would still be counter to a high school understanding of genetics).


And BTW; my initial attack on you was nothing more than a mild reprimand, and that was merely for the fact that you were feeding the anger frenzy of the misinformed and ignorant masses of this thread, that like the OP's article’s journalists were, they don't even understand the questions being asked in the proper manner and they are supporting OP's article as in being full of people that want the research itself stopped. And I reprimanded YOU because of all the people here that look up to you in that aspect and you should not be actively supporting those that oppress research of any kind... THAT was my original point when I addressed your post, that you should have commented on the actuality of the study and not that ridiculous false facsimile of it.

Amusing. You accused her of condemning the research, trying to end it, of being ignorant of, of having a belief it didn't fit into. Hardly a mild reprimand. It was a full out misunderstanding of her position. Time for quotes -

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.

This was what you originally quoted of her. It expressly addresses the question of the OP. She was talking about humans and specifically and intentionally choosing to make your child one sexuality or the other. She didn't even say either was unethical, but that either both are or neither are.

Now, let's see what your reply to that was.

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.[/b]

Apparently, she didn't read the article because she suggested that choosing your child's sexuality is either unethical or it's not, and that which sexuality you are choosing does not matter. Oh, and I forgot, you also said she was either being intentionally misleading or disingenuous. Absurd.

Let's see what old mild reprimands you offered, old friend.

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.

Of course, she never demanded that the reseach be ended.

Come on, man. Just man up and admit you misunderstood her position and have continued that misunderstanding throughout the thread. SHe never said the things you claimed and your attack on her was ignorant of her position. Anything other than an admission of that is just sad.

*snip*

His response to you is simply bizarre. I think it unfortunate when past misunderstandings seem to require future misunderstandings in future postings. Ask him to quote you saying the things he accuses you of. Nothing more, nothing less. He can't and it's time for him to admit he's wrong.

Meanwhile, it's odd since you've been claiming the hormonal component for as long as I can remember. As I said, you were one of the first to expose me to it and the reason I felt compelled to further research it. His response to you simply is founded in what you've said here or in any other threads. It's a complete denial of what you're expressed position, which isn't odd, given he's also in denial of the expressed purpose of the research.

Amusing. You accused her of condemning the research, trying to end it, of being ignorant of, of having a belief it didn't fit into. Hardly a mild reprimand. It was a full out misunderstanding of her position. Time for quotes -

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
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.

This was what you originally quoted of her. It expressly addresses the question of the OP. She was talking about humans and specifically and intentionally choosing to make your child one sexuality or the other. She didn't even say either was unethical, but that either both are or neither are.

That's exactly right. She came out and endorsed the misguided and misinformed and misdirected opinions of the OP, an opinion that she should have been fully aware was entirely erroneous, especially by the article's relaying of it’s misunderstanding of the research in question. But instead of correcting the witch hunt of this thread in her post, all the way back to the OP and the OP's article, no, instead of correcting it she participated in it by endorsing it by participation.

Now, let's see what your reply to that was.

[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.

Apparently, she didn't read the article because she suggested that choosing your child's sexuality is either unethical or it's not, and that which sexuality you are choosing does not matter. Oh, and I forgot, you also said she was either being intentionally misleading or disingenuous. Absurd.

Let's see what old mild reprimands you offered, old friend.

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. (post by me)

Of course, she never demanded that the reseach be ended.

Come on, man. Just man up and admit you misunderstood her position and have continued that misunderstanding throughout the thread. SHe never said the things you claimed and your attack on her was ignorant of her position. Anything other than an admission of that is just sad.

Her position was reinforcing the articles opinion. The article's opinion is that the research should be ended... they quoted several people for that end. You may pretend that the article does not take that position I do not know, but perhaps that can be explained only because apparently you did not read the article OR you choose to ignore the article in the OP as being a driving force of this thread (which would be absurd). Either way, it is you and not I, who chooses to ignore the fact that you are mistaken on all points...

That's exactly right. She came out and endorsed the misguided and misinformed and misdirected opinions of the OP, an opinion that she should have been fully aware was entirely erroneous, especially by the article's relaying of it’s misunderstanding of the research in question. But instead of correcting the witch hunt of this thread in her post, all the way back to the OP and the OP's article, no, instead of correcting it she participated in it by endorsing it by participation.

She did? Quote her, please. I'd like to see her ever reference the OP as being correct or even well-founded.


Her position was reinforcing the articles opinion. The article's opinion is that the research should be ended... they quoted several people for that end. You may pretend that the article does not take that position I do not know, but perhaps that can be explained only because apparently you did not read the article OR you choose to ignore the article in the OP as being a driving force of this thread (which would be absurd). Either way, it is you and not I, who chooses to ignore the fact that you are mistaken on all points...

Only if you start with that opinion. She never suggested such a thing ever. In fact, when you addressed her, she hadn't even said that it was unethical. She said in humans it is either always unethical or never unethical. You're plain and simply making things up. Entirely.

However, if I'm wrong. QUOTE HER. Quit telling me what she said and extrapolating on what she beyond nonsense and actually show what she said. Do I need to teach you how to use the quote function or does using it make it more difficult to claim she said something else?

...
You seem to think I am arguing against the idea that hormonal balance contributes to sexuality. This would suggest that you either aren't reading my posts, or are intentionally twisting them. Which is it?

A Hormonal component is NOT what they are suggesting. It is what you are suggesting.

Hormonal causation is what they are suggesting. Your choice of not reading your post or twisting them is yet another false dichotomy on your part, the answer is neither. The answer is, they are researching to find out if it is entirely hormonal from the ram fetus environment, as the singular cause and if it can be duplicated and forced on all male ram fetus via the changing of the hormones in the womb.

BTW: your understanding of who needs to prove what, and saying that all other theories have to be disproved first, is in error. If a singular theory sufficiently answers all known applications of a problem, than other theories do NOT have to be disproved. IF it happens that a singular theory replaces all other theories, then other theories that actually occur have to prove why they are occur outside of the theory, or show why and how they occured despite the fact that they are not required to explain the observable known world.

That's exactly right. She came out and endorsed the misguided and misinformed and misdirected opinions of the OP, an opinion that she should have been fully aware was entirely erroneous, especially by the article's relaying of it’s misunderstanding of the research in question. But instead of correcting the witch hunt of this thread in her post, all the way back to the OP and the OP's article, no, instead of correcting it she participated in it by endorsing it by participation.

I endorsed what? Discussion on whether or not it would be ethical to intentionally alter the sexuality of a future child?

Do you think that we shouldn't discuss such ethical issues?

At no point did I suggest that the purpose of this research was to end homosexuality in human beings. In fact, in my first post, I didn't address the research at all. I simply answered the OP's question.

I have, at times, cited an article, as well as the speculation on how the research therein could be extrapolated, and then asked if the extrapolation, whether it were to happen or not, would be ok. I see no wrong in doing this. All it does is induce discussion on the issue.

Her position was reinforcing the articles opinion.

Not in the least. I have made it exceedingly clear that I don't think the research should be ended. As such, nothing in my position reinforces that idea.

She did? Quote her, please. I'd like to see her ever reference the OP as being correct or even well-founded.

Voluntary participation in a lynch mob is sufficient proof of endorsing the lynch mob.

Only if you start with that opinion. She never suggested such a thing ever. In fact, when you addressed her, she hadn't even said that it was unethical. She said in humans it is either always unethical or never unethical. You're plain and simply making things up. Entirely.

However, if I'm wrong. QUOTE HER. Quit telling me what she said and extrapolating on what she beyond nonsense and actually show what she said. Do I need to teach you how to use the quote function or does using it make it more difficult to claim she said something else?

Nice false dichotomy you have there.

A Hormonal component is NOT what they are suggesting. It is what you are suggesting.

Perhaps not. But, a hormonal component is all that their research actually supports. They can extrapolate from what their research actually demonstrates all they like, but, if it isn't consistent with the other evidence out there, it's pretty useless.

Hormonal causation is what they are suggesting. Your choice of not reading your post or twisting them is yet another false dichotomy on your part, the answer is neither. The answer is, they are researching to find out if it is entirely hormonal from the ram fetus environment, as the singular cause and if it can be duplicated and forced on all male ram fetus via the changing of the hormones in the womb.

Really? What in their research could determine that hormonal effects are the sole cause? What in their research could actually rule out genetic components of sexual orientation? What in their research could actually rule out other environmental causes of sexual orientation?

Roselli may be suggesting that his research points to the sole cause, but he certainly isn't backing it up with evidence. What he has points to hormonal factors contributing. In order to come up with a position that is consistent with reality, a scientist cannot look only at his own studies and claim that they are all there is. There is quite a bit of other research on this subject, and it cannot be ignored simply because someone wants it to be simple.

If I am researching the effect of a drug on rats, and it causes them to exhibit all the symptoms of Parkinson's, I cannot simply conclude that this drug is THE cause of Parkinson's. There is evidence for a genetic component to Parkinson's, although it does not seem to fully explain the incidence of the disease. As such, even if I could induce Parkinson's with a drug, I could not logically conclude that said drug is the only possible cause without actively ruling out genetics.

BTW: your understanding of who needs to prove what, and saying that all other theories have to be disproved first, is in error. If a singular theory sufficiently answers all known applications of a problem, than other theories do NOT have to be disproved.

And, unfortunately, this theory does not sufficiently account for all evidence. As such, it obviously isn't complete. See how that works?

There is ample evidence to suggest genetic contribution to sexual orientation - at least in human beings. Given that, showing that hormones can affect sexuality would not be enough to conclude that hormones are the sole cause. One would have to find a reason to discount the evidence that genetics are also involved.

IF it happens that a singular theory replaces all other theories, then other theories that actually occur have to prove why they are occur outside of the theory, or show why and how they occured despite the fact that they are not required to explain the observable known world.

A theory that is accepted as correct must account for all the evidence available. In order to be complete, Roselli's ideas would have to account for all of the studies that have demonstrated evidence for a genetic link.

Voluntary participation in a lynch mob is sufficient proof of endorsing the lynch mob.

What lynch mob? And in what way did I participate in it?

Is asking an ethical question related to something the same thing as opposing it? If the researchers were, for instance, reproductively cloning livestock and people were discussing the possible extrapolation of the research to humans, would a statement suggesting that I find the reproductive cloning of humans to be unethical in any way suggest that I think they should stop cloning livestock?

Voluntary participation in a lynch mob is sufficient proof of endorsing the lynch mob.


Nice false dichotomy you have there.
I see. So you have no quotes. This isn't a lynch mob. We aren't discussing the research but simply a question which the article raises (whether a proper extrapolation of the research or not). There are people on either side and when you attacked her she hadn't even actually answered the question only stating that the result should be consistent.

You're in the thread. If we are to ignore what you say and simply make up your position aren't you part of the "lynch mob" as well?

She explicitly said the research isn't unethical. But apparently her participation here in answering a theoretical question negates that. You accused her of refusing to accept the possibility of a gestational hormonal contributer to sexuality even though she's expilicitly said she believes that gestational hormones contribute for pretty much her entire time on NS. You accused her of trying to stop the reseach even though she explicitly says the opposite.

The only lynch mob I see here is you.

A Hormonal component is NOT what they are suggesting. It is what you are suggesting.

Hormonal causation is what they are suggesting. Your choice of not reading your post or twisting them is yet another false dichotomy on your part, the answer is neither. The answer is, they are researching to find out if it is entirely hormonal from the ram fetus environment, as the singular cause and if it can be duplicated and forced on all male ram fetus via the changing of the hormones in the womb.

BTW: your understanding of who needs to prove what, and saying that all other theories have to be disproved first, is in error. If a singular theory sufficiently answers all known applications of a problem, than other theories do NOT have to be disproved. IF it happens that a singular theory replaces all other theories, then other theories that actually occur have to prove why they are occur outside of the theory, or show why and how they occured despite the fact that they are not required to explain the observable known world.

What they are suggesting is not supported by their research. They aren't isolating for hormones so it can't reach the conclusion that only hormones are contributers. There research proves that hormones are involved, nothing more, nothing less. That's called science.

Now, you quoted the lead researcher expressing his OPINION that it was the only contributer but that opinion, according to the quote, was founded in the ignorance that genetics can't contribute to a condition only found in offspring that don't reproduce. It's ignorant of the facts. I suggest you read up on progeria.

Unless you can show that the conclusion of the paper, not a quote in an article, finds what you are claiming, that is not the result of the research, and if the paper did say it, it wouldn't stand up to critical review.

...
A theory that is accepted as correct must account for all the evidence available. In order to be complete, Roselli's ideas would have to account for all of the studies that have demonstrated evidence for a genetic link.

Round this out to that.

You are assuming all evidence needs to be accounted for. But no, all observable actuality needs to be accounted for, evidence is merely suggestions of answers.

If every occurrence of a question is identified as either group A or Group B, and every occurrence of group A and every occurrence of Group B are explained by theory 1, then there is no reason for theory 2, despite the fact that some incidental evidence seemed to suggest that theory 2 was going to be proved correct before the development of theory 1 came around and answered all of the questions.

A theory that answers all occurrences does not need to answer previously fragmentary evidences for other theories (unless of course those other fragmentary evidences were a part of the occurrence questions).

Example: If I think all roman wheels were solid, and I show proof of solid wheels and how solid wheels would answer all Roman wheel questions, and you believed that some roman vehicles used spoked wheels, you might be right but you would have to prove it by finding a spoked wheel or evidence of a spoked wheel that wasn’t satisfied by a solid wheel answer. That’s how it works, as I’m sure you know.

IF uterus hormone environment answers all homosexual and heterosexual occurrences, than other answers need to show why they need to exist… when and how do they occur, the onus is on them, not the uterus hormonal theory.

What they are suggesting is not supported by their research. They aren't isolating for hormones so it can't reach the conclusion that only hormones are contributers. There research proves that hormones are involved, nothing more, nothing less. That's called science.

Now, you quoted the lead researcher expressing his OPINION that it was the only contributer but that opinion, according to the quote, was founded in the ignorance that genetics can't contribute to a condition only found in offspring that don't reproduce. It's ignorant of the facts. I suggest you read up on progeria.

Unless you can show that the conclusion of the paper, not a quote in an article, finds what you are claiming, that is not the result of the research, and if the paper did say it, it wouldn't stand up to critical review.

You have both now said publicly that the original OP and the OP's article are bogus misunderstandings of the research and that the research should not be stopped.

AND you have both now said that I did not misrepresented what Roselli is researching and saying (that he thinks it is hormonally caused in the womb, not genetics)... But you both say you don't believe it, which is fine and not my argument to make you believe what he thinks. That Hormones cause it and can stop it, that his position, not mine...

Progress has been made, my work here is done.

What lynch mob? And in what way did I participate in it?

Is asking an ethical question related to something the same thing as opposing it? If the researchers were, for instance, reproductively cloning livestock and people were discussing the possible extrapolation of the research to humans, would a statement suggesting that I find the reproductive cloning of humans to be unethical in any way suggest that I think they should stop cloning livestock?

Honestly, why does these keep happening. Dogmatic, holier-than-thou religious person show up to tell us what we have to believe. It's starts fairly gently at first, just the occasional rant about this evil or that evil. And slowly we see the attempt at even making an argument go out the window and it becomes everyone who isn't saying exactly what they want is part of a "lynch mob" and the "misinformed and ignorant masses" and various other broad-based attacks. As much as I am not an advocate of PootWaddle's arguments even on NS, this is not the PootWaddle that arrived on NS. I can think of numerous similar examples? What is it that makes people think they've suddenly position themselves to tell you or me or anyone what to think or what to believe or who to be or how to act, etc?

Meanwhile, you're condemned for not extrapolating about what effect this research will have, while be accused of it, while he does it to claim it suggests that the hormone levels are abnormal and pathological.

You have both now said publicly that the original OP and the OP's article are bogus misunderstandings of the research and that the research should not be stopped.

AND you have both now said that I have not misrepresented what the OP's article target, Roselli, was actually saying. That Hormones cause it and can stop it...

Pregress has been made, my work here is done.

Hilarious. We've never said otherwise. You've simply embarrassed yourself yet again.

Now, the problem is that you're claiming that ONLY hormones cause it which is not supported by that research or any research. You did accurately quote him though I doubt that it wasn't a misquote by the article you cited since it would require him to as ignorant as, well, any person who thinks that quote is a reflection of the reality of the research.

Our position was always clear. It was never what you claimed it was. It never changed. Your understanding of it simply changed. Instead of honestly standing up and admitting that you misunderstood Dem, you instead dishonestly shifting your claims and shifted your claims and shifted your claims and now you crawl away pretending you were here to do something else than you did. You ented attacking an individual for something they never said and don't believe and, in fact, something they said the opposite of.

Are you actually claiming you entered the thread INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting her position (and then mine) and that was your work? You were intentionally dishonest? Seriously?

Honestly, why does these keep happening. Dogmatic, holier-than-thou religious person show up to tell us what we have to believe. It's starts fairly gently at first, just the occasional rant about this evil or that evil. And slowly we see the attempt at even making an argument go out the window and it becomes everyone who isn't saying exactly what they want is part of a "lynch mob" and the "misinformed and ignorant masses" and various other broad-based attacks. As much as I am not an advocate of PootWaddle's arguments even on NS, this is not the PootWaddle that arrived on NS. I can think of numerous similar examples? What is it that makes people think they've suddenly position themselves to tell you or me or anyone what to think or what to believe or who to be or how to act, etc?

Meanwhile, you're condemned for not extrapolating about what effect this research will have, while be accused of it, while he does it to claim it suggests that the hormone levels are abnormal and pathological.


Perhaps you should call Guinness, that might be the worlds biggest strawman to date... nicely done.

IF uterus hormone environment answers all homosexual and heterosexual occurrences, than other answers need to show why they need to exist… when and how do they occur, the onus is on them, not the uterus hormonal theory.

How do you show that it answers them all? Are we going to preemptively measure the hormonal environment of every uterus and then wait to see what the sexual characteristics of the offspring will be?

In fact, considering that twins have, on occasion, exhibited different sexual orientations, would we have to actually measure the hormonal environment throughout the entire uterus?

At this point, all that Roselli has demonstrated is that hormones can affect sexuality. Altering them enough can even change it. He has demonstrated no mechanism by which this occurs, although he has speculated, and he hasn't even (in public anyways) speculated on how this mechanism might account for all variance in sexuality.

Scientifically, there is no reason to discount other studies until a given set of research has actually risen to the level of theory - which would take much, much more than a single scientist's work. It would also take quite a bit more than Roselli's latest offering, which apparently demosntrated, at most, a small alteration in the frequency of mounting in rams:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16943590&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

Also, while the methods used could certainly shed light on sexual development, much, much more would be needed to explain the effect of actual biological hormonal fluctuations on sexual orientation. After all, ewes are not normally being treated with aromatase inhibitor.

The problem here is that, without any scientific reason to do so, you want to jump onto a course of study that is in its scientific infancy and cry, "Eureka! This is it! We can ignore all other research now!" One must wonder why you seem so quick to dismiss all other research and adopt the possible extrapolations of this research as gospel truth.

Perhaps you should call Guinness, that might be the worlds biggest strawman to date... nicely done.

Pardon me? I'm not talking about your argument but the irrationality of attacking someone for a position they don't hold, never claimed to hold, and told you they didn't hold after your first accusation, and then claiming that when you finally accepted the position they, Dem, held all along, you pretend as if you've accomplished something.

AND you have both now said that I did not misrepresented what Roselli is researching and saying (that he thinks it is hormonally caused in the womb, not genetics)... But you both say you don't believe it, which is fine and not my argument to make you believe what he thinks. That Hormones cause it and can stop it, that his position, not mine...

Actually, there was one aspect of Roselli's position that you misrepresented, or at least presumed without any statements suggesting it. You stated that Roselli's position is that homosexual rams have "underdeveloped" brains, because their brains are more like heterosexual ewes than heterosexual rams.

The only ways to make this claim would be either to claim that the brains of heterosexual ewes are underdeveloped, or to a priori assume that there should be an obvious dichotomy and that anything else is "defective." Nothing in any quote I have seen of Roselli's suggests either position.

Progress has been made, my work here is done.

You mean you have decided to stop misrepresenting what we are actually saying and have realized that we have been saying it all along?

Hilarious. We've never said otherwise. You've simply embarrassed yourself yet again.

Now, the problem is that you're claiming that ONLY hormones cause it which is not supported by that research or any research. You did accurately quote him though I doubt that it wasn't a misquote by the article you cited since it would require him to as ignorant as, well, any person who thinks that quote is a reflection of the reality of the research.

I don’t have to endorse any of it. You say I’m claiming it? No, not I, Roselli.

Our position was always clear. It was never what you claimed it was. It never changed. Your understanding of it simply changed. Instead of honestly standing up and admitting that you misunderstood Dem, you instead dishonestly shifting your claims and shifted your claims and shifted your claims and now you crawl away pretending you were here to do something else than you did. You ented attacking an individual for something they never said and don't believe and, in fact, something they said the opposite of.

Are you actually claiming you entered the thread INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting her position (and then mine) and that was your work? You were intentionally dishonest? Seriously?


Really, you never said otherwise?
...
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.
...

And now you admit that he did say it…. I didn’t make it up.

Really, you never said otherwise?

And now you admit that he did say it…. I didn’t make it up.

That quote doesn't say otherwise. Jocabia simply pointed out that, while the quote is certainly in the article, any scientist making such a claim in scientific circles would be laughed at and reeducated in the basic principles of genetics.

He may very well have said it. It might not have been misquoted or taken out of context. But, if that is the case, then Roselli's understanding of rather basic biology is called into question. Most of Roselli's papers are first author papers, so it is very likely that he is, in fact, a student, but even a student, at this level of his career, should know better.

I think Jocabia and I both find it more likely that he either misspoke, was misquoted, or the quote was taken out of context, as the alternative is that someone who has or is getting an advanced degree in the biological sciences doesn't understand basic biology.

Actually, there was one aspect of Roselli's position that you misrepresented, or at least presumed without any statements suggesting it. You stated that Roselli's position is that homosexual rams have "underdeveloped" brains, because their brains are more like heterosexual ewes than heterosexual rams.

The only ways to make this claim would be either to claim that the brains of heterosexual ewes are underdeveloped, or to a priori assume that there should be an obvious dichotomy and that anything else is "defective." Nothing in any quote I have seen of Roselli's suggests either position.

Roselli's measurements of the hypothalamus brain matter, not my measurements. He suggests that the causation for the small hypothalamus is the mothers growth hormones for the fetus ram brain, not genetics. If you want to say that a male ram is not supposed to have a male hypothalamus, then YOU prove it. Rosellis already gave us his opinion, and I was forcing you and Jocabia to admit that he had that opinion. Previously, and perhaps still, you would rather say that he has no biological understanding belond a bad high school graduate’s understanding but personally I think you should give up that route of attack, it's not very convincing or effective.


You mean you have decided to stop misrepresenting what we are actually saying and have realized that we have been saying it all along?

Awww, and you've been playing the innocent victim so well up until now... like crocodile tears apparently.

I don’t have to endorse any of it. You say I’m claiming it? No, not I, Roselli.

You didn't quote the paper. You quoted an opinion of his. You have not demonstrated that it's supported by his research. In fact, he didn't claim it was supported by his research. What he claimed, according to the quote, is that a condition that prevents reproduction cannot be genetic, which is provably false and has nothing to do with the research he is working on. I have given the example of progeria.

Really, you never said otherwise?


And now you admit that he did say it…. I didn’t make it up.

I didn't say he wasn't quoted as say it or that he didn't say it. I said it was likely that he was misquoted given the ignorance of the claim. Seriously, can you read. What you quoted me saying is exactly what I'm saying now.

Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself. Simply admit you were wrong about our position and leave. You'll notice the quote material says the same thing I've been saying repeatedly. I said it again above. I still hold that he appears to have been misquoted (meaning there must have been more context), since I find it hard to believe that a scientist with any credibility would be that woefully ignorant. My original comment was directed at you since you clearly endorsed that incredibly ignorant statement. He's not here to defend himself. You are.

You didn't quote the paper. You quoted an opinion of his. You have not demonstrated that it's supported by his research. In fact, he didn't claim it was supported by his research. What he claimed, according to the quote, is that a condition that prevents reproduction cannot be genetic, which is provably false and has nothing to do with the research he is working on. I have given the example of progeria.



I didn't say he wasn't quoted as say it or that he didn't say it. I said it was likely that he was misquoted given the ignorance of the claim. Seriously, can you read. What you quoted me saying is exactly what I'm saying now.

Seriously. You're embarrassing yourself. Simply admit you were wrong about our position and leave. You'll notice the quote material says the same thing I've been saying repeatedly. I said it again above. I still hold that he appears to have been misquoted (meaning there must have been more context), since I find it hard to believe that a scientist with any credibility would be that woefully ignorant. My original comment was directed at you since you clearly endorsed that incredibly ignorant statement. He's not here to defend himself. You are.


Haha, you're so funny... Please leave, I hate having to admit I'm wrong, in fact, I can't do it, or so you say in so many words...

Roselli's measurements of the hypothalamus brain matter, not my measurements. He suggests that the causation for the small hypothalamus is the mothers growth hormones for the fetus ram brain, not genetics. If you want to say that a male ram is not supposed to have a male hypothalamus, then YOU prove it.

Easy. Rams are born with a hypothalmus that resembles that of ewes. This proves this normally occurs. If it is abnormal, the burden of proof is to show that it is an abnormality. You've done none of the work. Meanwhile, it is not a claim of the research. It does not make the judgements you do.

Rosellis already gave us his opinion, and I was forcing you and Jocabia to admit that he had that opinion.

We did no such thing. We have consistently said that it is only what appears in the quote. We have also said consistently that it is likely he was misquoted and that taken alone it is ignorant of genetics.


Previously, and perhaps still, you would rather say that he has no biological understanding belond a bad high school graduate’s understanding but personally I think you should give up that route of attack, it's not very convincing or effective.

Not convincing? It is to anyone with beyond a high school understanding of genetics. You keep dropping this argument. Does progeria, an aging disease that causes children to die by the time they are teenagers, have a genetic cause? All evidence says yes. Please explain that given this knowledge that you can claim that it's possible to state, correctly, that a condition that prevents breeding CANNOT be genetic. I'll wait. So far you've utterly failed.

Meanwhile, you didn't claim it was his opinion. You claimed it was the results of his research and that his research would prove it, which is utterly impossible, given the nature of his study. He is not isolating for this cause. He would have to do so in order to disprove current hypotheses.

Haha, you're so funny... Please leave, I hate having to admit I'm wrong, in fact, I can't do it, or so you say in so many words...

Ha. According to you, I'm right. You've also said Dem was right. We've not changed our position once. You are claiming that our current position is right, claiming that by getting us to say what was right your work is done. Don't leave. Who cares? It's not me you're embarrassing.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that an event that is currently occurring in nature with no known mal-effects is an abnormality or pathological in any way. I'm still waiting for you to establish that there is a hormone imbalance causing sexuality according to anything you've shown, rather than a hormonal difference that may or may not be within normal range. I'm still waiting for you to quote Dem or me saying what you've claimed. I'm still waiting for you to stop saying foolish things that are quite frankly evidence of your unwillingness to address this rationally more than anything else.

Roselli's measurements of the hypothalamus brain matter, not my measurements. He suggests that the causation for the small hypothalamus is the mothers growth hormones for the fetus ram brain, not genetics.

In the quote, yes. But what he suggests and what his work suggests are not necessarily the same thing.

If you want to say that a male ram is not supposed to have a male hypothalamus, then YOU prove it.

Do all males have exactly the same size hypothalamus? Do all females? There is variation, and the brain is functional throughout that variation. The average size for females is different from the average size for males. Likewise, the average overall size of males is probably larger than that of females. Does this mean that a larger than average female is overdeveloped or that a smaller than average male is underdeveloped? Or does it simply lend itself to the idea of variation?

What scientific backing is there for an a priori assumption that the naturally occurring variation of hypothalamus size, muscle mass, etc. is somehow "incorrect" if it is off the average, but with no adverse health effects.

Rosellis already gave us his opinion, and I was forcing you and Jocabia to admit that he had that opinion.

Roselli expressed an opinion to the author of the article, and that opinion may or may not have been accurately represented.

Previously, and perhaps still, you would rather say that he has no biological understanding belond a bad high school graduate’s understanding but personally I think you should give up that route of attack, it's not very convincing or effective.

If a scientist, in an article, was quoted as saying, "Kids with Progeria don't get to procreate, so it can't possibly be genetic," what would your response be?

How much understanding of biology do you possess? Are you aware of recessive traits? Are you aware that many traits are affected by more than one gene? Are you aware that an alteration in a given gene can affect men and women differently?

Awww, and you've been playing the innocent victim so well up until now... like crocodile tears apparently.

Eh? You have consistently misrepresented everything I have said. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are doing it unintentionally, but that gets less and less likely by the post. And when I point it out, suddenly you turn to insults?

...
He may very well have said it. It might not have been misquoted or taken out of context. But, if that is the case, then Roselli's understanding of rather basic biology is called into question. Most of Roselli's papers are first author papers, so it is very likely that he is, in fact, a student, but even a student, at this level of his career, should know better.

I think Jocabia and I both find it more likely that he either misspoke, was misquoted, or the quote was taken out of context, as the alternative is that someone who has or is getting an advanced degree in the biological sciences doesn't understand basic biology.

Fine, whatever...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/ohs-bdi103102.php

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=roselli%20c[Author]"

http://euston.ohsu.edu/physpharm/faculty/roselli.html

Yup, Charles E. Roselli Professor at OHSU, B.A. 1974, Franklin and Marshall College, Ph.D. 1981, Hahnemann University, looks like student to me, :rolleyes: For crying out loud...

Oh, if only I had three hours to read all of these replies. But I don't. I'll have to get on the boat earlier next time.

Re: "breeding out heterosexuality," though... you're joking, right? You realize that the earth would depopulate rather quickly, yes? :)

As far as the original premise of this topic, though, I don't think that "breeding out homosexuality" is any more or any less ethical than any genetic manipulation for desired traits (barring exceptions for disease and malformity) in humans. I'm iffy about any of it. And I'm also iffy that it's even possible - even if one staunchly believe that ALL homosexuals are homosexual because of genetics (a belief backed more by will than science), there's still the question of bisexuality, asexuality, and all other variations of sexuality. I find it incredibly doubtful that there's simply a genetic "on/off" switch.

... I find it incredibly doubtful that there's simply a genetic "on/off" switch.

Hear hear. I've said it more than once, and I'll agree with it again here.

Fine, whatever...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/ohs-bdi103102.php

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=roselli%20c[Author]"

http://euston.ohsu.edu/physpharm/faculty/roselli.html

Yup, Charles E. Roselli Professor at OHSU, B.A. 1974, Franklin and Marshall College, Ph.D. 1981, Hahnemann University, looks like student to me, :rolleyes: For crying out loud...

Interesting. Most professors don't have many first-author papers this far into their career. They are usually listed last or near last. Ah well, perhaps he's thrown convention to the wind or has a very small lab.

Of course, a professor making such biologically inaccurate comments would be even more distressing. Lends more and more credence to the idea that he either misspoke or was misquoted.

The problem is not that there is no claim, but that there is nothing to claim. There never existed an ability to determine your own sexuality (as far as genes are concerned) and there never existed an ability to determine your in vitro development. If he claims a right to being a properly developed child, that is also dismissed because there never existed a properly developed child.

The claim here is not for control over sexuality, but for not having his or her sexuality CHOSEN by another.

The child claims the right to have his or her sexuality develop naturally, as oposed to being imposed upon him or her artificially - and since there have indeed been children who develop their sexuality naturally and the manipulation of his or her hormones is clearly within the child's sphere of rightful sovereignty, the argument cannot be made that this claim is illegitimate.

This brought us to the part about intent, and there are two reasons why it is irrelevant. One, the consideration of the child is one of harm alone, and intent is never measured in harm, I am harmed as much from the accidental rock to the head as I am by the intentional rock to the head. Two, intent is considered when there is an intent to do wrong, since the argument is whether this is wrong or not, intent is irrelevant.

But you are disregarding the nature of intent's application here. It is indeed not applicable in its typical contexts, as you say. It is applicable only because the violation is simply that this choice is intentional, rather than natural; without intent, there is no rock at all (or at least not one we can do anything about, because, as you say, unintentional imposition of sexuality is pretty unavoidable.)

This is contradictory, if genetic modification deminishes the person's will, then we are genetically determined and any discussion of free will is mute, due to our inability to control our own genes.

You are missing the point, and in exactly the same way as you did above.

Genetic modification does not "diminish the person's will" because it alters his or her mind; indeed, genetic modification does not necessarily "diminish the person's will" at all. The post you replied to noted that there are some uses of genetic modification that are morally justifiable, and that has been maintained by pretty much all of your opponents on this thread as well.

The argument advanced was not that the immorality is is in genetic (or hormonal) modification per se, but rather that it is in modification that runs contrary to the child's will - modification that we can reasonably expect the child would not want.

I think this is insufficient - it doesn't account, for instance, for modification that changes a person's wants so that he or she would not object. But certainly it works here; if we are to truly respect the autonomy of the future child, we must make decisions regarding him or her as we would expect that child to want us to make them. Otherwise we are nothing more than usurpers; we are arrogating for ourselves the right to decide something that is the child's to decide, not ours. (The decision here is not "gay or straight" but "genetic modification of sexuality or not.")

Hear hear. I've said it more than once, and I'll agree with it again here.

Hmmm... according to what you claimed, you beleive there is no genetic switch at all, which isn't what that poster said. Dem and I have said repeatedly that it is likely a large combination of factors, which is pretty much what that poster suggests. You've claimed it's solely a simple hormonal factor, which is not what that poster suggests. Interesting what you'll agree with.

As far as the original premise of this topic, though, I don't think that "breeding out homosexuality" is any more or any less ethical than any genetic manipulation for desired traits (barring exceptions for disease and malformity) in humans. I'm iffy about any of it. And I'm also iffy that it's even possible - even if one staunchly believe that ALL homosexuals are homosexual because of genetics (a belief backed more by will than science), there's still the question of bisexuality, asexuality, and all other variations of sexuality. I find it incredibly doubtful that there's simply a genetic "on/off" switch.

Indeed. In the end, it's incredibly doubtful that there is any "magic bullet" here. We are talking about a complex trait which exists along a spectrum, for which there is evidenec of numerous factors.

The idea of any simple "on/off" switch, while certainly appealing to some, takes quite a leap of faith to support.

Hmmm... according to what you claimed, you beleive there is no genetic switch at all, which isn't what that poster said. Dem and I have said repeatedly that it is likely a large combination of factors, which is pretty much what that poster suggests. You've claimed it's solely a simple hormonal factor, which is not what that poster suggests. Interesting what you'll agree with.

Proves you're not very good are reading comprehension. You forced me to define what Roselli believes, and then assigned that belief to me. But I'm not about to rehash everything I've posted yet again just to try and catch you up to date...

Proves you're not very good are reading comprehension. You forced me to define what Roselli believes, and then assigned that belief to me. But I'm not about to rehash everything I've posted yet again just to try and catch you up to date...

No, I did no such thing. You claimed the research was about gestational hormones and I said that was not reflected in the current article and need to be introduced before accepted. I also stated that such an argument is a divergence of the topic as we weren't actually discussing the research.

You posted what he believes and advocated his claims. You've repeatedly said you think this research can prove that there is no genetic component and that you agreed with the statement. Would you like me to quote you?

I find it funny that according to you Dem responding to an OP that contains an article you don't like is endorsing it, but you linking an article, quoting it and stating explicitly that you think it can weild the resutls ignorantly expressed in that quote are not endorsing it. Does your logic ever start?

Indeed. In the end, it's incredibly doubtful that there is any "magic bullet" here. We are talking about a complex trait which exists along a spectrum, for which there is evidenec of numerous factors.

The idea of any simple "on/off" switch, while certainly appealing to some, takes quite a leap of faith to support.

Not just a leap of faith, but a completely blind devotion to ignoring the current research and using research to make claims that can't be found from the actual evidence.

Meanwhile, I, of course, agree with you.

Proves you're not very good are reading comprehension. You forced me to define what Roselli believes, and then assigned that belief to me. But I'm not about to rehash everything I've posted yet again just to try and catch you up to date...

Your entire issue with me seems to have been that I didn't take a single quote by a single scientist in a single article based on one line of research and take it as gospel truth. Such a problem would certainly suggest that you accept the position in question. Otherwise, you would have no reason to try so hard to convince me that it was TRUTH, or even backed by biological knowledge and data, instead of simply a possible opinion among many opinions out of a few studies among many studies.

Your entire issue with me seems to have been that I didn't take a single quote by a single scientist in a single article based on one line of research and take it as gospel truth. Such a problem would certainly suggest that you accept the position in question. Otherwise, you would have no reason to try so hard to convince me that it was TRUTH, or even backed by biological knowledge and data, instead of simply a possible opinion among many opinions out of a few studies among many studies.

He said more than that. He said that the research would bear it out and added words not added by the articles that convey his, PootWaddle's, belief that homosexuality is something to be cured. He has repeatedly claimed that the research shows that the hormones are abnormal, though the research makes no such claim, and that the development is retarded, though the research makes no such claim.

At any rate, it's long past my bedtime.

At any rate, it's long past my bedtime.

Ditto. Night, kid.

That is a stretch. In the possibility that it is never known whether it is purposeful or not then there is no difference. It is also impossible to know whether the fear of falling rocks might outweigh your fear of a psychopath.I think you could ask people if they thought being attacked by someone wielding a rock was worse than a rock falling on them, and they would choose the former. It doesn't matter if they would feel the same if both things happened to them, but their fear of it happening would matter.

Considering the person making the decision is the only one with whom the fetus has had contact, is the legal guardian, and the closest relative, I don't think this is that big of a factor in our situation.Really? The mother of a child is inherently closer than the father?

There are many, many legal ways of making a claim, but the principle way is to simply will it. To make the conscious thought, "this is mine". If someone else happens to think the same, then there will be a rational discourse to determine the owner.How would anyone else be able to tell that a claim is being made if it is unexpressed?

Re: "breeding out heterosexuality," though... you're joking, right? You realize that the earth would depopulate rather quickly, yes? :)

It really amazes me that people think homosexuals cannot or will not reproduce.

I've got a close friend whose father is gay. My friend and his brother were conceived via normal heterosexual intercourse, even though *gasp* their father is, and was, gay. Golly, look at that! A GAY is reproducing!

It's quite possible for people to engage in sexual activities that they don't find personally satisfying. Hell, a huge segment of conservative culture pretty much teaches that women should never enjoy sex anyhow, yet they also seem to believe that women should be constantly pregnant. Clearly, enjoying a sexual act is not a requirement for fertility. Gay people have engaged in heterosexual sex and have lived in heterosexual relationships for lifetimes. Gay people produce biological children all the freaking time.

I seriously think this forum needs an introductory course in Sex Ed.

I seriously think this forum needs an introductory course in Sex Ed.

You and me both.

As for gays reproducing - this gay is going to reproduce. Not naturally, mind, because my parts are not going near those of any female ever again.

I want to parent two children; one from myself and one from my partner, whomever he may end up being.

Babies don't require intercourse.

Science is a wonderful thing.

Babies don't require intercourse.

A turkey baster can help...

A turkey baster can help...

We have a winner, folks!

We have a winner, folks!

You have to admit, though:

1. The birth rate amongst lesbian women is nowhere near as high as that amongst heterosexual women.
2. Homosexual men can't give birth themselves.
3. Although a hormone patch that ensures a heterosexual baby at delivery would be of questionable ethical value, it would never be illegal.
4. Nor would many sue - and the suits would likely be unsuccessful.
5. A majority of heterosexual women would use the patch.
6. The number of homosexuals, therefore, would plummet in countries where the patch was in use.

You have to admit, though:

...

5. A majority of heterosexual women would use the patch.
6. The number of homosexuals, therefore, would plummet in countries where the patch was in use.

I don't know about either of these.

First, "5. A majority of heterosexual women would use the patch."

I don't think the majority of heterosexual women would use such a patch, mainly because the majority of heterosexual women 1) don't particularly want to fuck around with their hormone balances unless they really need to, 2) don't have money to burn on yet another expensive drug treatment, and 3) don't want to bother. I honestly think you are over-estimating the amount of trouble women are willing to go to in order to ensure their baby is straight.

As for, "6. The number of homosexuals, therefore, would plummet in countries where the patch was in use."

For one thing, the number of gay babies born in those countries might drop, but that doesn't necessarily mean there would be fewer homosexuals in those countries. San Fran didn't start out as a gay town, after all, and I doubt that the rise in the homosexual population can be completely attributed to San Fran people having more gay babies.

("Are you implying that homosexuals are non-migratory?" Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Seriously though, the number of countries where homosexuality is accepted as normal is increasing. In a country where homosexuality isn't viewed as something undesirable, the patch could be made available without really having much of an impact on the number of homosexuals in the country.

You have to admit, though:

1. The birth rate amongst lesbian women is nowhere near as high as that amongst heterosexual women.
2. Homosexual men can't give birth themselves.
3. Although a hormone patch that ensures a heterosexual baby at delivery would be of questionable ethical value, it would never be illegal.
4. Nor would many sue - and the suits would likely be unsuccessful.
5. A majority of heterosexual women would use the patch.
6. The number of homosexuals, therefore, would plummet in countries where the patch was in use.

As the acceptance of homosexuals grows, the probability of the use of such a patch would drop, until the majority of society would consider it a horrific abuse of the child to do so, and it would become illegal.

And in response to number five?

Well... maybe in the USA. Most women in developed countries that aren't the USA are enlightened enough to be revolted at such a thought.

"Are you implying that homosexuals are non-migratory?" Sorry, couldn't resist.


That depends.... African or European homosexuals?

That depends.... African or European homosexuals?

There is no reason to believe the "heterosexual patch" would get more use than the "homosexual patch".

There is no reason to believe the "heterosexual patch" would get more use than the "homosexual patch".

That was a substitution of 'swallow' for 'homosexual' from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.

Just so you know.

That was a substitution of 'swallow' for 'homosexual' from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.

Just so you know.

I know. It was actually an earlier reply. (Yes, the post you were replying to was a similar reference.) I was simply addressing eve's earlier post and trying to keep us from devolving into a plethera of Monty references.

5. A majority of heterosexual women would use the patch.

Why do you think this? With the way public opinion is going, by the time this type of treatment could possibly be available, most people won't care about sexual orientation anyways. There will probably be a super-conservative minority that would keep the industry alive, but I really don't think you'd be looking at a majority of heterosexual women.

Why do you think this? With the way public opinion is going, by the time this type of treatment could possibly be available, most people won't care about sexual orientation anyways. There will probably be a super-conservative minority that would keep the industry alive, but I really don't think you'd be looking at a majority of heterosexual women.

And it will likely be countered by those on the other "side" who are equally dogmatic and would be convinced that this marks extinction and would be using a similar procedure to force their kids to be homosexual. I doubt their would be a net change in the percentage of homosexuals. The unfortunate change will be a grave increase in human rights violations, in changing their sexualities against their will.

You have to admit, though:

1. The birth rate amongst lesbian women is nowhere near as high as that amongst heterosexual women.
2. Homosexual men can't give birth themselves.
3. Although a hormone patch that ensures a heterosexual baby at delivery would be of questionable ethical value, it would never be illegal.
4. Nor would many sue - and the suits would likely be unsuccessful.
5. A majority of heterosexual women would use the patch.
6. The number of homosexuals, therefore, would plummet in countries where the patch was in use.

i dont think i agree with much of that

1) i dont know the birth rate of lesbians, but i know its irrelevant to the creation of more homosexuals

2) no men can give birth but more and more are getting surrogate mothers to carry children for them (as well as the more traditional route of denying their homosexuality and forcing themselves to be with women)

3) it may well be illegal. many many proposed drug/hormone treatments are illegal. the liability for the manufacturer alone might make it unproduceable even if it is allowed by the FDA

4) suits depend on outcomes.

5) that depends on side effects, legality, price and marketing

6) or the number of admitted gays might plummet as the hatred of homosexuality hits a peak with prenatal treatments to prevent it.

And it will likely be countered by those on the other "side" who are equally dogmatic and would be convinced that this marks extinction and would be using a similar procedure to force their kids to be homosexual. I doubt their would be a net change in the percentage of homosexuals. The unfortunate change will be a grave increase in human rights violations, in changing their sexualities against their will.

Frankly, I don't understand why someone who truly wishes to raise children, rather than little robots, would want to choose so much about their child anyways. If I found out that, without a given treatment, my child was likely to have a debilitating disease, I would certainly wish to take any steps I could to prevent that. But as far as simple diversity goes, I am fascinated by the multiple ways a child can turn out - by the variety of personality and physical attributes that child could have. When I do decide to get pregnant, I don't even want to know the sex of the child before birth. And the child will be my child whether male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, intellectual, athletic, brunette, blonde, etc., etc., etc.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels the need to "engineer" traits that have nothing to do with health, they are not fit to be a parent at all.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels the need to "engineer" traits that have nothing to do with health, they are not fit to be a parent at all.
Because I'm such a pain, I feel compelled to point out that it's not always obvious where to draw the line.

For instance, clinical depression runs in my family. On both sides of my family, as a matter of fact. Depression most definitely has had a dramatic--and profoundly negative--impact on my personal health. Depression was fatal for one of my uncles. It's serious shit, and I would want to do everything in my power to prevent my child (hypothetically) from having to endure this illness.

At the same time, however, my moody and cynical nature is part of who I am. I cannot honestly say exactly where my personality stops and the depression begins. How could I possibly make that call when it comes to an embryo in the works?

Or what about a child that is otherwise perfectly and completely healthy, but it will be born without an arm? I went to school with a guy like that. He just was born with one arm. Nothing else wrong with him otherwise, but one-armed. Is that the sort of thing that a good parent would want to fix in their embryo/fetus?

I agree with you completely in spirit, of course. I'm the kind of person who doesn't even want to shake a present before I open it because I absolutely love surprises. But I think the reality gets messy very quickly.

Frankly, I don't understand why someone who truly wishes to raise children, rather than little robots, would want to choose so much about their child anyways. If I found out that, without a given treatment, my child was likely to have a debilitating disease, I would certainly wish to take any steps I could to prevent that. But as far as simple diversity goes, I am fascinated by the multiple ways a child can turn out - by the variety of personality and physical attributes that child could have. When I do decide to get pregnant, I don't even want to know the sex of the child before birth. And the child will be my child whether male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, intellectual, athletic, brunette, blonde, etc., etc., etc.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels the need to "engineer" traits that have nothing to do with health, they are not fit to be a parent at all.

I couldn't agree more. I understand where it comes from. It comes from the same place that makes certain types of people want to make laws that say I can't have whatever kind of sex I like in my own home and with my own spouse. Or to make laws that say I cannot smoke marijuana if I likein my home. Or encourage an emergency session of congress because a single brain dead woman's spouse is trying to honor her wishes and allow her body to die, while defending that no congressional session ever met about the thousands of people in harm's way in NO. Or the millions of other areas where people feel like controlling the lives of others is more important than human rights, simple respect, the golden rule and a recognition that people do not and should not have to live according to a morality that most of the people enforcing it are not willing to follow.

Because I'm such a pain, I feel compelled to point out that it's not always obvious where to draw the line.

No, I didn't mean to imply that there was a bright line. That's why I used an obvious extreme - a serious and debilitating disease. As with most issues, there is certainly a grey area in which I might disagree with the actions taken by a parent, but I wouldn't label them "bad parents" for the decision. And, depending on who you are, the grey area vs. the "black and white" area will change. There are those who feel that a parent shouldn't even go as far as getting a hearing aid for a hearing impaired child because the lack of hearing is part of who they are. There are others who think that every little thing that might be a defect should be "fixed."

I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle (and, being there, I think that's where we should all be =). The "grey area" for most of us would probably fall in the area where the "fix" would affect health, but may not be necessary. Your example of clinical depression could fall into that category. It certainly affects the health of those who suffer from it. But there are also many who have overall productive and happy lives, despite their bouts of depression. So, how much mucking around should we do to prevent it? It's a much harder question than whether or not we should work to prevent trisomy 18, which would likely kill the child within a few months, or whether we should pump money into being able to ensure blonde, blue-eyed children, traits that aren't going to make the child more healthy.

I agree with you completely in spirit, of course. I'm the kind of person who doesn't even want to shake a present before I open it because I absolutely love surprises. But I think the reality gets messy very quickly.

Doesn't it always?

No, I didn't mean to imply that there was a bright line. That's why I used an obvious extreme - a serious and debilitating disease. As with most issues, there is certainly a grey area in which I might disagree with the actions taken by a parent, but I wouldn't label them "bad parents" for the decision. And, depending on who you are, the grey area vs. the "black and white" area will change. There are those who feel that a parent shouldn't even go as far as getting a hearing aid for a hearing impaired child because the lack of hearing is part of who they are. There are others who think that every little thing that might be a defect should be "fixed."

Crap, you're one of those kooky "reasonable people" I've been hearing about, aren't you?


I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle (and, being there, I think that's where we should all be =). The "grey area" for most of us would probably fall in the area where the "fix" would affect health, but may not be necessary. Your example of clinical depression could fall into that category. It certainly affects the health of those who suffer from it. But there are also many who have overall productive and happy lives, despite their bouts of depression. So, how much mucking around should we do to prevent it? It's a much harder question than whether or not we should work to prevent trisomy 18, which would likely kill the child within a few months, or whether we should pump money into being able to ensure blonde, blue-eyed children, traits that aren't going to make the child more healthy.

Things do tend to be clearer at the extremes. If your baby is going to be born with his spine outside his body, it's pretty freaking simple to decide that this needs to be fixed ASAP. But if she's a totally healthy baby except for having no hands...


Doesn't it always?
Stupid reality.

I first one to address a question to everyone, but especially Jocabia:

Is it unethical for a woman to visit a sperm clinic with definite opinions on the quality she wants her son to possess, and picks out the sample that is most likely to bring about those qualities?

For the extreme, consider a woman who enters into a fertility clinic, examines the males' genetic codes and then calculates the exact probabilities that her child will express the phenotypes she desires. Then upon the pregnancy she aborts every child until her wishes are met.

Is this woman unethical? The mother is still in complete control over the child's genes, but the manipulation of the fetus is removed.


You create false requirement. Rights are not so specific and that is your flaw. When we first created the ability to have your heart exchanged for another, it was nothing something you could choose or not choose under your right to self-determination. It is now. It falls on your right to self-determination.

The fact it doesn't exist now has already been addressed and your argument is not founded in any current understanding of rights. Now are you going to just ignore that this isn't a requirement of rights like you did the last time I annihilated this argument or are you going to adjust? Better do the former, because if you adjust you might fall under the same criticism of inconsistency you pressed upon me. Wouldn't want that, now would we?

Man, all that work, and your argument comes down to relying on something you completely made up. That if you didn't have the ability to do something before, or even if you don't know, that it doesn't convey a right. It's false and it's proven by the way we handle each new technology.

I have made up nothing.

That we can never control our genetic dispositions, our in utero development, or the state of our homesteaded bodies, is a fact of our nature as humans.

You seem to think that my conception of rights is off base as well. I did offer an exposition of the definition of rights and their bases, perhaps you can show me where I erred.

Again, this is false. It has no control over being born short or tall or fat or thin or black or white or male or female, however, these are all traits of the child, and undoubtedly if you were to change your change your child from male to female once it was born, it would be considered unethical. Changing it in utero is no different. When you purpose to violate the rights of a person, then it doesn't matter if the fetus is your means for doing so.

How does this at all address the part you quoted? I stated in the part I quoted that our rights are legal rights determined from a bartering based on the desires of the participants of society. Since in all practicality the child experiences nothing from a change in sexuality, we can defer to the mother.

Just for giggles, however, how do we know that changing the sexuality post birth is unethical?

False. It's not a requirement. Again, you add something to definition of something in order to make an argument. This is why your arguments are not founded in reality. I can open the door to your home and hand you a television or a million dollars and I've still committed a crime because violating your rights is inherently harmful.

I "add something to definition of something in order to make an argument?"

It seems to me that your scenario shows perfectly well that the harm of caused by a violation of rights is a completely subjective valuation by the victim, and not some inherent negative value.

The question is whether or not you have a right to self-determination, you do, and whether or not that right is being intentionally violated. When you violate rights, harm is irrelevant, in fact. I can incarcerate you to keep you from overeating, but that doesn't change that I've violated your rights and this doesn't change that I do not have the right to do so. Intent and a violation of rights are the ONLY requirements. They are both present unless you change the meaning of both those words in order to make an argument, something you've, sadly, done repeatedly.

Before you claim that I have manipulated definitions to fit my arguments, how about you make an attempt to define rights and their justifications. As far as I know you consider people to possess natural rights that extend infinitely throughout time. This seems nonsensical to me, so provide justification for this, and stop resorting to examples that show people have their last wishes respected. I offered mine up, to which I have been faithful, and to which you offered no objection, now I would like to see yours.

Now to address your post, what is the purpose of rights if harm is irrelevant? I was under the impression that the entire purpose of having a right is to obligate others not to harm you. In your situation, is it not the harm caused by kidnapping that we provide a right to prevent it? If harm is not relevant then why would we have rights in the first place?

Secondly, the question of intent has long been settled, as the only action being considered is the willful, intentful one. So I hereby will state (you are free to agree or disagree) that in this situation the parent intends to change the sexuality of the child.

To address the irrelevancy of intent: intent is neither good nor bad in-of-itself, it merely assigns the ethical or moral culpability of the actor. If someone does something good completely by chance, we would not say that they are ethically right or morally good, if he/she does something good on purpose then we do consider them ethically right or morally good. If someone does something bad by chance, we do not consider the person to be bad, if he/she does it on purpose, then they are considered bad. So to determine whether someone is good or bad for their intent, or that the intent is good or bad itself, we must first consider whether there is a good or bad action.

Since we are discussing whether the manipulation of genes to influence sexuality is actually wrong or right, good or bad, then it is impossible to say that intent is wrong or right, good or bad, and should be dismissed.

I've addressed this. Your lack of understanding at this point seems willful. A proxy is assigned in your stead just as would be if you were in a coma. Your rights aren't ignored. There is an attempt to address your will as much as possible and tons of laws designed to specifically address this. However, absent an expressed will, and given the fact that one will never be addressed it is necessary to handle your estate. There is a compelling public interest to do so.

Exactly, we don't resolve estates because of some eternal right of property a person possesses (again property rights are lost many times during ones' life and afterwards), we resolve them because of the "compelling public interest to do so."

No, they aren't. I can actually will that my body is disturbed, burned, parted out, etc. Again, you fail to understand how a proxy works. There is the case where a right is not expressable by you so a proxy must be used, wills often assign this proxy. If they do not, the law establishes one as is best possible. That proxy can choose to reinter you and operates just like a right of attorney in life. The second way is when there is a compelling government interest, just like in imminent domain.

You keep using exceptions as examples to prove that these rights are not observed, except similar "violations" occur during life or have you never heard of moving a home because a freeway was coming through?

Your statement that rights are eternal would imply that they cannot be violated during life either, so I am not particularly concerned that the rights are often taken away during life.

And speaking of proxy, can you vote by proxy after you are dead, or do you lose voting rights after death?

Of course they do. They never experience the original sexuality but they do experience the new sexuality. Just like the child never experiences freedom in my example, but they do have the right to experience that. The change is not a requirement for a violation of rights. That's just another add-on to the definitions of things you simply made up. Can you not make your argument with addendums that don't actually exist?

What are the requirements for the violation of the right and what are their justifications?

Ah, more ad hominems. How sad. Desperation is not a good color on a debater.

Before you martyr yourself, that was a sarcastic statement to prove the absurdity of thinking that "You are inconsistent" is an ad hominem. It is quite obvious that I think that your argument is inconsistent, not you as a person.

Yes, I as a person am weird in that I make decisions on various issues by their individual merits rather than trying to create some blanket ideology. As I get new information, I alter my position to incorporate this information. It's what intelligent people do. The alternative is to take up an untenable position like yours and continue to beat it into the ground when your argument has been soundly defeated, by simply ignoring the arguments that show you to be wrong.

Then argue for this on something other than an so far unjustified natural right to self-determination that extends infinitely into the past or into the future, or explain the justification of the right.

I have made attempt after attempt to dispell this from multiple vantages, trying to show that the child isn't practically harmed, that the mother also has a question of self-determination at stake here, that natural rights require a conscious claim on something that exists.

To everyone of those arguments you have replied with this blanket ideology of eternal natural rights. The child is harmed because its eternal natural rights are violated, the mother cannot control the product or process of her pregnancy in this situation because it violates the childs eternal natural rights, the child has a claim on something that exists because it has eternal natural rights.

Existence.

So all things that exist have equal rights of personhood?

Before you reply, I know that you mean all humans that exist possess equal eternal rights to personhood.

From there I will ask, where are these equal rights to personhood for those who do exist but cannot claim them? Where are the voting rights for the metally handicapped?

No, the law establishes that it is inherently wrong to violate the rights of another intentionally. It does not require any other component to qualify as harm. I can't enter your home without your permission even if my intent is to clean your house or give you a television.

So it is not the victim who decides whether to press charges? Are you saying that, were I to break into your house and left you a million dollars with my name and address, I should expect to be hearing from a government prosecutor on charges for breaking and entering?

The law also holds people who violate rights unintentionally liable as well.

And finally, the discussion is on whether this is a right in the first place. Once we determine that we can decide whether intent is important, and in all actuality that discussion won't happen. If we both agree that it is wrong, then we both agree that the intent is wrong as well.

Oh, wait, have you examined what they do when they apply to a person or thing that doesn't die? Hmmmm... they expire after 120 or 95 years. That makes the average length of a copyright approximately the same regardless of who owns them or if the entity that owns them expire or do not. A corporation can have a copyright and that copyright is not eternal even if the corporation is. Yep, another argument where you fail to address the current understanding.

DO COPYRIGHTS EXPIRE?????

That is the only question that is relevant, whether they expire during life or after death is irrelevant. Do you not see in your own statement where you say "that copyright is not eternal".

Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of holding property endlessly under your name. Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of voting after you are dead. These are not exceptions, they are the rule. Our fundamental rights are life, liberty, property, and voting, none of which continue after our death.

Estates have costs. Taxes. Fees. Fines. Grass must be cut. You can't abandon things even if you are living. An abandoned bank account is eventually handled by the government as well. Again, these things have nothing to do with death and have to do with not having abandoned property laying around all over the place.

Abandonment only proves that there is a conscious will required behind every right.

Can abandoned property be reclaimed through this eternal right to property you proclaim? If I build a house on a field you abandoned, and you return to claim it, is your claim considered viable because of your eternal right to the field, or was your eternal right effectively ended when your claim was replaced by mine?

A proxy is assigned through legal channels, the same as happens if you lapse into a coma and have no heirs or are unconscious and need medical attention. Again, these are things that happen in life. You again fail to address reality.

And in these situations the laws defines inheritance as an entitlement of the heir, not a right of the dead.

If you have the funds to sustain your estate you can actually dictate that your property is cared for as necessary by people you assign. However, in death, as in life, you may not abandon your property. There have been people who have left their property to their cats.

Again, there must be an expressed claim, or rights are lost.

Seriously? You've never heard of it before? Again, then what is the purpose of a will? What is the purpose of suggesting that I cannot violate your rights before you are born? Rights are eternal. That's the point. It is our ability to administer them that is not.

Take up a law book, an ethics book, or a Shakespearean play.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/about/inalienablerights.html
"and seizes hither his eternal rights,
which hang above, inalienable
and indestructible as stars themselves."

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/arts/ar-mclk3.htm
'In The Mutual Flame Knight pays this tribute to the inner man: "every person or thing in Shakespeare is expressed as a being of eternal rights: the soul-life of each is touched, and the rest follows; . . . every least person . . . enjoys this royalty . . . shares in the elixir, is known by the atman, or divine spark within." And he continues, quoting from sonnet CXIV: '


http://laluni.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/externalisation/exte1184.html
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1905/suttner-lecture.html

Nevermind. I made it up. Seventy years before I was born.

I actually googled "eternal rights" when you first brought it up and found these websites (I bypassed Shakespeare because I rarely turn to him for political philosophy). I thought that all of them refer to eternal rights as being an eternal set of rights, not an eternal possession of right. They are considered eternal because they are natural and as such have always existed as a set of rights.

Bertha von Sutter proclaims an eternal right to live, which by your definition would be absurd.


EDIT: As John Locke, the champion of natural rights said: "The law of nature stands as an eternal rule of all men, legislators as well as others." So it is not that the right is held eternal, it is that nature and our role in nature never changes, that makes rights eternal.

I first one to address a question to everyone, but especially Jocabia:

Is it unethical for a woman to visit a sperm clinic with definite opinions on the quality she wants her son to possess, and picks out the sample that is most likely to bring about those qualities?

For the extreme, consider a woman who enters into a fertility clinic, examines the males' genetic codes and then calculates the exact probabilities that her child will express the phenotypes she desires. Then upon the pregnancy she aborts every child until her wishes are met.

Is this woman unethical? The mother is still in complete control over the child's genes, but the manipulation of the fetus is removed.


i hope the rest of this post wasnt important, i didnt read it.

its a bit creepy but its not unethical to choose the best father for your child from a sperm bank.

in the most common circumstance, a woman has very limited choices for father because its going to be the man she marries (or at least has some kind of relationship with). she may come across a tall handsome brilliant man with no obvious genetic defects but that doesnt mean she can talk him into breeding with her.

in the sperm bank men are reduced to their potential genetic contribution. she would be a fool to not choose the best possible contributor.

it would be going too far to go to a sperm bank for a more optimal father for her child than her own husband if her husband isnt a carrier of obvious genetic defects.

I first one to address a question to everyone, but especially Jocabia:

Is it unethical for a woman to visit a sperm clinic with definite opinions on the quality she wants her son to possess, and picks out the sample that is most likely to bring about those qualities?

For the extreme, consider a woman who enters into a fertility clinic, examines the males' genetic codes and then calculates the exact probabilities that her child will express the phenotypes she desires. Then upon the pregnancy she aborts every child until her wishes are met.

Is this woman unethical? The mother is still in complete control over the child's genes, but the manipulation of the fetus is removed.



oops.

she can abort for any reason as long as it is within the legal time frame for abortin on demand. its stupid but its her business.

This is the second post in a row that I hit the back key while not in the text box and lost everything.

The claim here is not for control over sexuality, but for not having his or her sexuality CHOSEN by another.

The child claims the right to have his or her sexuality develop naturally, as oposed to being imposed upon him or her artificially - and since there have indeed been children who develop their sexuality naturally and the manipulation of his or her hormones is clearly within the child's sphere of rightful sovereignty, the argument cannot be made that this claim is illegitimate.

Ok, to begin with I will acknowledge this claim, but I must reword it to get rid of the word natural. So the claim goes as such:

The child claims the right to have his or her sexuality develop as determined by the random pairing of the genetic codes of his biological parents.

Now, I don't know if you are above this, but taking out the word natural does seem to degrade the claim a little bit.

Ok, so now we analyze this claim against the various justifications. By far the most argued justification has been natural rights. Now, do you agree with Jocabia that there exists a natural right to self-determination, that upon the existence of a person (whatever constitutes that), extends infinitely into the past and into the future? If not do you believe that there is a natural right at all that pertains, and what is its basis?

Answer that and we can continue.

But you are disregarding the nature of intent's application here. It is indeed not applicable in its typical contexts, as you say. It is applicable only because the violation is simply that this choice is intentional, rather than natural; without intent, there is no rock at all (or at least not one we can do anything about, because, as you say, unintentional imposition of sexuality is pretty unavoidable.)

Since we cannot even discuss nonintent, it seems like discussion intent is rather pointless, but since some are hellbent on it, here it goes:

I believe that it is not wrong to intend to change the sexuality of a child through an in utero or in vitro procedure, for two reasons:

1. I reject any natural right to self-determination while still a fetus because it is absurd. It is impossible, due to our nature, our biological make up, for us to assume control over ourselves while a fetus, and therefore any claim upon this ability is absurd. I reject any natural right to an undisturbed development while a fetus because there is no good reason to assume such a natural right exists (hint, hint).

2. I reject any legal right to preclude the mother from choosing the sexuality of the child because the child gains nothing from the assertion of the right (I assume that he neither be hurt or helped by heterosexuality, I assume that he will still be able to choose his sexuality and will therefore be happy with it, I assume that he has never had control over his sexual development as a fetus so it is impossible for him to lose it, I assume that there is nothing gained by the "natural" quality of the random pairing) while the mother gains further control over the process and product of her pregnancy.


Now that I have made my argument in terms of intent, can we not accept that both of our arguments are exactly the same if intent is completely left out?

The argument advanced was not that the immorality is is in genetic (or hormonal) modification per se, but rather that it is in modification that runs contrary to the child's will - modification that we can reasonably expect the child would not want.

Since you will not say that the child would prefer either homosexuality or heterosexuality if given a free choice, I cannot accept that the argument considers the child's will concerning the specific manipulation. You are obviously addressing genetic modification in general.

I think this is insufficient - it doesn't account, for instance, for modification that changes a person's wants so that he or she would not object. But certainly it works here; if we are to truly respect the autonomy of the future child, we must make decisions regarding him or her as we would expect that child to want us to make them. Otherwise we are nothing more than usurpers; we are arrogating for ourselves the right to decide something that is the child's to decide, not ours. (The decision here is not "gay or straight" but "genetic modification of sexuality or not.")

Two points that I will likely make over and over:

1. You are assuming that the child would object to the modification, that their will would oppose the modification. However, the will does not preexist the modification and therefore is also contingent on the modification. It can be assumed that, since the person is "naturally heterosexual" or "naturally homosexual", he will naturally choose whichever one coincides with his genetics and be happy with it.

In other words, it his "will" to follow or deny his genetics, not to control them.

2. The person who has had their genes modified, at least in this situation, has no less autonomy that the person who has not. The person who has not is just as much a slave to genes that were not of his choosing as the person who has had the modification.

i hope the rest of this post wasnt important, i didnt read it.

I'm glad you didn't because Jocabia thinks I should be embarrassed by my posts.

its a bit creepy but its not unethical to choose the best father for your child from a sperm bank.

in the most common circumstance, a woman has very limited choices for father because its going to be the man she marries (or at least has some kind of relationship with). she may come across a tall handsome brilliant man with no obvious genetic defects but that doesnt mean she can talk him into breeding with her.

in the sperm bank men are reduced to their potential genetic contribution. she would be a fool to not choose the best possible contributor.

it would be going too far to go to a sperm bank for a more optimal father for her child than her own husband if her husband isnt a carrier of obvious genetic defects.

So is it wrong for the woman to determine a child's genetics before the pregnancy?

If you had read some of the other posts, you would see that the principle argument is that the child should have a right not to have their genetics chosen by another.

Ok, to begin with I will acknowledge this claim, but I must reword it to get rid of the word natural. So the claim goes as such:

The child claims the right to have his or her sexuality develop as determined by the random pairing of the genetic codes of his biological parents.

Now, I don't know if you are above this, but taking out the word natural does seem to degrade the claim a little bit.

I don't see how it would... what matters is that the process is unintentional, and that the child claims a right to it.

Ok, so now we analyze this claim against the various justifications. By far the most argued justification has been natural rights. Now, do you agree with Jocabia that there exists a natural right to self-determination, that upon the existence of a person (whatever constitutes that), extends infinitely into the past and into the future? If not do you believe that there is a natural right at all that pertains, and what is its basis?

I think there is a right to self-determination, but I don't know if I would call it a "natural right", unless the only meaning in that term was to distinguish it from a merely legal right or lack of right to something.

I think the person's right to self-determination is "eternal" in the sense that as long as her autonomy during her conscious existence is violated, it doesn't matter when the act that causes the violation occurs. The fact that the person is incapable of objecting when the act actually takes place is irrelevant to me; I see the right as founded in human dignity, not in any kind of self-ownership claim that can only occur after a will exists.

Since we cannot even discuss nonintent, it seems like discussion intent is rather pointless, but since some are hellbent on it, here it goes:

I believe that it is not wrong to intend to change the sexuality of a child through an in utero or in vitro procedure, for two reasons:

1. I reject any natural right to self-determination while still a fetus because it is absurd. It is impossible, due to our nature, our biological make up, for us to assume control over ourselves while a fetus, and therefore any claim upon this ability is absurd. I reject any natural right to an undisturbed development while a fetus because there is no good reason to assume such a natural right exists (hint, hint).

It is impossible for us to assume control over ourselves when we are sleeping either, yet we nevertheless maintain our rights of self-determination.

The fact that we are incapable of exercising our rights does not mean that they go away; it only means that someone else is entitled to exercise them for us if necessary, acting, to the best of her ability, the way we would her to act.

Aside from the numerous logical problems with the arguments for a natural right to "self-ownership" in the right-libertarian sense, perhaps on a more basic, intuitive level, I reject the idea that there need be some "natural" connection between mind and body for the rights of self-determination to hold. Even if I am not ever actually capable of exercising direct control over my body, it is still solidly within the sphere of my self-determination; anything done to it primarily affects me, and denying me control over it is necessarily a violation of my autonomy.

2. I reject any legal right to preclude the mother from choosing the sexuality of the child because the child gains nothing from the assertion of the right (I assume that he neither be hurt or helped by heterosexuality, I assume that he will still be able to choose his sexuality and will therefore be happy with it, I assume that he has never had control over his sexual development as a fetus so it is impossible for him to lose it, I assume that there is nothing gained by the "natural" quality of the random pairing) while the mother gains further control over the process and product of her pregnancy.

The problem is not in the end result of homosexuality, heterosexuality, or whatever. The problem is in the modification itself.

The child does indeed gain something - she gains the assurance that her sexuality arose naturally. You might not see this as a "gain," but what if the child disagrees?

Now that I have made my argument in terms of intent, can we not accept that both of our arguments are exactly the same if intent is completely left out?

The only relevance of "intent" is the distinction between a naturally-developed sexuality and a parentally-imposed one.

Since you will not say that the child would prefer either homosexuality or heterosexuality if given a free choice, I cannot accept that the argument considers the child's will concerning the specific manipulation. You are obviously addressing genetic modification in general.

No, I'm not. I'm addressing the specific genetic modification.

I'm saying that if you were to somehow ask the future child, "Would you prefer to have your sexuality develop naturally, or to have it artificially modified by this hormonal or genetic procedure?", the child would almost certainly prefer to have her sexuality develop naturally.

It is not a question of what the child's specific preference of sexual orientation is.

Two points that I will likely make over and over:

1. You are assuming that the child would object to the modification, that their will would oppose the modification. However, the will does not preexist the modification and therefore is also contingent on the modification. It can be assumed that, since the person is "naturally heterosexual" or "naturally homosexual", he will naturally choose whichever one coincides with his genetics and be happy with it.

This is an important point with regard to the general subject, but it doesn't apply here. The reason is that the only thing you are modifying is his sexual orientation - not his preference for his sexual orientation being natural or artificial.

I'm not saying he would say, "What? I'm straight? But I wanted to be gay!" - it might happen, but it could happen just as easily with natural development. The objection would not be to the specific sexual orientation, but to having that specific sexual orientation artificially imposed.

Vittos - there is something else you are overlooking.

Let's say I am wrong, and people in general do not, in fact, really care about whether their sexual orientation is the natural product of whatever biological causes it has or the artificial imposition of their parents. If I am, then there is no reason that those people cannot choose for themselves to have their sexual orientation artificially modified long after they have been born. On the other hand, once the procedure is performed on the fetus, it may not be reversible, and it would probably be impossible to determine what the natural sexual orientation actually would be anyway.

Since this a decision the parents do not really have to make, in respect for the child's autonomy it makes the most sense for them to NOT make it - to permit the child to choose for herself whether or not to have her sexual orientation modified artificially.

I don't see how it would... what matters is that the process is unintentional, and that the child claims a right to it.

What about the intentional/unintentional dichotomy is morally relevant as it pertains to the action? What about an unintentional development entitles the person to it? How far does it go?

I think there is a right to self-determination, but I don't know if I would call it a "natural right", unless the only meaning in that term was to distinguish it from a merely legal right or lack of right to something.

I think the person's right to self-determination is "eternal" in the sense that as long as her autonomy during her conscious existence is violated, it doesn't matter when the act that causes the violation occurs. The fact that the person is incapable of objecting when the act actually takes place is irrelevant to me; I see the right as founded in human dignity, not in any kind of self-ownership claim that can only occur after a will exists.

I don't have any major disagreements in what you consider to be the nature or foundation of rights, if anything I consider self-ownership to be a matter of mutual respect of human dignity.

Another thing, in the sense you described would rights be eternal after death?

In a sense I agree with your statement, I don't want to see automotons genetically bred to fill factories. However, I still cannot wrap my head around what autonomy is violated, at what point did the person have control over his genetics, at what point did the parents not have control over the genetics?

In the end, this right to self-determination does not fly. As I have said over and over again, it is impossible for the person to assert the self-determination. Even if there are no rights established by nature, this is surely a right denied by nature.

Even if I am not ever actually capable of exercising direct control over my body, it is still solidly within the sphere of my self-determination; anything done to it primarily affects me, and denying me control over it is necessarily a violation of my autonomy.

There is no denial of control.

The problem is not in the end result of homosexuality, heterosexuality, or whatever. The problem is in the modification itself.

The child does indeed gain something - she gains the assurance that her sexuality arose naturally. You might not see this as a "gain," but what if the child disagrees?

Let us identify who has the more legitimate position, me or the girl who is modified. Since there is nothing sacrosanct about a random genetic pairing, since there is no difference between being homosexual or heterosexual (either one is naturally chosen), and since no self-determination is lost, she suffered no harm. How does she respond?

This is an important point with regard to the general subject, but it doesn't apply here. The reason is that the only thing you are modifying is his sexual orientation - not his preference for his sexual orientation being natural or artificial.

I'm not saying he would say, "What? I'm straight? But I wanted to be gay!" - it might happen, but it could happen just as easily with natural development. The objection would not be to the specific sexual orientation, but to having that specific sexual orientation artificially imposed.

It is important in pointing out that there is no difference between random and chosen traits to the person. In either case, the person is totally dependent upon the genes, the person is the product of the genes. Without those genes chosen at random or by design, that person doesn't exist, and is replaced by a similar but different person.

Vittos - there is something else you are overlooking.

Let's say I am wrong, and people in general do not, in fact, really care about whether their sexual orientation is the natural product of whatever biological causes it has or the artificial imposition of their parents. If I am, then there is no reason that those people cannot choose for themselves to have their sexual orientation artificially modified long after they have been born. On the other hand, once the procedure is performed on the fetus, it may not be reversible, and it would probably be impossible to determine what the natural sexual orientation actually would be anyway.

There are some major problems here.

I am not saying that the person will be completely ambivalent to their sexuality after they are born, only that they will be perfectly free to choose their sexuality after they are born, and will choose that one which they are most happy with, and therefore will be happy with whichever decision the parents made. They will be no more likely to want to manipulate their sexuality later on.

Also if it is changeable in the future for the randomly developed person, then it is changeable for the purposefully developed person. Either way they are bound by their genetics or they can change their genetics.

Since this a decision the parents do not really have to make, in respect for the child's autonomy it makes the most sense for them to NOT make it - to permit the child to choose for herself whether or not to have her sexual orientation modified artificially.

This is not a matter of the child's autonomy. The child, by its biological nature, must have been completely dependent upon its parents for its genetic makeup or it wouldn't exist.

If the child, can in the future, change their sexuality, then there is even less reason to assume this infringes upon their autonomy, as they are perfectly able to choose another.

And Soheran, when you address my question of "How far does it go?" in terms of the moral dichotomy between intentional and unintentional, please address the hypothetical I posted earlier.

It is very important to address just how much control a mother should have over the product of her pregnancy. Is a mother behaving immorally and infringing on the rights of the child when she picks out a father based on traits she would want in her child?

Is that an unwelcome infringement upon the child's "autonomy"?

Ho-ly shit, that is insane. I bet there would still be gay people though. People are just too HOT to not get mated with by everybody. :cool:

I first one to address a question to everyone, but especially Jocabia:

Is it unethical for a woman to visit a sperm clinic with definite opinions on the quality she wants her son to possess, and picks out the sample that is most likely to bring about those qualities?

For the extreme, consider a woman who enters into a fertility clinic, examines the males' genetic codes and then calculates the exact probabilities that her child will express the phenotypes she desires. Then upon the pregnancy she aborts every child until her wishes are met.

Is this woman unethical? The mother is still in complete control over the child's genes, but the manipulation of the fetus is removed.

Excellent question. It definitely addresses the point.

However, in this procedure, the choice is made by selecting an embryo, not changing the embryo. It's more similar to abortion. This is about choosing the outcome versus changing the outcomes. See the difference.

Like a woman getting abortion after abortion until she gets a strait child, for example, this is simply choosing a child that will come out a certain way, rather than altering the child to come out a certain way.


I have made up nothing.

That we can never control our genetic dispositions, our in utero development, or the state of our homesteaded bodies, is a fact of our nature as humans.

You seem to think that my conception of rights is off base as well. I did offer an exposition of the definition of rights and their bases, perhaps you can show me where I erred.

Again, you fail to recognize the point. The point is that being incapable of choosing now has nothing to do with rights. Ability has nothing to with what our rights are. It only limits us in how we excercise our rights. Rights don't appear and disappear as our abilities do. I've pointed this out repeatedly, but you've instead chosen to keep repeating yourself rather than addressing that flaw in your argument.


How does this at all address the part you quoted? I stated in the part I quoted that our rights are legal rights determined from a bartering based on the desires of the participants of society. Since in all practicality the child experiences nothing from a change in sexuality, we can defer to the mother.

The point of what I quoted, the point on which it rests, is that if there is no objective qualititative difference it doesn't matter.

"see absolutely no loss to the child in being born homosexual or heterosexual. If we are to assume that no benefit is gained from being born heterosexual, then we can consider no harm from being born homosexual. From the perspective of the child, there is no harm from the parents choosing the sexuality, as it had no control in the first place."

I pointed out that it does, and that many people would agree if you were doing this against the will of person that was already born, because it is a violation of their rights. The fetus is a difference in vehicle, the application and purpose are no different to alter the child without consideration for its will. You also suggest that harm is a requirement, but I addressed that later.



Just for giggles, however, how do we know that changing the sexuality post birth is unethical?

It's a violation of the rights of the child, to self-determination. If you're going to try and back out of your losing argument by simply denying that the right exists, then I'll take that as an admission you've lost.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll prove that rights exist but then you don't get to make a single argument about what qualities rights have or don't have, but you can't say they don't exist while defining them.


I "add something to definition of something in order to make an argument?"

It seems to me that your scenario shows perfectly well that the harm of caused by a violation of rights is a completely subjective valuation by the victim, and not some inherent negative value.

Again, harm is not a requirement and therefore we have no need to decide whether an individual would consider it harm. That's the point. Harm (in the way you use it) is not necessary for it to be unethical or a violation of rights. It simply has to ignore their rights. This clearly does. The point is that if it's done to the child it should be their choice if one is to respect its rights. If there is no objective difference then the need cannot possibly be immediate.

You suggest it's about a subjective valuation by the victim, not I. I say that if the victim didn't get to choose, you violated their rights. I didn't say that if the victim likes the money that there rights aren't violated. I said that their rights are violated regardless of whether one argues that the action was for good or for ill.


Before you claim that I have manipulated definitions to fit my arguments, how about you make an attempt to define rights and their justifications. As far as I know you consider people to possess natural rights that extend infinitely throughout time. This seems nonsensical to me, so provide justification for this, and stop resorting to examples that show people have their last wishes respected. I offered mine up, to which I have been faithful, and to which you offered no objection, now I would like to see yours.

I offered no objection? Pardon? You're replying to my objection. You said you were offering up the dictionary definition, but then you claimed it was actually something different, that a violation of rights required harm (thus redefining rights), and that it required ability (also redefining rights). I don't disagree with what the dictionary had to say, except that it was over-simplified for such a complicated subject. I offered an explanation of what I think rights are and explained it several different ways. Do I need to break out the analogies?


Now to address your post, what is the purpose of rights if harm is irrelevant? I was under the impression that the entire purpose of having a right is to obligate others not to harm you. In your situation, is it not the harm caused by kidnapping that we provide a right to prevent it? If harm is not relevant then why would we have rights in the first place?

Nope. The entire purpose of rights is control of oneself. Control of one's body, property, life, thoughts, expression, etc. Whether a kidnapper harms or helps you, they have violated your right to liberty. Even if someone helps you by denying you the right to speak freely, it is still a violation of your rights.

You do realize you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You claim that I said that a subject valuation of harm by the victim is relevant then you claim that I said harm was irrelevant. Harm is irrelevant. Is that clear? I know you saw it because you respond above. Harm is irrelevant. The opinion of the victim does not change whether or not their permission was given beforehand. It's still rape if you pass out and I have sex with you even if you decide you're happy about it in the morning.


Secondly, the question of intent has long been settled, as the only action being considered is the willful, intentful one. So I hereby will state (you are free to agree or disagree) that in this situation the parent intends to change the sexuality of the child.

Nope. Not when it comes to the violation of rights. You've just established why intent is relevant. Now, that you've accepted that intent is a given, then you'll stop comparing it to unintended outcomes. Glad that inane argument won't surface again. You are about to follow up with how intent is necessary to examine an ethical question and why it's nonsensical to compare the action to an unintended action as if an unintended action can be unethical. Glad you can show for me why your original arguments were nonsensical. thanks for that.


To address the irrelevancy of intent: intent is neither good nor bad in-of-itself, it merely assigns the ethical or moral culpability of the actor. If someone does something good completely by chance, we would not say that they are ethically right or morally good, if he/she does something good on purpose then we do consider them ethically right or morally good. If someone does something bad by chance, we do not consider the person to be bad, if he/she does it on purpose, then they are considered bad. So to determine whether someone is good or bad for their intent, or that the intent is good or bad itself, we must first consider whether there is a good or bad action.

We accept that violating one's rights is inherently harmful. You've not addressed this yet. Again, this is quite obviously why you can't decide to enter a person's property to give them things. Instead you misunderstood this point suggesting that the violation of rights is subject to the whim of a person you called the victim. They are the victim regardless of whether they press charges. And whether or not it was objectively harmful has no bearing on whether they will or can press charges.


Since we are discussing whether the manipulation of genes to influence sexuality is actually wrong or right, good or bad, then it is impossible to say that intent is wrong or right, good or bad, and should be dismissed.

Nope, unnecessary. This is again a redefinition of rights. You keep saying it. It's just as wrong as the first time. If YOU can choose to violate MY rights based on what YOU feel is good or bad, then they aren't my rights and my liberty is subject to your whim.


Exactly, we don't resolve estates because of some eternal right of property a person possesses (again property rights are lost many times during ones' life and afterwards), we resolve them because of the "compelling public interest to do so."

Amusing. Again, you just step outside reality. If it had nothing to do with our right to property, then my will would not matter. It however does. Compelling public interest is why it is still dealt with when my will is unknown. They still don't violate my will if my will is expressed. If my will is unknown and can never be known then they do their best to address what is hoped to be my will, which is why next of kin is the first line they use.


Your statement that rights are eternal would imply that they cannot be violated during life either, so I am not particularly concerned that the rights are often taken away during life.

They can be violated for a compelling public interest. Technically, they shouldn't be, but we sign a contract with our country that allows them to do so. It's part of existing in a union. You as a person can't claim a compelling public interest.


And speaking of proxy, can you vote by proxy after you are dead, or do you lose voting rights after death?

Again, compelling public interest that assumes you cannot choose a candidate after death. It's a supported assumption. If you'd like to prove that I can actually sign away my voting rights today then you'll have a point. Can I vote twenty years from now today? Nope. Neither can someone who is dying. The treatment is exactly the same. However, if the dead can actually make it to the voting booth and excercise their will, I don't believe they'd be prevented. Are you telling me they can?


What are the requirements for the violation of the right and what are their justifications?

Anything that is done to me, but not by me or with my permission is a violation of my rights. There are only two justifications, a compelling regard for my safety or health coupled with an inability on my part to express my rights.

The balance of personal rights versus the rights of the group is a question not relevant to this discussion, so I left it out of that point.


Before you martyr yourself, that was a sarcastic statement to prove the absurdity of thinking that "You are inconsistent" is an ad hominem. It is quite obvious that I think that your argument is inconsistent, not you as a person.

You've attacked me personally several times. Again, it smacks of desperation as does your argument.

However, my argument is not inconsistent. You've not demonstrated any inconsistency. Let me tell you how debate works. You say things and then you demonstrate their validity. As of yet, you mostly just say things and hope for the best. Your precious few supports you've offered are actually bastardizations of reality, like claiming the right to vote in the future exists at any time in life, so that in dying it becomes different or suggesting that an act has to be harmful to be a violation of rights.

What you've demonstrated is an inconsistency in your understandinng. For example, I gave you an example of why harm (again, in the way you're using it) is irrelevant and you acted as if I was saying it was up to the post facto decision of the victim and then later said I said harm was irrelevant. Both statements supported my point that harm is irrelevant, it was your understanding of them that made them inconsistent, not my expression of them.


Then argue for this on something other than an so far unjustified natural right to self-determination that extends infinitely into the past or into the future, or explain the justification of the right.

Because you don't understand the justification does not mean it doesn't exist or I've not explained it. I've shown how it does and how every exception that you can find in death can also be found in life or in how we treat similar property rights for conglomerations of people called corporations. I've shown it in contractual agreements made on behalf of a child prior to birth. I've shown it with contractual agreements that exist after death. You've failed on every level to come up with a single example of something that is not treated equally in life and death or with living contractors and non-living contractors.


I have made attempt after attempt to dispell this from multiple vantages, trying to show that the child isn't practically harmed, that the mother also has a question of self-determination at stake here, that natural rights require a conscious claim on something that exists.

Practical harm is not a requirement. You've not shown that it is. Failure.

The question is not the self-determination of the mother. We aren't talking about the effects of the procedure on the mother. We are talking about a procedure which has the SOLE INTENT of altering the child via the fetus. The self-determination of the mother has nothing to do with it. Failure.

Rights do require a conscious claim. This procedure has the intent of affecting a being that exists, the child, and of affecting it while it exist and is conscious altering its sexuality. Conscious claim and something that exists. Failure.


To everyone of those arguments you have replied with this blanket ideology of eternal natural rights. The child is harmed because its eternal natural rights are violated, the mother cannot control the product or process of her pregnancy in this situation because it violates the childs eternal natural rights, the child has a claim on something that exists because it has eternal natural rights.

No, I've demonstrated examples where we honor the religious rights of people posthumously and the property rights of people posthumously, freedom of speech posthumously (for example you can censure my paintings just because I'm dead). Every freedom I can possibly excercise after death is still avails itself to me.

The child's rights are violated because the intent is to alter the child. That's the expressed intent of the procedure and violates the child's rights to choose such procedures.


So all things that exist have equal rights of personhood?

Before you reply, I know that you mean all humans that exist possess equal eternal rights to personhood.

Phew, I was starting to worry about you. I didn't know whether to laugh or laugh.

From there I will ask, where are these equal rights to personhood for those who do exist but cannot claim them?

They are demonstrated in numerous ways. Wills. Powers of attorney. Next of kin. Etc.

Where are the voting rights for the metally handicapped?

Voting requires that you be able to currently express your will and it is not a natural right. Again, I can't vote in the future or the past but only the present. If I am not presently capable of expressing my will, I cannot vote. I can't hand you power of attorney to vote for me, I can't write a contract that says I vote Republican for eternity or even the next election. The right to vote is an immediate right. You or I might disagree, but it is applied consistently. Meanwhile, many among the mentally handicapped can and do vote, provided they are determine to be able to understand the process and thus actually express their will, just as we do in court, or with medical decisions.


So it is not the victim who decides whether to press charges? Are you saying that, were I to break into your house and left you a million dollars with my name and address, I should expect to be hearing from a government prosecutor on charges for breaking and entering?

The victim doesn't have to claim harm. The victim can go into court and say, it was wonderful, I was glad to have him, now take him away and he'd still be guilty of violating his rights. It doesn't become not a violation of my rights if it turns out I happen to agree with you after the fact.

And, yes, you would. I find it interesting that you called them the "victim" since you're claiming there was not a violation of rights.

Again, you show your inconsistent understanding of my points. The violation is not decided post facto. It is what we do about it that is decided post facto.


The law also holds people who violate rights unintentionally liable as well.

Keep in mind, when the law uses intent it refers to intending the outcome, not intending the action that was the violation. The violation of rights is either intentional or not the point, but the outcome may or may not have been intended.

However, it does care about intent in terms of violating the law, which is why one can be found not guilty by reason of insanity, because the violation could not be intentional.


And finally, the discussion is on whether this is a right in the first place. Once we determine that we can decide whether intent is important, and in all actuality that discussion won't happen. If we both agree that it is wrong, then we both agree that the intent is wrong as well.

Again, you're shifting the goalposts. You've already agreed that inent is necessary for an ethical evaluation, so intent is relevant. Without intent, there is no question of ethics. You've said so yourself.

Second, let's be clear, I have a right to decide what medical procedures I undergo. You can't cut my arms off in life. You can't cut of my arms using a fetus either (yes, funny image).

You've only recently suddenly decided to completely drag this discussion into a discussion of whether I even have such a right, which is a completely different topic. Is it reliant on this topic, sure, but if we do that, we can drag this conversation down every path, at every juncture. Like where do rights come from? Do they exist at all? It would completely derail the discussion. Meanwhile, you're trying to have it every way, changing from the existence of rights by your definition to rights existing only during life to not existing at all.

"Rights don't exist, but they exist only when you're alive and the require for their to be objective harm in order to violated."

You can't have it every single way. Pick a position and quit changing running in circles because you're losing.



DO COPYRIGHTS EXPIRE?????

Yep, even if they are owned by entities that do not. In approximately the same time frame. You point out that some legal handlings of rights allow for an abridgement that has nothing to with whether a right exists or is eternal but instead because of a need to balance the rights of the group versus the rights of the individual.


That is the only question that is relevant, whether they expire during life or after death is irrelevant. Do you not see in your own statement where you say "that copyright is not eternal".

Nope, not even for eternal entities. The legal handling of rights and the rights themselves are not equal. We abridge rights all the time via legal channels. That doesn't suggest they don't exist, only that societies balance the societal contract against rights, again, that's another discussion. However, the fact that particular rights are honored at all evidences their existence and the fact that particular rights extend after death and before birth evidences they are eternal. Copyrights expire not because people die, but because again we weigh compelling public interest against individual rights in the US and most western nations.

I never said the right to your ideas is not eternal. I said the legal copy right is not eternal because like all rights, they are balanced against public interest.


Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of holding property endlessly under your name. Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of voting after you are dead. These are not exceptions, they are the rule. Our fundamental rights are life, liberty, property, and voting, none of which continue after our death.

You've failed. They most certainly continue after death. I have the right to life after I've died, I simply don't have the ability to be alive. I have the right to vote after I've died, just not the ability. I have the right to liberty (to freedom of movement, etc.), I just don't have the ability. I have the right to property after death. If not, the moment I expired my property would have no owner. My will would not be executed. I also have the right to expression which extends after death. I have a right to a trial that extends after death (the government cannot declare me guilty of crime without a trial even if I die).


Abandonment only proves that there is a conscious will required behind every right.

Duh. I've never denied it. The purpose of this procedure is to alter the child, not the fetus. The fetus is only the mechanism by which they do it. The procedure is performed with the intent of altering the child and would not be done to a fetus prior to abortion, for example. However, I am still protected when I am not conscious, provided I will be or have ever been conscious, which is why a will matters, which is why there are next of kin decision for medical procedures, which is why I can write a power of attorney if I am going to be incapacitated, which is why we don't ignore medications that cause birth defects when used by pregnant mothers, which why we remove crack babies from mothers and have forced those mothers into rehab, which is why honor the rights of a person to be cremated or buried or entombed or shipped to another country or whatever.

Again, and to be clear in a very brief statement. This procedure is designed to effect a person with a conscious will. They do it before either exist, but the person is the focus. The effect occurs via the fetus when both the person and the will exist.

Can abandoned property be reclaimed through this eternal right to property you proclaim?

Depends on the property and whether it continues to have any value or if there is any ability to return the property. In some cases the government holds money for decades just for that reason. If there is any reason to believe return is possible then the government often takes extreme measures to preserve your property or the value of your property, if preserving your property is not plausible.

With land, the government recognizes that if they were to leave property abandoned past a certain time frame it would become worthless as a result of taxes and fines, not just worthless, but they would force you into debt. Saem with other physical assets. Stock is often kept. Checks, monies owed, etc. are often kept.

Again, you mention where we cannot practically protect the right as if it means that it doesn't exist. The inability or implausibility of respecting a right does not address it's existence. It's like saying that because I've lost my ability to speak that I've lost my freedom of speech (in this case specifically referring to ONLY the spoken word), but I haven't. I simply cannot use it.


If I build a house on a field you abandoned, and you return to claim it, is your claim considered viable because of your eternal right to the field, or was your eternal right effectively ended when your claim was replaced by mine?

Nope. I forfeit my rights all the time. If I leave my property without addressing it, I leave it subject to laws regarding abandonment. The reasons for such laws is so that lots don't get overgrown and full of weeds. I happen to disagree with this particular violation, but it again goes with the societal contract. You'd likely be fine abandoning property in the middle of the mojave, but not in the middle of the neighborhood I grew up. However, I'd also eventually lose the property if I treated it the same way but was present. The violations have nothing to do with rights expiring, but instead the balance of public interest (the rights of all) versus personal interest (the rights of individuals). It's a seperate topic since it's not at issue here.


And in these situations the laws defines inheritance as an entitlement of the heir, not a right of the dead.

False. It's a right of the dead. If it were the right of the heir, then wills would be written by the heirs, not the person dying.


Again, there must be an expressed claim, or rights are lost.

Not lost. You simply can't know the will of the person so they are not excercised. That's not the same thing. An expressed will is a part of personal rights only because without it, it wouldn't be a personal right, by definition. You cannot lose rights. They can only be expressed or not expressed or abridged or not abridged. They are eternal. (Also, if they were lost by a lack of expression we would use the same attempts to find a proxy that we use when you lose consciousness).

For example, we abridge the right to vote when you commit a crime. Again, the rights of the group versus the rights of the individual.

Every exception you've EVER listed has been about the rights of the many versus the rights of the individual. That's not at question here. It's a seperate topic.

I actually googled "eternal rights" when you first brought it up and found these websites (I bypassed Shakespeare because I rarely turn to him for political philosophy). I thought that all of them refer to eternal rights as being an eternal set of rights, not an eternal possession of right. They are considered eternal because they are natural and as such have always existed as a set of rights.

They have always existed and always exist for every person. Read the references. They are talking about individuals and the general existence of rights. Some of them are referring to each individual being eternally free.


Bertha von Sutter proclaims an eternal right to live, which by your definition would be absurd.

It isn't absurd. Rights are not lost because I don't have the ability to express them. They simply can't be expressed. I have a right to life after I die, but simply not the ability.


EDIT: As John Locke, the champion of natural rights said: "The law of nature stands as an eternal rule of all men, legislators as well as others." So it is not that the right is held eternal, it is that nature and our role in nature never changes, that makes rights eternal.

Yes, he was talking about the difference between the practical expression and the philosophical attitude. So are we. Again, I have the right to life even when I don't have the ability.

I have the right to decide what medical procedures are performed on me even when I am incapable of expressing that right. They don't appear and disappear based on ability.

Again, can you tell me when my freedom of expression expires? Can Samuel Clemens be censored since he's no longer living?

I'm glad you didn't because Jocabia thinks I should be embarrassed by my posts.



So is it wrong for the woman to determine a child's genetics before the pregnancy?

If you had read some of the other posts, you would see that the principle argument is that the child should have a right not to have their genetics chosen by another.

She isn't choosing a child's genetics. She's choosing which child will come to exist. Each of the outcomes would have grown into a child Had she said yes to every sperm, every pregnancy, she would have multiple children, not one. She prevented the other children from occurring, the choices she makes are not relevant to the child other than in the knowledge that if it would have had different genetics it wouldn't exist.

It's the difference between choosing not to date a woman until I find one with no arms and cutting of my girlfriend's arms. They aren't remotely similar.

I'm going to say No for one reason... overpopulation. The last thing the world needs is more slutty heterosexuals. At least slutty homos don't make babies.

I'm glad you didn't because Jocabia thinks I should be embarrassed by my posts.



So is it wrong for the woman to determine a child's genetics before the pregnancy?

If you had read some of the other posts, you would see that the principle argument is that the child should have a right not to have their genetics chosen by another.

to some extent we always choose our child's genetics. my child will have my genes and myhusbands genes, no one else's. even penguins do that, eh?

what she did in your example was to choose a child with a certain genetics. she rejected those embryos that did not conform to her specifications. we arent quite at that point yet, but it seems to be right on the horizon. its far more likely in invitro fertilization than by aborting an existing pregnancy but its certainly possible.

there is a difference between choosing to carry the "perfect" child and taking the child you are carrying and making it "perfect" through changes to its natural makeup.

most people would find both creepy at least. to reject perfectly good embryos because they are not quite right is as bad changing the one you have. there may come a day when those sorts of tests are banned because society finds it unacceptable to micromanage the unborn's genetic makeup no matter how you do it.

And Soheran, when you address my question of "How far does it go?" in terms of the moral dichotomy between intentional and unintentional, please address the hypothetical I posted earlier.

It is very important to address just how much control a mother should have over the product of her pregnancy. Is a mother behaving immorally and infringing on the rights of the child when she picks out a father based on traits she would want in her child?

Is that an unwelcome infringement upon the child's "autonomy"?

Our posts having gotten too long and you keep switching things around. Let's make it simple:

Alright, let's ask this.

1. Suppose that if the mother chooses the sexual preference of the child, the hormonal effect makes the child resistant to the procedure in the future. The procedure is still possible but painful and slow. If no gestational procedure is performed, the child can change its sexuality once puberty is complete and the change is immediate and painless.

Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.

3. What if she decides after the fact, that she liked it (assume I decided to tell her)? Is it a violation of her rights then?

4. Whose sexuality is changed by this procedure?

I'll give my answer first, (everyone answer, not just Vittos).

1. Yes, of course.

2. I violated her rights even if there is no practical difference and she cannot express her will.

3. Still a violation.

4. The child's.

I'm going to say No for one reason... overpopulation. The last thing the world needs is more slutty heterosexuals. At least slutty homos don't make babies.

Sure they do! Look at Cheney's daugher! (Not that I'm implying that she's a slut. :))

Excellent question. It definitely addresses the point.

However, in this procedure, the choice is made by selecting an embryo, not changing the embryo. It's more similar to abortion. This is about choosing the outcome versus changing the outcomes. See the difference.

Like a woman getting abortion after abortion until she gets a strait child, for example, this is simply choosing a child that will come out a certain way, rather than altering the child to come out a certain way.




Again, you fail to recognize the point. The point is that being incapable of choosing now has nothing to do with rights. Ability has nothing to with what our rights are. It only limits us in how we excercise our rights. Rights don't appear and disappear as our abilities do. I've pointed this out repeatedly, but you've instead chosen to keep repeating yourself rather than addressing that flaw in your argument.




The point of what I quoted, the point on which it rests, is that if there is no objective qualititative difference it doesn't matter.

"see absolutely no loss to the child in being born homosexual or heterosexual. If we are to assume that no benefit is gained from being born heterosexual, then we can consider no harm from being born homosexual. From the perspective of the child, there is no harm from the parents choosing the sexuality, as it had no control in the first place."

I pointed out that it does, and that many people would agree if you were doing this against the will of person that was already born, because it is a violation of their rights. The fetus is a difference in vehicle, the application and purpose are no different to alter the child without consideration for its will. You also suggest that harm is a requirement, but I addressed that later.





It's a violation of the rights of the child, to self-determination. If you're going to try and back out of your losing argument by simply denying that the right exists, then I'll take that as an admission you've lost.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll prove that rights exist but then you don't get to make a single argument about what qualities rights have or don't have, but you can't say they don't exist while defining them.


I

It seems to me that your scenario shows perfectly well that the harm of caused by a violation of rights is a completely subjective valuation by the victim, and not some inherent negative value.

Again, harm is not a requirement and therefore we have no need to decide whether an individual would consider it harm. That's the point. Harm (in the way you use it) is not necessary for it to be unethical or a violation of rights. It simply has to ignore their rights. This clearly does. The point is that if it's done to the child it should be their choice if one is to respect its rights. If there is no objective difference then the need cannot possibly be immediate.

You suggest it's about a subjective valuation by the victim, not I. I say that if the victim didn't get to choose, you violated their rights. I didn't say that if the victim likes the money that there rights aren't violated. I said that their rights are violated regardless of whether one argues that the action was for good or for ill.




I offered no objection? Pardon? You're replying to my objection. You said you were offering up the dictionary definition, but then you claimed it was actually something different, that a violation of rights required harm (thus redefining rights), and that it required ability (also redefining rights). I don't disagree with what the dictionary had to say, except that it was over-simplified for such a complicated subject. I offered an explanation of what I think rights are and explained it several different ways. Do I need to break out the analogies?




Nope. The entire purpose of rights is control of oneself. Control of one's body, property, life, thoughts, expression, etc. Whether a kidnapper harms or helps you, they have violated your right to liberty. Even if someone helps you by denying you the right to speak freely, it is still a violation of your rights.

You do realize you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You claim that I said that a subject valuation of harm by the victim is relevant then you claim that I said harm was irrelevant. Harm is irrelevant. Is that clear? I know you saw it because you respond above. Harm is irrelevant. The opinion of the victim does not change whether or not their permission was given beforehand. It's still rape if you pass out and I have sex with you even if you decide you're happy about it in the morning.




Nope. Not when it comes to the violation of rights. You've just established why intent is relevant. Now, that you've accepted that intent is a given, then you'll stop comparing it to unintended outcomes. Glad that inane argument won't surface again. You are about to follow up with how intent is necessary to examine an ethical question and why it's nonsensical to compare the action to an unintended action as if an unintended action can be unethical. Glad you can show for me why your original arguments were nonsensical. thanks for that.




We accept that violating one's rights is inherently harmful. You've not addressed this yet. Again, this is quite obviously why you can't decide to enter a person's property to give them things. Instead you misunderstood this point suggesting that the violation of rights is subject to the whim of a person you called the victim. They are the victim regardless of whether they press charges. And whether or not it was objectively harmful has no bearing on whether they will or can press charges.




Nope, unnecessary. This is again a redefinition of rights. You keep saying it. It's just as wrong as the first time. If YOU can choose to violate MY rights based on what YOU feel is good or bad, then they aren't my rights and my liberty is subject to your whim.




Amusing. Again, you just step outside reality. If it had nothing to do with our right to property, then my will would not matter. It however does. Compelling public interest is why it is still dealt with when my will is unknown. They still don't violate my will if my will is expressed. If my will is unknown and can never be known then they do their best to address what is hoped to be my will, which is why next of kin is the first line they use.




They can be violated for a compelling public interest. Technically, they shouldn't be, but we sign a contract with our country that allows them to do so. It's part of existing in a union. You as a person can't claim a compelling public interest.




Again, compelling public interest that assumes you cannot choose a candidate after death. It's a supported assumption. If you'd like to prove that I can actually sign away my voting rights today then you'll have a point. Can I vote twenty years from now today? Nope. Neither can someone who is dying. The treatment is exactly the same. However, if the dead can actually make it to the voting booth and excercise their will, I don't believe they'd be prevented. Are you telling me they can?




Anything that is done to me, but not by me or with my permission is a violation of my rights. There are only two justifications, a compelling regard for my safety or health coupled with an inability on my part to express my rights.

The balance of personal rights versus the rights of the group is a question not relevant to this discussion, so I left it out of that point.




You've attacked me personally several times. Again, it smacks of desperation as does your argument.

However, my argument is not inconsistent. You've not demonstrated any inconsistency. Let me tell you how debate works. You say things and then you demonstrate their validity. As of yet, you mostly just say things and hope for the best. Your precious few supports you've offered are actually bastardizations of reality, like claiming the right to vote in the future exists at any time in life, so that in dying it becomes different or suggesting that an act has to be harmful to be a violation of rights.

What you've demonstrated is an inconsistency in your understandinng. For example, I gave you an example of why harm (again, in the way you're using it) is irrelevant and you acted as if I was saying it was up to the post facto decision of the victim and then later said I said harm was irrelevant. Both statements supported my point that harm is irrelevant, it was your understanding of them that made them inconsistent, not my expression of them.




Because you don't understand the justification does not mean it doesn't exist or I've not explained it. I've shown how it does and how every exception that you can find in death can also be found in life or in how we treat similar property rights for conglomerations of people called corporations. I've shown it in contractual agreements made on behalf of a child prior to birth. I've shown it with contractual agreements that exist after death. You've failed on every level to come up with a single example of something that is not treated equally in life and death or with living contractors and non-living contractors.




Practical harm is not a requirement. You've not shown that it is. Failure.

The question is not the self-determination of the mother. We aren't talking about the effects of the procedure on the mother. We are talking about a procedure which has the SOLE INTENT of altering the child via the fetus. The self-determination of the mother has nothing to do with it. Failure.

Rights do require a conscious claim. This procedure has the intent of affecting a being that exists, the child, and of affecting it while it exist and is conscious altering its sexuality. Conscious claim and something that exists. Failure.




No, I've demonstrated examples where we honor the religious rights of people posthumously and the property rights of people posthumously, freedom of speech posthumously (for example you can censure my paintings just because I'm dead). Every freedom I can possibly excercise after death is still avails itself to me.

The child's rights are violated because the intent is to alter the child. That's the expressed intent of the procedure and violates the child's rights to choose such procedures.




Phew, I was starting to worry about you. I didn't know whether to laugh or laugh.



They are demonstrated in numerous ways. Wills. Powers of attorney. Next of kin. Etc.



Voting requires that you be able to currently express your will and it is not a natural right. Again, I can't vote in the future or the past but only the present. If I am not presently capable of expressing my will, I cannot vote. I can't hand you power of attorney to vote for me, I can't write a contract that says I vote Republican for eternity or even the next election. The right to vote is an immediate right. You or I might disagree, but it is applied consistently. Meanwhile, many among the mentally handicapped can and do vote, provided they are determine to be able to understand the process and thus actually express their will, just as we do in court, or with medical decisions.




The victim doesn't have to claim harm. The victim can go into court and say, it was wonderful, I was glad to have him, now take him away and he'd still be guilty of violating his rights. It doesn't become not a violation of my rights if it turns out I happen to agree with you after the fact.

And, yes, you would. I find it interesting that you called them the "victim" since you're claiming there was not a violation of rights.

Again, you show your inconsistent understanding of my points. The violation is not decided post facto. It is what we do about it that is decided post facto.




Keep in mind, when the law uses intent it refers to intending the outcome, not intending the action that was the violation. The violation of rights is either intentional or not the point, but the outcome may or may not have been intended.

However, it does care about intent in terms of violating the law, which is why one can be found not guilty by reason of insanity, because the violation could not be intentional.




Again, you're shifting the goalposts. You've already agreed that inent is necessary for an ethical evaluation, so intent is relevant. Without intent, there is no question of ethics. You've said so yourself.

Second, let's be clear, I have a right to decide what medical procedures I undergo. You can't cut my arms off in life. You can't cut of my arms using a fetus either (yes, funny image).

You've only recently suddenly decided to completely drag this discussion into a discussion of whether I even have such a right, which is a completely different topic. Is it reliant on this topic, sure, but if we do that, we can drag this conversation down every path, at every juncture. Like where do rights come from? Do they exist at all? It would completely derail the discussion. Meanwhile, you're trying to have it every way, changing from the existence of rights by your definition to rights existing only during life to not existing at all.

"Rights don't exist, but they exist only when you're alive and the require for their to be objective harm in order to violated."

You can't have it every single way. Pick a position and quit changing running in circles because you're losing.





Yep, even if they are owned by entities that do not. In approximately the same time frame. You point out that some legal handlings of rights allow for an abridgement that has nothing to with whether a right exists or is eternal but instead because of a need to balance the rights of the group versus the rights of the individual.




Nope, not even for eternal entities. The legal handling of rights and the rights themselves are not equal. We abridge rights all the time via legal channels. That doesn't suggest they don't exist, only that societies balance the societal contract against rights, again, that's another discussion. However, the fact that particular rights are honored at all evidences their existence and the fact that particular rights extend after death and before birth evidences they are eternal. Copyrights expire not because people die, but because again we weigh compelling public interest against individual rights in the US and most western nations.

I never said the right to your ideas is not eternal. I said the legal copy right is not eternal because like all rights, they are balanced against public interest.




You've failed. They most certainly continue after death. I have the right to life after I've died, I simply don't have the ability to be alive. I have the right to vote after I've died, just not the ability. I have the right to liberty (to freedom of movement, etc.), I just don't have the ability. I have the right to property after death. If not, the moment I expired my property would have no owner. My will would not be executed. I also have the right to expression which extends after death. I have a right to a trial that extends after death (the government cannot declare me guilty of crime without a trial even if I die).




Duh. I've never denied it. The purpose of this procedure is to alter the child, not the fetus. The fetus is only the mechanism by which they do it. The procedure is performed with the intent of altering the child and would not be done to a fetus prior to abortion, for example. However, I am still protected when I am not conscious, provided I will be or have ever been conscious, which is why a will matters, which is why there are next of kin decision for medical procedures, which is why I can write a power of attorney if I am going to be incapacitated, which is why we don't ignore medications that cause birth defects when used by pregnant mothers, which why we remove crack babies from mothers and have forced those mothers into rehab, which is why honor the rights of a person to be cremated or buried or entombed or shipped to another country or whatever.

Again, and to be clear in a very brief statement. This procedure is designed to effect a person with a conscious will. They do it before either exist, but the person is the focus. The effect occurs via the fetus when both the person and the will exist.



Depends on the property and whether it continues to have any value or if there is any ability to return the property. In some cases the government holds money for decades just for that reason. If there is any reason to believe return is possible then the government often takes extreme measures to preserve your property or the value of your property, if preserving your property is not plausible.

With land, the government recognizes that if they were to leave property abandoned past a certain time frame it would become worthless as a result of taxes and fines, not just worthless, but they would force you into debt. Saem with other physical assets. Stock is often kept. Checks, monies owed, etc. are often kept.

Again, you mention where we cannot practically protect the right as if it means that it doesn't exist. The inability or implausibility of respecting a right does not address it's existence. It's like saying that because I've lost my ability to speak that I've lost my freedom of speech (in this case specifically referring to ONLY the spoken word), but I haven't. I simply cannot use it.




Nope. I forfeit my rights all the time. If I leave my property without addressing it, I leave it subject to laws regarding abandonment. The reasons for such laws is so that lots don't get overgrown and full of weeds. I happen to disagree with this particular violation, but it again goes with the societal contract. You'd likely be fine abandoning property in the middle of the mojave, but not in the middle of the neighborhood I grew up. However, I'd also eventually lose the property if I treated it the same way but was present. The violations have nothing to do with rights expiring, but instead the balance of public interest (the rights of all) versus personal interest (the rights of individuals). It's a seperate topic since it's not at issue here.




False. It's a right of the dead. If it were the right of the heir, then wills would be written by the heirs, not the person dying.




Not lost. You simply can't know the will of the person so they are not excercised. That's not the same thing. An expressed will is a part of personal rights only because without it, it wouldn't be a personal right, by definition. You cannot lose rights. They can only be expressed or not expressed or abridged or not abridged. They are eternal. (Also, if they were lost by a lack of expression we would use the same attempts to find a proxy that we use when you lose consciousness).

For example, we abridge the right to vote when you commit a crime. Again, the rights of the group versus the rights of the individual.

Every exception you've EVER listed has been about the rights of the many versus the rights of the individual. That's not at question here. It's a seperate topic.



They have always existed and always exist for every person. Read the references. They are talking about individuals and the general existence of rights. Some of them are referring to each individual being eternally free.




It isn't absurd. Rights are not lost because I don't have the ability to express them. They simply can't be expressed. I have a right to life after I die, but simply not the ability.




Yes, he was talking about the difference between the practical expression and the philosophical attitude. So are we. Again, I have the right to life even when I don't have the ability.

I have the right to decide what medical procedures are performed on me even when I am incapable of expressing that right. They don't appear and disappear based on ability.

Again, can you tell me when my freedom of expression expires? Can Samuel Clemens be censored since he's no longer living?

I think you're thinking way too far into this. Corpses don't have rights because they're dead and buried, end of story.

What about the intentional/unintentional dichotomy is morally relevant as it pertains to the action?

This is a question I have immense difficulty answering. I think there are three factors involved.

First, our desire for privacy - we desire that our minds be our own, and known only by us. If someone else selects the nature of our minds, this privacy is transgressed.

Second, our desire for independence - we don't want to fit neatly into what someone else wants. We don't want to be the product of someone else's manipulation; we want to be unique, independent creatures existing in our own way, not extensions of our parents' desires.

Third, there is a necessary objectification at the heart of these kinds of actions - the notion that human beings are the kind of things that we can manipulate on a whim, that our desire for convenience justifies molding them to our wishes. Human beings are not objects; they need not be convenient.

What about an unintentional development entitles the person to it?

That it is within the realm of a person's rightful autonomy - it concerns something fundamentally about him or her, and nobody else. Thus decisions about it ought to be made only by that person, or with that person's desires in mind.

How far does it go?

It pertains to all things without compelling reasons for modification. he question to ask is, "Is it reasonable to suppose that the child would want this procedure?"

Another thing, in the sense you described would rights be eternal after death?

Yes and no.

They would be "eternal" in that if there were some way to affect the past, it would be immoral to use that capability to interfere with the person's autonomy.

They would perhaps also be "eternal" in that agreements, implicit or explicit, made with a person before her death ought to be held to - not out of respect for her autonomy after death, because there is no "person" after death, but out of respect for her autonomy during life. She made decisions based on the expectation that those agreements would be held to, and to break them, even after her death, would be to subordinate her and deny her freedom.

In a sense I agree with your statement, I don't want to see automotons genetically bred to fill factories. However, I still cannot wrap my head around what autonomy is violated, at what point did the person have control over his genetics, at what point did the parents not have control over the genetics?

The autonomy violated is the autonomy of the child to choose whether to have his or her sexual orientation artificially manipulated or not.

The person always has the right of self-determination over his genetics; in practical effect, all this means is that decisions made about them should be made with his desires in mind, and once he is capable of making the decisions himself, he should be permitted to do so.

In the end, this right to self-determination does not fly. As I have said over and over again, it is impossible for the person to assert the self-determination. Even if there are no rights established by nature, this is surely a right denied by nature.

The right of self-determination exists even when not asserted.

There is no denial of control.

But there is - control over whether or not to have my sexual orientation artificially modified.

Let us identify who has the more legitimate position, me or the girl who is modified. Since there is nothing sacrosanct about a random genetic pairing, since there is no difference between being homosexual or heterosexual (either one is naturally chosen), and since no self-determination is lost, she suffered no harm. How does she respond?

First, she can give you her reasons... I suggest that she would talk about what I talked about in the beginning of this post, in particular the desire for independence.

Second, she can deny that she need offer any reason at all - and indeed, she is right. Your opinion on the legitimacy of the reasons is immaterial; she has the right to self-determination, and since this concerns her far more than it concerns anyone else, you have no right to usurp that even if you think her reasons are ridiculous and stupid.

(Of course, you can always argue that the reasons are so absurd that you could not have expected them, and thus did not intend the violation - but since the discomfort most people display towards the idea is pretty clear, in this particular case that argument would probably be untenable.)

It is important in pointing out that there is no difference between random and chosen traits to the person. In either case, the person is totally dependent upon the genes, the person is the product of the genes. Without those genes chosen at random or by design, that person doesn't exist, and is replaced by a similar but different person.

I'm not sure about the theory of personal identity that you're going with here, but let's say you're right. It doesn't change the conclusion - in one case you have Person A, whose sexual orientation has developed naturally, and in the other case you have Person B, whose sexual orientation has been artificially modified. If Person B objects to her modification and Person A does not object to her natural development, then the choice is still between an action resulting in a person whose autonomy hasn't been violated and an action resulting in a person whose autonomy HAS been violated.

Sure they do! Look at Cheney's daugher! (Not that I'm implying that she's a slut. :))

Yeah you're right... and the one woman I am proud to demeaningly refer to as a dyke... Rosie O'Donnell.

Scratch that previous post, Eugenics, yay! We can finally get rid of the "stupid" gene and the "religion" gene, if they aren't already one in the same!

I think you're thinking way too far into this. Corpses don't have rights because they're dead and buried, end of story.

Just a couple of flaws in that statement.

1. They have the right to free speech, right to property, right to expression, right to religion, etc. This is why you cannot censor a book by a dead man, or art work, why we honor the will, why we honor his/her wishes in terms of handling the body.

2. They won't necessarily be buried.

So except for the core point, you're statement is quite accurate.

*snip*


Will you answer my questions? I'm hoping it will clarify and I'm certainly curious.

Excellent question. It definitely addresses the point.

However, in this procedure, the choice is made by selecting an embryo, not changing the embryo. It's more similar to abortion. This is about choosing the outcome versus changing the outcomes. See the difference.

Like a woman getting abortion after abortion until she gets a strait child, for example, this is simply choosing a child that will come out a certain way, rather than altering the child to come out a certain way.

You can differentiate between the ethics of the two even if the mother has complete control over the genes of her child?

This means the immorality lies with manipulating the fetus and not with the mother's control over the child's traits? While the processes are different, the output is the same, the child born possesses only the characteristics the mother willed him/her to have. This is okay?

She isn't choosing a child's genetics. She's choosing which child will come to exist. Each of the outcomes would have grown into a child Had she said yes to every sperm, every pregnancy, she would have multiple children, not one. She prevented the other children from occurring, the choices she makes are not relevant to the child other than in the knowledge that if it would have had different genetics it wouldn't exist.

This is relevant so I threw it in so I could ask one question:

What is the moral difference between controlling your child's genetics through in utero manipulation and controlling your child's genetics through intensely planned pregnancy? I understand the differences in process, in one the woman changes the fetus, in the other the woman keeps trying until she gets the right one.

But since intent is of the utmost importance, can you tell me in what way the intent of these two processes are different?

Again, you fail to recognize the point. The point is that being incapable of choosing now has nothing to do with rights. Ability has nothing to with what our rights are. It only limits us in how we excercise our rights. Rights don't appear and disappear as our abilities do. I've pointed this out repeatedly, but you've instead chosen to keep repeating yourself rather than addressing that flaw in your argument.

Ability does have a great deal to do with what our rights are; it would be absurd to claim the right to fly on our own, or more importantly it would be absurd to claim that your right has been violated if not allowed to fly on your own.

Now I am willing to conceed that there are rights that are not contingent upon our own ability, but upon the ability of others, in that others are obligated not to behave in certain ways toward us. I am sure this will come up again so I will leave it at this for now.

It's a violation of the rights of the child, to self-determination. If you're going to try and back out of your losing argument by simply denying that the right exists, then I'll take that as an admission you've lost.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll prove that rights exist but then you don't get to make a single argument about what qualities rights have or don't have, but you can't say they don't exist while defining them.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but there are two things that I would like to see:

1. Show that a child has the rights to self-determination you speak of without getting circular.

2. I would like for you to show me why natural rights should exist. I already understand quite well why legal rights exist.

Again, harm is not a requirement and therefore we have no need to decide whether an individual would consider it harm. That's the point. Harm (in the way you use it) is not necessary for it to be unethical or a violation of rights. It simply has to ignore their rights. This clearly does. The point is that if it's done to the child it should be their choice if one is to respect its rights. If there is no objective difference then the need cannot possibly be immediate.

You suggest it's about a subjective valuation by the victim, not I. I say that if the victim didn't get to choose, you violated their rights. I didn't say that if the victim likes the money that there rights aren't violated. I said that their rights are violated regardless of whether one argues that the action was for good or for ill.

I can actually agree with all this, I was just suggesting that your statement that any violation of rights is harmful, and from there I would state that any violation of rights that isn't harmful renders the rights irrelevant as the person would never claim the rights in the first place. The logical conclusion is that rights are there to prevent harm.

Nope. The entire purpose of rights is control of oneself. Control of one's body, property, life, thoughts, expression, etc. Whether a kidnapper harms or helps you, they have violated your right to liberty. Even if someone helps you by denying you the right to speak freely, it is still a violation of your rights.

Then rights have no utilitarian value, whatsoever? If this "control of oneself" is not considered to be beneficial, or the lack there of harmful, then what is the justification for these rights? Why do we have them.

You do realize you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You claim that I said that a subject valuation of harm by the victim is relevant then you claim that I said harm was irrelevant. Harm is irrelevant. Is that clear? I know you saw it because you respond above. Harm is irrelevant. The opinion of the victim does not change whether or not their permission was given beforehand. It's still rape if you pass out and I have sex with you even if you decide you're happy about it in the morning.

I never said that you said harm was relevant, I am just getting you to explain why we have these rights of liberty, if it is not to protect us from harm. Continue to say that harm is irrelevant if you like, I already know you think that, but I want to know what is the point of having rights that protect liberty.

We accept that violating one's rights is inherently harmful. You've not addressed this yet. Again, this is quite obviously why you can't decide to enter a person's property to give them things. Instead you misunderstood this point suggesting that the violation of rights is subject to the whim of a person you called the victim. They are the victim regardless of whether they press charges. And whether or not it was objectively harmful has no bearing on whether they will or can press charges.

We have neither established that there is a right violated or that the violation of rights as you define them is inherently harmful.

Nope, unnecessary. This is again a redefinition of rights. You keep saying it. It's just as wrong as the first time. If YOU can choose to violate MY rights based on what YOU feel is good or bad, then they aren't my rights and my liberty is subject to your whim.

Why would I consider the protection of the fetus against genetic manipulation and then continuously say that it is alright to manipulate the genes of a fetus. That would be totally counter to my definition of rights as being a just claim against the behavior of others.

I am not saying that I should be free to violate your rights based on how I feel about the situation, I am simply saying that there is no right here.

They can be violated for a compelling public interest. Technically, they shouldn't be, but we sign a contract with our country that allows them to do so. It's part of existing in a union. You as a person can't claim a compelling public interest.

Man I must have been hammered when I signed that contract because I just don't remember it. How do I get out of it I want my rights back.

Again, compelling public interest that assumes you cannot choose a candidate after death. It's a supported assumption. If you'd like to prove that I can actually sign away my voting rights today then you'll have a point.

Looky here, I answered my question and your challenge in one swoop:

Renunciation of US Citizenship (http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html)

Now I think this is how I opt out of that contract I have with the government, but they say I lose all of my rights if I do, instead of getting them back.

I guess this is how you sign away your voting rights, though.

Can I vote twenty years from now today? Nope. Neither can someone who is dying. The treatment is exactly the same. However, if the dead can actually make it to the voting booth and excercise their will, I don't believe they'd be prevented. Are you telling me they can?

All I have been saying is that the will is the most important part of the right. Even if you say that there is a right, it does not matter if there is no will to invoke it.

Because you don't understand the justification does not mean it doesn't exist or I've not explained it. I've shown how it does and how every exception that you can find in death can also be found in life or in how we treat similar property rights for conglomerations of people called corporations. I've shown it in contractual agreements made on behalf of a child prior to birth. I've shown it with contractual agreements that exist after death. You've failed on every level to come up with a single example of something that is not treated equally in life and death or with living contractors and non-living contractors.

I have attempted to show that rights are not eternally held, and that the will the most important part of the right. Everytime you mentioned how the rights carried on in death as they are carried on in life have one thing in common, the disappearance of the conscious will. When the conscious will is gone, you are very correct that there is pressing public concern to deal with the abandoned property and rights. At this point, several other willful claims are made upon the abandoned property or rights where they are transferable and the one with the most merit gains the rights.

Voting requires that you be able to currently express your will and it is not a natural right. Again, I can't vote in the future or the past but only the present. If I am not presently capable of expressing my will, I cannot vote. I can't hand you power of attorney to vote for me, I can't write a contract that says I vote Republican for eternity or even the next election. The right to vote is an immediate right. You or I might disagree, but it is applied consistently. Meanwhile, many among the mentally handicapped can and do vote, provided they are determine to be able to understand the process and thus actually express their will, just as we do in court, or with medical decisions.

How many different types of rights are there? You keep adding qualifiers to different rights, while every single one of these rights has coincided with my original discription of rights.

Again, you're shifting the goalposts. You've already agreed that inent is necessary for an ethical evaluation, so intent is relevant. Without intent, there is no question of ethics. You've said so yourself.

The entire time I was saying that intent was irrelevant was because I was trying to establish whether this was a right or not. This entire discussion about "eternal" rights has been to determine whether this is a right or not. I would not advocate the violation of a right, that is an absurd position.

As I said for there to be a question of ethics, there is first the question of wrongdoing, then there is a question of intent. Since we haven't decided upon the wrongdoing there is no point to consider intent.

You've only recently suddenly decided to completely drag this discussion into a discussion of whether I even have such a right, which is a completely different topic. Is it reliant on this topic, sure, but if we do that, we can drag this conversation down every path, at every juncture. Like where do rights come from? Do they exist at all? It would completely derail the discussion. Meanwhile, you're trying to have it every way, changing from the existence of rights by your definition to rights existing only during life to not existing at all.

I have been trying for several posts to get you to justify this right, to explain why you think we should have it. That was the entire point of defining what I think are rights and where they come from. Everytime you say that I am detached from reality it is because your definition of rights and my definition are different. If you don't want to discuss where these rights come from and why we should have them, then there is no point to discuss any of this.

"Rights don't exist, but they exist only when you're alive and the require for their to be objective harm in order to violated."

Rights do exist. They exist as an extension of the will of the individual as allowed by the collective wills of society. You can have a will to do anything, but society determines which wills are justified. For example, you may have a will to claim my life for some reason, but society steps in and says that the claim is invalid and protects me for it.

As rights are a matter of the conscious will, they can only exist through the existence of a conscious and able person. A dead person can only have those rights that they consciously willed during life, and even those are greatly diminished. After those willed rights are used up, then they have no more rights because they have no more will.

You've failed. They most certainly continue after death. I have the right to life after I've died, I simply don't have the ability to be alive. I have the right to vote after I've died, just not the ability. I have the right to liberty (to freedom of movement, etc.), I just don't have the ability. I have the right to property after death. If not, the moment I expired my property would have no owner. My will would not be executed. I also have the right to expression which extends after death. I have a right to a trial that extends after death (the government cannot declare me guilty of crime without a trial even if I die).

You advocate that we have unlimited rights buy limited ability be it through nature or government. Unfortunately, in practicality it is the exact same system as mine, your rights are what you will to do contrasted against what society will allow.

1. Suppose that if the mother chooses the sexual preference of the child, the hormonal effect makes the child resistant to the procedure in the future. The procedure is still possible but painful and slow. If no gestational procedure is performed, the child can change its sexuality once puberty is complete and the change is immediate and painless.

Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.

Yes, it would be. It would be denying the child the capability to choose her sexuality.

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.

If she were conscious and in her right mind, would she agree to let you do this? Probably not, and certainly you have no good reason to believe she would; thus, because she has the right to self-determination over her body, you have no right to contradict that which is likely to be her will in this case.

As long as our preferences extend to areas where we have legitimate standing, like our bodies, they must be honored even if we never know that they are being violated - at least if there is no compelling reason to dishonor them, and personal convenience, arbitrary prejudice, and lust are not compelling reasons. This is not a question of maximizing utility, but rather of respecting personal sovereignty.

3. What if she decides after the fact, that she liked it (assume I decided to tell her)? Is it a violation of her rights then?

That fact is merely incidental to the act; you still denied her self-determination and you still treated her merely as an object, not as a human being. You did not, after all, KNOW that she would like it; you did it anyway.

4. Whose sexuality is changed by this procedure?

The child's, of course. The fetus has no sexuality.

I thought I had posted this already; weird.

There are some major problems here.

I am not saying that the person will be completely ambivalent to their sexuality after they are born, only that they will be perfectly free to choose their sexuality after they are born, and will choose that one which they are most happy with, and therefore will be happy with whichever decision the parents made. They will be no more likely to want to manipulate their sexuality later on.

You are still focusing on the "gay/straight" question. That's not my concern. I am not arguing for the child's right to choose to be gay or straight, but rather for the child's right to choose to be artificially modified or not.

Also if it is changeable in the future for the randomly developed person, then it is changeable for the purposefully developed person.

Changeable, yes... but the damage has already been done. The person will never have a natural sexual orientation; if that was her desire, it will never be fulfilled.

This is not a matter of the child's autonomy. The child, by its biological nature, must have been completely dependent upon its parents for its genetic makeup or it wouldn't exist.

True, but the parents do not control their own genetic makeup, so they do not control the child's natural genetic makeup, either.

If the child, can in the future, change their sexuality, then there is even less reason to assume this infringes upon their autonomy, as they are perfectly able to choose another.

The answer I want to give to this is that it's unlikely anyone already possessed of a specific sexual orientation would choose to undergo such a change, and it's unfair to make that person undergo such a shift for the sake of undoing something the parents had no right to do in the first place, but then, I have defeated my own argument.

I'll give you this one, though we still disagree on the larger question.

You can differentiate between the ethics of the two even if the mother has complete control over the genes of her child?

This means the immorality lies with manipulating the fetus and not with the mother's control over the child's traits? While the processes are different, the output is the same, the child born possesses only the characteristics the mother willed him/her to have. This is okay?

The immorality lies with manipulating the child via the fetus. The fetus is not the point, will never be the point and has nothing to do with the point. The immorality is in altering the child. In your examples you give do not alter a child. They choose not to create children that do not fit her desires. I don't agree with it, but it cannot be considered a violation of the rights of no one and no one's rights can be violated when I choose not to have a child.

You're caught up in the outcome, but the outcome is not the point. It doesn't matter if you walk through my house and don't touch anything. It matters not whether it appears different to me or you or anyone. It has to do with whether the mother altered the child against it's will. In one case, yes, and in the other, no. It's clear.

Now, as I said, I don't agree with either practice, but that's not point. If we're talking about rights, only one case has a violation of the rights of anyone. The other potential children have nothing to do with the child.



This is relevant so I threw it in so I could ask one question:

What is the moral difference between controlling your child's genetics through in utero manipulation and controlling your child's genetics through intensely planned pregnancy? I understand the differences in process, in one the woman changes the fetus, in the other the woman keeps trying until she gets the right one.

But since intent is of the utmost importance, can you tell me in what way the intent of these two processes are different?

See, intent doesn't stand alone. In one, she intends to have a child with certain traits, in the other she intends to ALTER a child without consideration for its will. That's the difference.



I'm dropping the majority of your desperate attempt to change the subject. I won't explain why rights that you were defining a minute ago exist. One wonders how you can define how something exists while claiming it doesn't. So much for logic, hey?

As to the social contract, simply leave. That's how you get out. You can either participate in the US or you can leave. That's the contract. Now, as I said, I don't like how it happens now, because you cannot go anywhere will you won't have to associate in some other contractual way with others in a society. However, while that right exists, there is no practical way to allow you enact that right. You sign away NO natural rights when you leave the US. The right to vote is NOT a natural right. It requires a rather specific social contract. You can't claim that because you leave the US that you lose your right to vote, because it's like say that microsoft is denying you your right to vote in Microsoft because you don't own any shares and aren't part of Microsoft. It's ludicrous. You don't lose rights when you renounce citizenship. You lose protection of your rights.

When you make arguments like this regarding rights, one has to question your understanding of rights at all. You treat rights as something granted you by the US. That's absurd. If rights are granted, then they aren't rights. They are priveleges. Similar if they can be revoked or lost.

Meanwhile, let's get back to why harm is irrelevant? Because according to those who support the idea of rights, liberty is the point? That is why we have statements like "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's a valuation, a subject for a different debate. But you either believe in rights trump protection from harm or you believe protection from harm trumps rights, but they are not one and the same, can't be. You can't have both motivations, it's impossible. Because if you get to decide what is harmful in some objective way and then decide that rights only apply when harm is involved then it's not liberty at all.

Is a mother behaving immorally and infringing on the rights of the child when she picks out a father based on traits she would want in her child?

Not really. First, the degree of control is far less. Second, there is no child that is modified - there is no "natural version" of herself that the child can prefer.

Not really. First, the degree of control is far less. Second, there is no child that is modified - there is no "natural version" of herself that the child can prefer.

Yes, exactly. The mother is quite literally choosing between a number of potential children, and choosing not to realize that potential. There is no relationship between the child that is born and it's potential siblings that were never born.

Eliminating homosexuality seems a trivial application for this kind of technology, when they could use it to eliminate stupidity, irrationality, unkindness, lack of empathy, obesity and a plethora of real problems.

Besides, if they eliminate homosexuality, women wouldn't have any men to talk to about really important things. I have had the best conversations with my gay friends.

Eliminating homosexuality seems a trivial application for this kind of technology, when they could use it to eliminate stupidity, irrationality, unkindness, lack of empathy, obesity and a plethora of real problems.

Besides, if they eliminate homosexuality, women wouldn't have any men to talk to about really important things. I have had the best conversations with my gay friends.

But then where will we get our politicians from?

But then where will we get our politicians from?

Not a problem

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/070102/cx_chickweed_umedia/20070201

there is a difference between choosing to carry the "perfect" child and taking the child you are carrying and making it "perfect" through changes to its natural makeup.

most people would find both creepy at least. to reject perfectly good embryos because they are not quite right is as bad changing the one you have. there may come a day when those sorts of tests are banned because society finds it unacceptable to micromanage the unborn's genetic makeup no matter how you do it.

I would even go as far as to say that any parent who would do either - abort until they got the "perfect" child or genetically alter until they got the "perfect" child is completely incompetent as a parent. A person who wants to build a little robot should build a little robot. At least then, if the robot doesn't turn out exactly right, the parent can blame no one but herself.

For any person who will only be happy raising a child with very specific traits, the unethical action would be having a child in the first place.

The rest of us will actually have children that we expect to be human beings. We'll happily raise our children whether they have "perfect" traits or not.

You are still focusing on the "gay/straight" question. That's not my concern. I am not arguing for the child's right to choose to be gay or straight, but rather for the child's right to choose to be artificially modified or not.

I am focusing on the gay/straight question because we have established that the right to choose to be artificially modified or not can only be determined by the child's most probable will. Since the child cannot actually have will over this, you are trying to determine what will the child would likely express were it to have the ability. I then reply that either you must assume that either natural is better than artificial or one sexuality is better than the other.

Changeable, yes... but the damage has already been done. The person will never have a natural sexual orientation; if that was her desire, it will never be fulfilled.

That is a valid point.

True, but the parents do not control their own genetic makeup, so they do not control the child's natural genetic makeup, either.

Very true, but your point was about the child's autonomy, which is not affected.

If you are making the point that the parents do not have autonomy taken from them, I would disagree. If there is the ability for the mother to change the genetic makeup of the fetus she is producing, and that is taken away from her, is this not a limiting of her autonomy?

I would even go as far as to say that any parent who would do either - abort until they got the "perfect" child or genetically alter until they got the "perfect" child is completely incompetent as a parent. A person who wants to build a little robot should build a little robot. At least then, if the robot doesn't turn out exactly right, the parent can blame no one but herself.


But, just for the sake of clarity, do you believe it should be legal for such people to try to get a "robot" child? Do you believe it should be legal for people to genetically alter their child or abort until they get the kind of baby they want?

I'm dropping the majority of your desperate attempt to change the subject. I won't explain why rights that you were defining a minute ago exist. One wonders how you can define how something exists while claiming it doesn't. So much for logic, hey?

I have explained why rights exist and what they constitute, and I have never denied that rights exist. What I have said is that this right a child has to a protected fetus is not compatible with my idea of rights and therefore shouldn't be considered a right.

You have consistently countered with the point that the child has a natural right to determine their own sexuality and that this right extends eternally into the past (even though a mother who determines the genetic code of her child before the pregnancy and therefore determines the sexuality of the child), and you now say that any discussion of the basis for rights is an attempt to "change the subject".

As to the social contract, simply leave. That's how you get out.

Now who is distancing themselves from reality. Just how does one avoid a social contract, where does one go?

You can either participate in the US or you can leave. That's the contract. Now, as I said, I don't like how it happens now, because you cannot go anywhere will you won't have to associate in some other contractual way with others in a society. However, while that right exists, there is no practical way to allow you enact that right. You sign away NO natural rights when you leave the US. The right to vote is NOT a natural right. It requires a rather specific social contract. You can't claim that because you leave the US that you lose your right to vote, because it's like say that microsoft is denying you your right to vote in Microsoft because you don't own any shares and aren't part of Microsoft. It's ludicrous. You don't lose rights when you renounce citizenship. You lose protection of your rights.

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

When you make arguments like this regarding rights, one has to question your understanding of rights at all. You treat rights as something granted you by the US. That's absurd. If rights are granted, then they aren't rights. They are priveleges. Similar if they can be revoked or lost.

I was under the understanding that the idea that natural rights do not exist and that all rights are legal rights has prevalence amongst political philosophers. I think that most political philosophers outside of the libertarian school would tell you that society granted rights are not absurd. Even you stated that there are rights granted through the government.

But, just for the sake of clarity, do you believe it should be legal for such people to try to get a "robot" child? Do you believe it should be legal for people to genetically alter their child or abort until they get the kind of baby they want?

I'm iffy on the genetic modification bit. I suppose, if we actually had techniques that were safe and reliable, there'd be no legal reason to oppose it.

And, as for aborting, I'm pro-choice on that matter. A woman's reasons for abortion are her own, and I'm not going to stand in the way - even if I think they make her a horrible person. Although, mean as it may sound, I'd actually hope that a woman who would do this would have complications from the multiple abortions that would make her unable to carry to term. I can't make it illegal for her to have chidlren, but I certainly think she shouldn't.

Not really. First, the degree of control is far less. Second, there is no child that is modified - there is no "natural version" of herself that the child can prefer.

How is the degree of control less? Is the mother still not in complete control over the genetics of her child? Is it possible for the child to be born not subject to the will of the mother? I say that, since of the will of the mother is the only factor governing the existence of the child, then the degree of control is at the highest level.

To your second point, is the natural process at all relevant if the mother still chose every gene of the child? If a mother said to a child, "you are just as I willed you, there is no trait you possess that I didn't choose," how likely is the child to reply: "That's ok, as long as you didn't manipulate my status as a fetus."

I'm iffy on the genetic modification bit. I suppose, if we actually had techniques that were safe and reliable, there'd be no legal reason to oppose it.

And, as for aborting, I'm pro-choice on that matter. A woman's reasons for abortion are her own, and I'm not going to stand in the way - even if I think they make her a horrible person. Although, mean as it may sound, I'd actually hope that a woman who would do this would have complications from the multiple abortions that would make her unable to carry to term. I can't make it illegal for her to have chidlren, but I certainly think she shouldn't.
Okay, groovy. I though that this was probably your take on it, just wanted to make sure.

I'm not going to look through eight-hundred and something posts to find if this has been mentioned before, but does anyone realize that if homosexuality is indeed genetic, and allowed to continue unabated, then it'll eventually eliminate itself from the gene pool?

Thus, since it ideally occurs naturally, I do not find it unethical.

But, just for the sake of clarity, do you believe it should be legal for such people to try to get a "robot" child? Do you believe it should be legal for people to genetically alter their child or abort until they get the kind of baby they want?

i think it should be a banned medical practice. that a doctor who provided such services should have his license revoked.

it should always be a woman's right to abort a pregnancy for any reason during the "abortion on demand" window of opportunity. so if she knows by week 16 or 20 that her fetus is not what she wanted, she can abort because her reasons are none of society's business. it should be an invalid medical practice to provide the testing that would allow a woman to know in detail her fetus' genetic profile during that time. for example, in places where women abort because the fetus is the wrong gender, that gender testing is illegal or severely discouraged.

now. considering that it IS good to know about certain genetic defects that might exist in any fetus--downs syndrome, tay sachs, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, whatever--we shouldnt ban all prenatal testing. this means that there would still develop a gray market for the more extensive testing that would allow a control-freak doll-child wanting woman to find out what she needs to know to end up with the "perfect" child. if (big if) she can find out before getting an abortion requires a medical reason, then she would be able to abort without anyone knowing her true reasons. if it requires a longer time period, then it would not be a valid reason for a late abortion and there would have to be fraudulent collusion between her and her doctor to get it done.

with invitro its different. anything that can be tested for before implantation can be a valid reason to choose or reject any particular embryo. its still creepy but since there are always discarded embryos i dont see why it should be illegal.

I'm not going to look through eight-hundred and something posts to find if this has been mentioned before, but does anyone realize that if homosexuality is indeed genetic, and allowed to continue unabated, then it'll eventually eliminate itself from the gene pool?

It will only be eradicated from the gene pool when we abolish the liberal ideas that allow for this abomination to continue freely.

When it is considered an acceptable way of life, it will not be eliminated. The best way to eliminate it from the gene pool is to brainwash homosexuals to rid them of their evil, sinful ways. Once they are reeducated, the problem is solved.

Another way of further accomplishing this is to allow for the stigma to take hold again. There was once a time when this kind of liberal sexuality was heavily frowned upon. It kept their tainted nature from the eyes of innocent, wholesome folks. It kept them silent. Once they are silent, we can systematically weed it out through re-education and the establishment of a theocratic regime that will ensure that everyone is protected by God's will and that homosexuality and other liberal ideas are forever purged from the face of modern civilisation.

I'm not going to look through eight-hundred and something posts to find if this has been mentioned before, but does anyone realize that if homosexuality is indeed genetic, and allowed to continue unabated, then it'll eventually eliminate itself from the gene pool?

While I understand why you wouldn't want to read through hundreds of posts in the thread, in this case it's a pity you didn't because that point has indeed been brought up...and we've also covered why it's bunk.

There's no reason to assume that homosexuality will "eliminate itself from the gene pool," particularly since homosexuality is an evolutionarily advantageous trait for a great many species (including some of our primate cousins).

I'm not going to look through eight-hundred and something posts to find if this has been mentioned before, but does anyone realize that if homosexuality is indeed genetic, and allowed to continue unabated, then it'll eventually eliminate itself from the gene pool?

Thus, since it ideally occurs naturally, I do not find it unethical.

LOL. Grade school understanding of genetics, eh?

There is no reason to believe that any sexual orientation, even if it is completely under genetic control, would be eliminated from the gene pool. This is especially true when you consider the fact that it has been around for the entirety of human history and numerous species - even species only distantly related to human beings - exhibit it.

I am focusing on the gay/straight question because we have established that the right to choose to be artificially modified or not can only be determined by the child's most probable will. Since the child cannot actually have will over this, you are trying to determine what will the child would likely express were it to have the ability. I then reply that either you must assume that either natural is better than artificial or one sexuality is better than the other.

False dichotomy. It's unviolated rights are better than violated rights. It doesn't matter what the child's probable will is. The child's probable will is to choose for themself.

That is a valid point.



Very true, but your point was about the child's autonomy, which is not affected.

If you are making the point that the parents do not have autonomy taken from them, I would disagree. If there is the ability for the mother to change the genetic makeup of the fetus she is producing, and that is taken away from her, is this not a limiting of her autonomy?

Her autonomy does not include the right to control the child. You keep using the word fetus but this process is not designed to alter a fetus. It is not the intent. The intent is the alter the child and her rights end where the child's begin.

Meanwhile, I notice you didn't answer the questions I asked? What's the matter afraid giving simple answers that directly address the point will hurt your argument?

I have explained why rights exist and what they constitute, and I have never denied that rights exist. What I have said is that this right a child has to a protected fetus is not compatible with my idea of rights and therefore shouldn't be considered a right.

It's not. In this case, it's not the fetus that is being altered it's the child. Are you actually suggesting that she is performing this procedure because she wants a straight fetus?

Again, just answer this. Whose sexuality is it? The question is not about whether the fetus is protected but whether the sexuality is protected from being altered by medical procedure without consent of the child.


You have consistently countered with the point that the child has a natural right to determine their own sexuality and that this right extends eternally into the past (even though a mother who determines the genetic code of her child before the pregnancy and therefore determines the sexuality of the child), and you now say that any discussion of the basis for rights is an attempt to "change the subject".

I do say that you are attempting to change the subject. You say above that rights exists, but you asked me to prove the existence of rights. I've shown how and why they exist into the past and into the future. You've still not addressed why censoring Mark Twain is STILL considered a violation of freedom of speech?



Now who is distancing themselves from reality. Just how does one avoid a social contract, where does one go?

Oh, I said that plainly. I told you plainly that I don't agree with the fact that one can't avoid the social contract simply by limitations of our planet and the greed of governments. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or that you don't choose to engage in the one you are currently in. One can leave the country and choose a different social contract. One can limit the social contract considerably by living in the middle of the desert or the middle of the forest or the middle of Siberia. In reality, the social contract covers almost all of the planet, unfortunately. You can hardly use that as an argument against me, since I and most people don't believe we should be compelled into the social contract.


Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

No, it isn't. You've failed, again. They are not dependent on ability. I have the right to write the greatest novel ever written, but simply not the ability. Ability has nothing to do with rights.

YOUR definition of rights is synonymous with ability. You've claimed repeated that rights can't extend into the past or the future because we don't have the ABILITY to exercise them and that we don't have rights to things if we don't have the ABILITY to change them.

Do you always make others appear to be wrong by thrusting your arguments onto them? I agree that rights are NOT synonymous with ABILITY and that you were wrong to say they were. I'm glad I won't hear that tired argument again.



I was under the understanding that the idea that natural rights do not exist and that all rights are legal rights has prevalence amongst political philosophers. I think that most political philosophers outside of the libertarian school would tell you that society granted rights are not absurd. Even you stated that there are rights granted through the government.

There are things we call rights that are granted through the government. They aren't natural rights and do not have the same definition. For example, the right to vote cannot be a natural right. It's dependent on a government and dependent on a government with voting. One could argue that it falls under the right to self-determination, except we choose to enter the social contract or our rights our violated, which makes the terms of the social contract immaterial.

Meanwhile, now you're equivocating. How sad. You just jump from one logical fallacy to another. So if governments grant rights, for what reason do they do so? If they are rights, and they are granted, then your definition of rights is no different the definition of privelege, which is why you've been erring pretty much the entire thread. If all rights are privelege, then a violation of rights is not a question of ethics, but a question of legality. If it's illegal, it's wrong. If it's not, it's not. Ethics don't play in.

a better question is if homosexuality can be breed out considering it is a mental behavioral deficiency caused by bad parenting and an illogical social atmosphere promoting its feasibility. also it is caused by a woman not taking proper care of them selfs during pregnancy such that there is hormonal imbalance again causing more mental problems.

Piekrom;12195449']a better question is if homosexuality can be breed out considering it is a mental behavioral deficiency caused by bad parenting and an illogical social atmosphere promoting its feasibility.
Prove it.

How is the degree of control less? Is the mother still not in complete control over the genetics of her child? Is it possible for the child to be born not subject to the will of the mother? I say that, since of the will of the mother is the only factor governing the existence of the child, then the degree of control is at the highest level.

To your second point, is the natural process at all relevant if the mother still chose every gene of the child? If a mother said to a child, "you are just as I willed you, there is no trait you possess that I didn't choose," how likely is the child to reply: "That's ok, as long as you didn't manipulate my status as a fetus."

Again, you fail. Seriously. And fail so miserably that one wonders why you keep posting this stuff. In this instance she is NOT controlling the child, she is choosing the child.

If you go to an adoption center, and you choose a child that has the exact genetics you wish for that child to have, please tell me how you've controlled that child's genetics.

It will only be eradicated from the gene pool when we abolish the liberal ideas that allow for this abomination to continue freely.

When it is considered an acceptable way of life, it will not be eliminated. The best way to eliminate it from the gene pool is to brainwash homosexuals to rid them of their evil, sinful ways. Once they are reeducated, the problem is solved.

Another way of further accomplishing this is to allow for the stigma to take hold again. There was once a time when this kind of liberal sexuality was heavily frowned upon. It kept their tainted nature from the eyes of innocent, wholesome folks. It kept them silent. Once they are silent, we can systematically weed it out through re-education and the establishment of a theocratic regime that will ensure that everyone is protected by God's will and that homosexuality and other liberal ideas are forever purged from the face of modern civilisation.


You're not even very good at trolling. Post something of substance please. Your contribution is desired. Trolling isn't.

Our posts having gotten too long and you keep switching things around. Let's make it simple:

Alright, let's ask this.

1. Suppose that if the mother chooses the sexual preference of the child, the hormonal effect makes the child resistant to the procedure in the future. The procedure is still possible but painful and slow. If no gestational procedure is performed, the child can change its sexuality once puberty is complete and the change is immediate and painless.

Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.

3. What if she decides after the fact, that she liked it (assume I decided to tell her)? Is it a violation of her rights then?

4. Whose sexuality is changed by this procedure?

I'll give my answer first, (everyone answer, not just Vittos).

1. Yes, of course.

2. I violated her rights even if there is no practical difference and she cannot express her will.

3. Still a violation.

4. The child's.

Dem, Ash, Bottle, EM, do you mind answering these questions? I think I know your answers but rather than assume.

1. Suppose that if the mother chooses the sexual preference of the child, the hormonal effect makes the child resistant to the procedure in the future. The procedure is still possible but painful and slow. If no gestational procedure is performed, the child can change its sexuality once puberty is complete and the change is immediate and painless.

Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.

3. What if she decides after the fact, that she liked it (assume I decided to tell her)? Is it a violation of her rights then?

4. The purpose of this procedure is to alter sexuality. Whose sexuality is altered by this procedure?

Dem, Ash, Bottle, EM, do you mind answering these questions? I think I know your answers but rather than assume.

1. According to my personal ethics? Yes, that would be unethical. Do I believe there should be laws prohibiting a parent from doing this? My gut reaction is to say "No." But I'm still thinking about this.

2. Sex with a party who has not consented is rape. You don't get to assume somebody is consenting by default. And yes, it is still rape even if you never get caught.

3. See above. It's still rape.

4. As I understand it, this discussion is about the ethics of directing/selecting the future sexual orientation of a future child by manipulating an embryo or fetus in utero.

1. According to my personal ethics? Yes, that would be unethical. Do I believe there should be laws prohibiting a parent from doing this? My gut reaction is to say "No." But I'm still thinking about this.

2. Sex with a party who has not consented is rape. You don't get to assume somebody is consenting by default. And yes, it is still rape even if you never get caught.

3. See above. It's still rape.

4. As I understand it, this discussion is about the ethics of directing/selecting the future sexual orientation of a future child by manipulating an embryo or fetus in utero.

I expected those answers, Bottle. On 4, I have a question, do you disagree that the expressed purpose of this procedure is to alter the sexuality of the child that is produced?

EDIT: Sorry, that redirection I was trying was pointless so I removed it.

Try this -

Is it unethical to choose a procedure designed to prevent the child from having arms? Why or why not?

Is it unethical to choose a procedure designed to prevent the child from having arms? Why or why not?
I suppose I need to be very careful in how I'm responding to these, because my own thinking isn't entirely clear.

To revise my previous answer: I'm honestly not sure whether or not I think it is ethical to prevent a child from having arms, or whether or not I think it is ethical to prevent a child from being heterosexual/homosexual.

What I know is that I think it is LOUSY to do either of these. I think it's a bad choice. That's my gut reaction and my personal opinion about it. But do I think it is a "wrong" choice?

Grrrrr...I honestly can't say. My ethical system requires internal consistency, and I'm still running examples through my head to see if I retain this consistency when I state that I think these are "wrong."

See, I believe it is perfectly ethical to prevent your child from having her heart form on the outside of her chest (just as an example). I believe it is ethical to prevent your child from being born blind. It is possible for a child to survive with either of these conditions, yet I support efforts to modify the child in a way that I believe would be "good" for the child.

There are people who believe it would be good for their child to be heterosexual. They believe it is unhealthy for their child to be homosexual. The fact that I disagree with them doesn't automatically give me the power to over-rule their choices when it comes to deciding on their child's care. I wouldn't want somebody else to have that kind of power over me or my family.

Most blind people will be extremely offended if you suggest that they are unable to lead a full life because of their handicap. Does this mean it would be unethical of me to prevent my child from going blind, since they will still be able to lead a full and happy life if they do go blind?

Yeah, I'm still kind of thinking myself in circles on this one. :P

1. Suppose that if the mother chooses the sexual preference of the child, the hormonal effect makes the child resistant to the procedure in the future. The procedure is still possible but painful and slow. If no gestational procedure is performed, the child can change its sexuality once puberty is complete and the change is immediate and painless.

Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.

it is unethical for the mother to make any non-essential changes to the fetus. anything that can reasonably be left until after the child is born and especially those that can be left until the child is a legal adult should be forgone in preference of treating the living child.

it seems to me that changing the fetus is a way of denying the child/adult his own free choice later. the parent is overriding any preference the future child might have in his own sexuality

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.

yes you have. and even if she should never come out of the coma and be able to have you prosecuted for it, the state should be able to do it for her.

3. What if she decides after the fact, that she liked it (assume I decided to tell her)? Is it a violation of her rights then?

yes it was still rape and still violated her rights. the state should still be able to prosecute you as a rapist even if she would never press charges on her own.

4. Whose sexuality is changed by this procedure?

the sexuality of the future child is changed by this procedure.

I suppose I need to be very careful in how I'm responding to these, because my own thinking isn't entirely clear.

To revise my previous answer: I'm honestly not sure whether or not I think it is ethical to prevent a child from having arms, or whether or not I think it is ethical to prevent a child from being heterosexual/homosexual.

What I know is that I think it is LOUSY to do either of these. I think it's a bad choice. That's my gut reaction and my personal opinion about it. But do I think it is a "wrong" choice?

Grrrrr...I honestly can't say. My ethical system requires internal consistency, and I'm still running examples through my head to see if I retain this consistency when I state that I think these are "wrong."

See, I believe it is perfectly ethical to prevent your child from having her heart form on the outside of her chest (just as an example). I believe it is ethical to prevent your child from being born blind. It is possible for a child to survive with either of these conditions, yet I support efforts to modify the child in a way that I believe would be "good" for the child.

There are people who believe it would be good for their child to be heterosexual. They believe it is unhealthy for their child to be homosexual. The fact that I disagree with them doesn't automatically give me the power to over-rule their choices when it comes to deciding on their child's care. I wouldn't want somebody else to have that kind of power over me or my family.

Most blind people will be extremely offended if you suggest that they are unable to lead a full life because of their handicap. Does this mean it would be unethical of me to prevent my child from going blind, since they will still be able to lead a full and happy life if they do go blind?

Yeah, I'm still kind of thinking myself in circles on this one. :P

Yes, I know. It's quite complicated.

Here's the funny part, I'm mostly in this for the debate. I actually think it is wrong to arbitrarily alter our children, however, as a debate, I'm waiting to see if the supporter (not referring to you) can actually come up with the arguments that would pretty much nail down the debate. I can think of at least two arguments that would cause me to concede. I would totally kick my ass in this argument if I were debating the other side.

Dem, Ash, Bottle, EM, do you mind answering these questions? I think I know your answers but rather than assume.

1. Suppose that if the mother chooses the sexual preference of the child, the hormonal effect makes the child resistant to the procedure in the future. The procedure is still possible but painful and slow. If no gestational procedure is performed, the child can change its sexuality once puberty is complete and the change is immediate and painless.

Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.

3. What if she decides after the fact, that she liked it (assume I decided to tell her)? Is it a violation of her rights then?

4. The purpose of this procedure is to alter sexuality. Whose sexuality is altered by this procedure?

1) I personally think it is unethical whether the child can later change it or not. I'd have to agree with Bottle, however, that my gut reaction to whether or not we should make it illegal is "no".

2) Yes, you have violated her rights.

3) Still a violation of her rights. There is a reason that our law does not allow for a person to sign away their rights.

4) I think this is a bit of a trick question and I'm going to risk getting a bit pedantic here. At the time that such a change would be made, there is no sexuality to speak of, so no sexuality is altered. What the treatment would do is to try and force a specific sexual orientation to develop in the child. In this way it is akin to a treatment to ensure any specific trait.

But I think you are trying to get at the question of the intent here. The intent is obviously not to change the sexuality of the embryo/fetus - it has, as yet, developed none. The intent is quite obviously to affect the later sexuality of the child. I'm hungry, so I'll use a food analogy. When I add sugar to cookie batter, it isn't to sweeten the batter. I don't care what the batter tastes like. It is to sweeten the final product - the cookies - that I add the sugar.*

*This is true unless I am making chocolate chip cookies, in which case I might just eat the batter, especially in ice cream....***

***Maybe I shouldn't try to have serious discussions when I'm hungry. LOL

Yes, I know. It's quite complicated.

Here's the funny part, I'm mostly in this for the debate. I actually think it is wrong to arbitrarily alter our children, however, as a debate, I'm waiting to see if the supporter (not referring to you) can actually come up with the arguments that would pretty much nail down the debate. I can think of at least two arguments that would cause me to concede. I would totally kick my ass in this argument if I were debating the other side.

isnt this why god made puppets?

perhaps your alternate arguments arent as airtight as you think they are. we wont know if you dont come in under another identity and post them.

1) I personally think it is unethical whether the child can later change it or not. I'd have to agree with Bottle, however, that my gut reaction to whether or not we should make it illegal is "no".

2) Yes, you have violated her rights.

3) Still a violation of her rights. There is a reason that our law does not allow for a person to sign away their rights.

4) I think this is a bit of a trick question and I'm going to risk getting a bit pedantic here. At the time that such a change would be made, there is no sexuality to speak of, so no sexuality is altered. What the treatment would do is to try and force a specific sexual orientation to develop in the child. In this way it is akin to a treatment to ensure any specific trait.

But I think you are trying to get at the question of the intent here. The intent is obviously not to change the sexuality of the embryo/fetus - it has, as yet, developed none. The intent is quite obviously to affect the later sexuality of the child. I'm hungry, so I'll use a food analogy. When I add sugar to cookie batter, it isn't to sweeten the batter. I don't care what the batter tastes like. It is to sweeten the final product - the cookies - that I add the sugar.*

*This is true unless I am making chocolate chip cookies, in which case I might just eat the batter, especially in ice cream....***

***Maybe I shouldn't try to have serious discussions when I'm hungry. LOL


1. I don't think ethical and illegal are related. I don't think law should force people to ethical, necessarily. As to the first part, that's the point. I was drawing us down a path.

It's like this.

1 shows that it matters if there is a practical difference (assuming one says 1 is unethical).

2 and 3 shows that it's not the practical difference that decides whether or not something is ethical.

4 was a flawed question to be honest. It's clear the point is to alter the child. The question was more of a joke than anything else. It's similar to when did you quit beating your wife.

isnt this why god made puppets?

perhaps your alternate arguments arent as airtight as you think they are. we wont know if you dont come in under another identity and post them.

Would you like me to flip sides? Using a puppet is actually trolling and against the rules. I can just openly switch sides if you like. I must say that what I'm arguing now is what I believe, and since I'm not arguing to make this illegal, my argument doesn't matter. I do think the other side is the easier objective argument. I also think the argument for agnosticism is the easier objective argument, but I'm also not an agnostic.

If you guys would like to hear me argue for the other side, I'll switch, but I'll only do it if you guys will address those arguments. Otherwise, it only serves to make me look inconsistent and odd.

Would you like me to flip sides? Using a puppet is actually trolling and against the rules. I can just openly switch sides if you like. I must say that what I'm arguing now is what I believe, and since I'm not arguing to make this illegal, my argument doesn't matter. I do think the other side is the easier objective argument. I also think the argument for agnosticism is the easier objective argument, but I'm also not an agnostic.

If you guys would like to hear me argue for the other side, I'll switch, but I'll only do it if you guys will address those arguments. Otherwise, it only serves to make me look inconsistent and odd.

im mildly interested in what you think the big unaddressed points on the other side are. for me, i expect my reaction will be "well thats one point of view" rather than finding you completely off base. kinda like if a person finds removing homosexuality from the earth a great good its hard to say that its unethical to remove such a "defect" in utero rather than just aborting "gay" fetuses.

I then reply that either you must assume that either natural is better than artificial or one sexuality is better than the other.

Or simply that "the most probable will" of the child will be natural over artificial.

Very true, but your point was about the child's autonomy, which is not affected.

It is, but indirectly. Since the degree of parental control is less, the objection of the child is similarly less.

How is the degree of control less? Is the mother still not in complete control over the genetics of her child?

No. She merely has a very rough control; she does not know the exact genetics of the father, nor her own, and she certainly does not know which genes will be present in the child of the available set.

Is it possible for the child to be born not subject to the will of the mother? I say that, since of the will of the mother is the only factor governing the existence of the child, then the degree of control is at the highest level.

The child is definitely subject to the mother's will, but the mother need not use this opportunity to subordinate the child's will. She can always act regarding the child as the child would want her to act, were the child capable of making such decisions.

To your second point, is the natural process at all relevant if the mother still chose every gene of the child?

Yes, but the degree of control is at an extreme, so I'd still regard it as immoral.

Again, you fail. Seriously. And fail so miserably that one wonders why you keep posting this stuff.

By leading every post of yours with something of this nature, do you hope to imbue the following words with more power?

In this instance she is NOT controlling the child, she is choosing the child.

I don't see how she is not "choosing" the child when she manipulates the genes of the fetus. The entire purpose of manipulating the genes is to choose what child will be the product of the pregnancy. The entire purpose of choosing the genes prior to the pregnancy is to choose what child will be the product of the pregnancy.

If you go to an adoption center, and you choose a child that has the exact genetics you wish for that child to have, please tell me how you've controlled that child's genetics.

False analogy. There is no purposeful choosing of the what child will come into existence.

This does bring up another killer analogy, however. What if a woman who desired a child was infertile, and decided to adopt. However, her method of adoption is to pick a mother and father whose genes she most wanted to see in the father, combined the sperm and egg in vitro until the correct code occurred, and then fertilized the chosen mother with the zygote.

Upon the child's birth she adopts it, and pays the mother the appropriate amount to secure her compliance. Now there is no manipulation of the fetus, the mother does not have the pregnancy and never even contributes her genetics. Would you not say that she controlled the child's genetics.

I originally skipped over this, but since it has spawned discussion:

1. Suppose that if the mother chooses the sexual preference of the child, the hormonal effect makes the child resistant to the procedure in the future. The procedure is still possible but painful and slow. If no gestational procedure is performed, the child can change its sexuality once puberty is complete and the change is immediate and painless.

Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.

Yes, I believe this is unethical because the it limits the person's ability to follow his preference.

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.

Even though I believe (as most would) that she has ample justification to make a claim against the rapist, but because she nor any agent of hers will ever have the will to make the claim, then her rights, for all practical purposes, have not been violated.

But, if you consider the entitlement, the justification to be the right, then yes, her rights have been violated.

4. Whose sexuality is changed by this procedure?

As no sexuality exists, no sexuality is changed. The intended effects, however, are obviously to choose the sexuality of the child.

In a word YES

By leading every post of yours with something of this nature, do you hope to imbue the following words with more power?

Nope. Just stating what I think. If you had a clue, you have a really easy argument to make. Unfortunately, you've not made it. Instead you cling to the same tired arguments. Over and over.


I don't see how she is not "choosing" the child when she manipulates the genes of the fetus. The entire purpose of manipulating the genes is to choose what child will be the product of the pregnancy. The entire purpose of choosing the genes prior to the pregnancy is to choose what child will be the product of the pregnancy.

No, it isn't. It's to choose what traits the child who is product of the pregnancy has. It's still the same child.

Let me ask you this. There is a fetus for every child. You never get a child without a fetus. The fetus that created child A, we'll call fetus A. At what point did she swap out the fetus?


False analogy. There is no purposeful choosing of the what child will come into existence.

Ha. Hilarious. You've admitted it's choosing what child will come into existence. So we know that's what choosing the embryo is. Good. That's what we've said all along. You claimed it was just controlling the genetics of a single child.

In the OP scenario we are discussing, she is not choosing between potential children, but altering the potential child.

This does bring up another killer analogy, however. What if a woman who desired a child was infertile, and decided to adopt. However, her method of adoption is to pick a mother and father whose genes she most wanted to see in the father, combined the sperm and egg in vitro until the correct code occurred, and then fertilized the chosen mother with the zygote.

Upon the child's birth she adopts it, and pays the mother the appropriate amount to secure her compliance. Now there is no manipulation of the fetus, the mother does not have the pregnancy and never even contributes her genetics. Would you not say that she controlled the child's genetics.

Nope. She chose a child. I'm not sure what is complicated about this.

In a word YES

You didn't give a reason. These people crave 'excuses' for why we shouldn't eradicate homosexuality and purge it from the human race. They have lost their way and don't realise the ramifications of their godless ways.

First they permit homosexuality, next they will be permitting other forms of deviant sexuality.

It's the fault of the surge of liberalism and the feminazi movement that has corrupted the morality of the family structure.

I originally skipped over this, but since it has spawned discussion:



Yes, I believe this is unethical because the it limits the person's ability to follow his preference..

So once again, you suggest that a change in technology somehow changes what rights we have or don't have. So it seems you once again that rights are based on ability something you said was wrong. Do you have any arguments that you haven't already established are wrong?

Even though I believe (as most would) that she has ample justification to make a claim against the rapist, but because she nor any agent of hers will ever have the will to make the claim, then her rights, for all practical purposes, have not been violated.

But, if you consider the entitlement, the justification to be the right, then yes, her rights have been violated..

So your answer is both? And you wonder why I'm laughing.


As no sexuality exists, no sexuality is changed. The intended effects, however, are obviously to choose the sexuality of the child.

No, it isn't. It's expressed in the OP. The research they are doing is to alter the sexuality of the offspring, not choose it. Using a different word, doesn't change the intent. You admit they are choosing for the chilld. Glad that's settled. THe sexuality OF THE CHILD. It belongs to the child. Looks like we're done here.

Or simply that "the most probable will" of the child will be natural over artificial.

Obviously. I had jumped past that part.

Since we assume that the child will want what is better for him/herself, then you should show that "natural" is better than "artificial."

It is, but indirectly. Since the degree of parental control is less, the objection of the child is similarly less.


This is a non-sequitor. That a child may object does not imply that they lost autonomy.

No. She merely has a very rough control; she does not know the exact genetics of the father, nor her own, and she certainly does not know which genes will be present in the child of the available set.

That a woman cannot absolutely exert direct control over the innerworkings of her body does not mean that those things that constitute her as a person do not control over the development of the child as a fetus.

If the woman did in fact have direct control over the combination of genes, maybe through in vitro trial and error or purposeful combination, does she have precise control as opposed to "rough" control?

The child is definitely subject to the mother's will, but the mother need not use this opportunity to subordinate the child's will. She can always act regarding the child as the child would want her to act, were the child capable of making such decisions.

Do you recognize all of the problems of this statement, or at least the practical application there of?

Yes, but the degree of control is at an extreme, so I'd still regard it as immoral.

So you are using two arguments:

1. That any child would rationally prefer to have a natural gestation as oppose to one that is manipulated, and so the will can be expressed on behalf of the future child.

2. That a mother exerting complete control over the genes of the child is being immorally.

A question, do you believe that both should be considered a violation of rights , that they should both be considered illegal actions?

1. Would it then be unethical for the mother to change the child's sexuality? Because in that case she would undoubtedly be causing a practical difference and/or taking the decision away from the child.
It could be deemed as unethical - however, if we consider engineering things such as mental retardation away as both legal and ethical, we must prove that homosexuality is not negative (especially in a context of homophobic societies).

2. I come upon a person in a coma. May I have sex with her? She cannot express her will. What if I can guarantee that she will not know I've had sex with her, she will be uninjured and she will not be pregnant? There is no practical difference. Have I violated her rights? She doesn't know the difference.
Certainly there has been the violation of a right.

3. What if she decides after the fact, that she liked it (assume I decided to tell her)? Is it a violation of her rights then?
It is, but it is up to her whether or not she'll seek retribution for it. In this case, she won't. This is under the presumption that she is an adult, and is aware of what was done to her.

4. Whose sexuality is changed by this procedure?
The child's.

No, it isn't. It's to choose what traits the child who is product of the pregnancy has.

That statement applies to the obsessively planned pregnancy that I described.

It is a matter of reductionism. Where does the child begin?

Should it start at birth? Should it start at the zygote? Should it start with the separate egg and sperm? Should it start with the decision of the mother to have a child?
Let me ask you this. There is a fetus for every child. You never get a child without a fetus. The fetus that created child A, we'll call fetus A. At what point did she swap out the fetus?

There is a sperm for every child, there is an egg for every child, there is a mother for every child, there is a grandmother for every child. The genetic development of the child does not start with the fetus.

In the OP scenario we are discussing, she is not choosing between potential children, but altering the potential child.

I say that, by choosing the genetics of the fetus, she is choosing between potential children. What is a fetus if not a potential children, and what is choosing the genes carried by the fetus if not choosing the genes carried by the children.

Nope. She chose a child. I'm not sure what is complicated about this.

There is nothing complicated about this.

I am just confused about how one incident of choosing the genetic characteristics of a child is wrong, and one incident is ok.

So once again, you suggest that a change in technology somehow changes what rights we have or don't have. So it seems you once again that rights are based on ability something you said was wrong. Do you have any arguments that you haven't already established are wrong?

Show where I have argued that rights are not contingent on the ability to use them.

No, it isn't. It's expressed in the OP. The research they are doing is to alter the sexuality of the offspring, not choose it.

If someone intentionally alters the sexuality of the offspring, how can you possibly say that they are not choosing it?

Using a different word, doesn't change the intent. You admit they are choosing for the chilld. Glad that's settled. THe sexuality OF THE CHILD. It belongs to the child. Looks like we're done here.

Right, and the mother who determines the genes before the pregnancy is also choosing the sexuality of the child.

For those interested on further debate on human rights you could also head to this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=513932

I now have four questions for those following this thread:

1. If a mother determines what sexuality the child will have before the pregnancy, is she choosing the sexuality of the child?

2. If the mother intentionally alters the genes of the fetus with the purpose of altering the sexuality, is she choosing the sexuality of the child?

3. Is it wrong for the mother to determine the traits of the child prior to the pregnancy?

4. Is it a violation of the child's rights to have their traits determined prior to the pregnancy?

And to Jocabia,

You offer up your devastating argument that renders your side of the debate usunder, and I will take upon myself the desperate defense.

That statement applies to the obsessively planned pregnancy that I described.

It is a matter of reductionism. Where does the child begin?

Should it start at birth? Should it start at the zygote? Should it start with the separate egg and sperm? Should it start with the decision of the mother to have a child?

I believe it starts at cognition which is prior to birth and around the third trimester, but that's not at issue. In ever one of these cases the purpose is to end up with a child with a particular orientation including the situation of choosing a child during the adoption process. However, only in the OP scenario is the purpose to change the orientation of a child that is going to be born. In every other scenario they are turniing away a child or a potential child.



There is a sperm for every child, there is an egg for every child, there is a mother for every child, there is a grandmother for every child. The genetic development of the child does not start with the fetus.

Of course it doesn't start with the fetus. You've just destroyed your argument. That's why if they choose a different sperm or different egg or different fetus, it's a different child. Glad you agree. Of course it ruins your argument, but then it's not like it needed this.


I say that, by choosing the genetics of the fetus, she is choosing between potential children. What is a fetus if not a potential children, and what is choosing the genes carried by the fetus if not choosing the genes carried by the children.

Ignore the child for a moment.

I have egg A and sperm A.

And I have egg B and sperm B.

I make a zygote with each. The woman has a choice between either of these zygotes based on which product she'll get. She chooses B. Child A can still occur or not occur if it has a uterus to grow in. It's a choice, not a alteration. However, in the OP scenario, that's impossible. It's impossible because it is changing the altering the potential child, not choosing between potential children.

There is nothing complicated about this.

Agreed. Which is why it's odd that you're struggling with these concepts. It really comes down to the meaning of alteration. In the scenarios you offer there is no alteration, whereas in the scenario offered by the OP there is. It really is quite simple.


I am just confused about how one incident of choosing the genetic characteristics of a child is wrong, and one incident is ok.

Ha. False dichotomy. I didn't say either was right. One is simply a violation of the rights of the child while the other is not. One alters the child and one chooses a different child.


Show where I have argued that rights are not contingent on the ability to use them.

Ha.

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

You said they are no longer rights at that point. Whoops. See why I giggle.


If someone intentionally alters the sexuality of the offspring, how can you possibly say that they are not choosing it?

I'm not. However, we've only looked at one case where that happens, and that is when they actually alter the offspring. In every other case, they are choosing different offspring. Different offspring, different parents, different egg, different sperm, different fetus. Everything about your scenarios has them different. However, none of those are different in the scenario where the fetus is altered in order to change the orientation of the child.


Right, and the mother who determines the genes before the pregnancy is also choosing the sexuality of the child.

Choosing the child with a particular sexuality. The child never had or could have had a different sexuality. It could have never happened because had she chosen different parents, different fetus, different zygot, different sperm, different egg, different everything, it's obviously and logically a different child. There is nothing stopping every sperm and egg from being implanted to make OTHER CHILDREN. However, there is something obviously and logically preventing a child with the untainted sexuality from existing, it's that it's not a seperate child, but the same child just with its sexuality altered from its natural sexuality.

It's kind of like of like saying I prevent a child from being homosexual by aborting or by giving it hormones as a toddler and it's the same. However, in one case, I altering the child, and in the other, I am choosing not to have a child. It doesn't matter if I try to use a term, like you're doing, that makes them sound like the same thing, the fact is they aren't. There is no getting around that. The results are not exactly the same. In your scenarios, technically, though they may not, the other potential children CAN still occur.

I now have four questions for those following this thread:

1. If a mother determines what sexuality the child will have before the pregnancy, is she choosing the sexuality of the child?

Your question is unclear. Is she choosing a child, or is she changing the sexuality of the child. If she chooses between children or potential children, then no.

It's like you saying that if you cut my arms off, you've not denied me anything becuase a person that would have arms past that point never existed. That's an alteration.

Like I said, it's the difference between turning down girlfriends until I find one with no arms and cutting off my girlfriends arms (or causing them to be cut off versus the use of some tool).


2. If the mother intentionally alters the genes of the fetus with the purpose of altering the sexuality, is she choosing the sexuality of the child?

If she ALTERS the genes, then yes. If she simply chooses the genes, then no.

3. Is it wrong for the mother to determine the traits of the child prior to the pregnancy?

Again, it's not THE child. She's choosing which child to have.

4. Is it a violation of the child's rights to have their traits determined prior to the pregnancy?

Again, it depends if their genes are chosen or altered.

I believe it starts at cognition which is prior to birth and around the third trimester, but that's not at issue. In ever one of these cases the purpose is to end up with a child with a particular orientation including the situation of choosing a child during the adoption process. However, only in the OP scenario is the purpose to change the orientation of a child that is going to be born. In every other scenario they are turniing away a child or a potential child.

So if a mother intentionally manipulates the sperm to cause the future child to have down syndrome this is morally equivalent to adopting a child with down syndrome?

You fail.

Of course it doesn't start with the fetus. You've just destroyed your argument. That's why if they choose a different sperm or different egg or different fetus, it's a different child. Glad you agree. Of course it ruins your argument, but then it's not like it needed this.

Yet if they change every gene of the fetus, it is still the same child?

If you can only change the child after the embryo, and only choose a child before the fetus, then the embryo marks the beginning of the child.

Your argument is ruined.

Ignore the child for a moment.

I have egg A and sperm A.

And I have egg B and sperm B.

I make a zygote with each. The woman has a choice between either of these zygotes based on which product she'll get. She chooses B. Child A can still occur or not occur if it has a uterus to grow in. It's a choice, not a alteration. However, in the OP scenario, that's impossible. It's impossible because it is changing the altering the potential child, not choosing between potential children.

I have egg A and sperm A.

I alter egg A and sperm A to make egg B and sperm B. If I had not changed egg A and sperm A, the child would have been born with characteristics set A, with the change the child will be born with characteristics set B.

Only one egg and sperm are used and they are altered. The genes are the chosen factor here, just as the manipulation of the pregnancy.

It is easy to declare yourself the winner after you completely misrepresent someone else's argument.

Agreed. Which is why it's odd that you're struggling with these concepts. It really comes down to the meaning of alteration. In the scenarios you offer there is no alteration, whereas in the scenario offered by the OP there is. It really is quite simple.

The gene set is altered in my scenario.

Perhaps we should examine your use of the word "choose". You say that when a woman manipulates the genes prior to in utero development, she is choosing a child.

Yet if I were to purchase all of the custom parts I desired for a car and then assembled them, everyone would refer to this as "building" a car, not "choosing" a car.

If, for some reason, I didn't like one of the parts while I was assembling the car and exchanged it for another, we would not say that we were "altering" the car, we would say we were "choosing" new parts, while still referring to the process as "building".

Your argument is insidiously loaded with poorly and wrongly defined terms, it is almost impossible to have this discussion with the sheer amount of equivocation and conflation you resort to.

Ha.

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

You said they are no longer rights at that point. Whoops. See why I giggle.

I was discussing your definition of rights, not mine.

I was pointing out that your definition of rights is pointless because it is synonymous with ability. If we possess infinite rights but can only express them when we are able to, then for any practical purpose rights=ability.

I don't know how often I have reiterated that the child has no right to determination of its own in utero development because it doesn't possess the ability. Therefore my argument is no ability=no rights.

Your continued misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my arguments fills me with such doubt concerning the quality of discussion on NS that I may simply get myself deleted.

Choosing the child with a particular sexuality. The child never had or could have had a different sexuality. It could have never happened because had she chosen different parents, different fetus, different zygot, different sperm, different egg, different everything, it's obviously and logically a different child. There is nothing stopping every sperm and egg from being implanted to make OTHER CHILDREN. However, there is something obviously and logically preventing a child with the untainted sexuality from existing, it's that it's not a seperate child, but the same child just with its sexuality altered from its natural sexuality.

It's kind of like of like saying I prevent a child from being homosexual by aborting or by giving it hormones as a toddler and it's the same. However, in one case, I altering the child, and in the other, I am choosing not to have a child. It doesn't matter if I try to use a term, like you're doing, that makes them sound like the same thing, the fact is they aren't. There is no getting around that. The results are not exactly the same. In your scenarios, technically, though they may not, the other potential children CAN still occur.

Let me ask you one question before I cast your argument across the River Styx into the hell of bad logic, where it will burn and fester in the underworld with all the other fallacious statements forged in the inconsistent mind.

Is the fetus a child?

(If I understand you right, I imagine that you will say "Yes, it is rendered so after the child exists.")

snip

I have already heard and learned this sorry argument by heart and it fills me with dread.

I have already addressed the way in which you play with semantics to wrest your argument from the clutches of death's harbinger.

I continually brought distruction upon your posts that would cause any man of lesser pride and avarice to confess the error of their ways and plead for enlightenment.

I hesitate to address this post for fear that the plague that consumes your post will spread to my fingers, rendering them useless and devoid of all truth.

I think that I have used enough hyperbolic assessments of your arguments in the last two posts to show how pointless your goading, insulting, snide, and completely irrelevant remarks about the quality of my argument truly are.

I now have four questions for those following this thread:

I'd answer, but I think I'll keep just skimming this portion of the discussion. I'm not really well-versed, even in my own feelings on the matter, on the exact derivation of rights and how they apply in various situations.

I tend to hold that a child should be able to seek reparations for damage caused while in the fetal stage if said damages could be foreseen (ie. a child with fetal alcohol syndrome if the mother was aware that she was pregnant, intended to carry to term, and still drank routinely). But I'm not really prepared to get into the exact nature of rights, which seems to be the point you guys are delving into.

But I'm not really prepared to get into the exact nature of rights, which seems to be the point you guys are delving into.Yeah, it seems as though that's happening a lot lately. I'm not participating as much as I might be in this myself, because I'm doing something similar in the French Housing thread.

Is the fetus a child?

(If I understand you right, I imagine that you will say "Yes, it is rendered so after the child exists.")

You have not read the rest of the thread.
Everyone arguing Jocabia's side says that the fetus is not a child at the point that the mother would be changing it, at the very least.

I'd answer, but I think I'll keep just skimming this portion of the discussion. I'm not really well-versed, even in my own feelings on the matter, on the exact derivation of rights and how they apply in various situations.

I tend to hold that a child should be able to seek reparations for damage caused while in the fetal stage if said damages could be foreseen (ie. a child with fetal alcohol syndrome if the mother was aware that she was pregnant, intended to carry to term, and still drank routinely). But I'm not really prepared to get into the exact nature of rights, which seems to be the point you guys are delving into.

Yeah, it seems as though that's happening a lot lately. I'm not participating as much as I might be in this myself, because I'm doing something similar in the French Housing thread.

I am simply trying to address the difference Jocabia is trying to make.

He states that a woman who determines the genes of the child prior to in utero development is doing something different than the woman who determines the genes of the fetus in utero.

For example, in response to question 2, "If the mother intentionally alters the genes of the fetus with the purpose of altering the sexuality, is she choosing the sexuality of the child?", he responds: "If she simply chooses the genes, then no."

Do you agree with this, that the mother who chooses the genes that lead to sexuality is not choosing the sexuality of the child?

You have not read the rest of the thread.
Everyone arguing Jocabia's side says that the fetus is not a child at the point that the mother would be changing it, at the very least.

I AM the thread.

This thread is still going because I have argued an unpopular position.

67 of my last 72 posts have been in this thread.

Now, I understand that the position is that the fetus is not a child, but a potential child (I certainly share this position). It extends that altering the fetus when birth is intended is meant to alter the potential child.

I posit that the sperm and egg that are combined for the purpose of giving birth are also a potential child.

For example, when abortion is supported, it is argued that abortion is not murder because it is the killing of a potential child. Since we can link the fetus to the embryo to the zygote to the egg and sperm all in the linear process of creating a child, we can say that eggs and sperm are potential child, and we would think it absurd to charge someone with murder for masturbation.

Because of this linear link that (correctly) espoused when defending abortion, we can say that altering the genetics of the sperm with the intention of producing a particular child is also altering the child.

Jocabia denies this.

Since we assume that the child will want what is better for him/herself

Not necessarily. It's perfectly reasonable for the child to prefer something neutral.

I've already said why I think the child would prefer not be modified.

This is a non-sequitor. That a child may object does not imply that they lost autonomy.

But the level of objection the child is likely to have is the determinant of whether or not it is a violation of autonomy.

That a woman cannot absolutely exert direct control over the innerworkings of her body does not mean that those things that constitute her as a person do not control over the development of the child as a fetus.

Sure, but so what?

If the woman did in fact have direct control over the combination of genes, maybe through in vitro trial and error or purposeful combination, does she have precise control as opposed to "rough" control?

Perhaps, but then she is doing nothing to the child; she is acting within her own rightful sovereignty, not infringing upon the child's.

Do you recognize all of the problems of this statement, or at least the practical application there of?

When I refer to the desires of the child, I don't necessarily mean the actual desires of the child in a specific circumstance - rather the desires of the child if she were fully possessed of the mental faculties necessary to make the decisions wisely. As with the fetus, the mother has certain proxy powers over her child - though I would argue that in a free society, these would be substantially more limited than we see as appropriate today.

So you are using two arguments:

1. That any child would rationally prefer to have a natural gestation as oppose to one that is manipulated, and so the will can be expressed on behalf of the future child.

2. That a mother exerting complete control over the genes of the child is being immorally.

The two arguments are linked. If you recall WHY I said the child would prefer to have a natural gestation, one of the prominent reasons was a desire for independence; even if the process is natural, if it offers the mother complete control, this independence is still denied.

A question, do you believe that both should be considered a violation of rights , that they should both be considered illegal actions?

Altering the sexual orientation of anyone through any method without his or her explicit consent should be illegal - and I'd say the same for other neutral traits.

Because no person's rights are violated if the mother merely selects her preferred child among available ones (say, through aborting the ones she doesn't like), this should not be illegal; the immorality is more in the perspective of the mother than in any specific harm, and thus the indignity of coercion outweighs the good of the law.

Sure, but so what?

I asked: Is a mother behaving immorally and infringing on the rights of the child when she picks out a father based on traits she would want in her child?

You replied: Not really. First, the degree of control is far less.

If the mother's person is at all times in complete control of the development of the fetus, then it is not possible for her control to assume any lesser degree.

Perhaps, but then she is doing nothing to the child; she is acting within her own rightful sovereignty, not infringing upon the child's.

So the child's right to free development does not include the prevention of his genes being determined by the mother? What value does this right provide, this right to an undisturbed gestation?

What value does a person gain from a "natural" gestation alone?

The two arguments are linked. If you recall WHY I said the child would prefer to have a natural gestation, one of the prominent reasons was a desire for independence; even if the process is natural, if it offers the mother complete control, this independence is still denied.

You have already argued that a woman can have precise control over the genes of the child, while not violating the rights of the child.

Isn't this inconsistent with your "independence" justification for a natural gestation rights?

Altering the sexual orientation of anyone through any method without his or her explicit consent should be illegal - and I'd say the same for other neutral traits.

Is there a sexuality present at the manipulation of the fetus? No, I think we can both agree that there is only the presence of genes that lead to a sexuality.

Because no person's rights are violated if the mother merely selects her preferred child among available ones (say, through aborting the ones she doesn't like), this should not be illegal; the immorality is more in the perspective of the mother than in any specific harm, and thus the indignity of coercion outweighs the good of the law.

If it is possible to choose the genes of a child in utero, and a child only becomes a child when it is born, why would the choosing of the genes of the fetus not constitute choosing among available children.

If a woman can produce a child of any number of different traits during her pregnancy, wouldn't she also be choosing a child?

than say, aborting the child or choosing the DNA of a Rhodes scholar as the sperm donor

If the mother's person is at all times in complete control of the development of the fetus, then it is not possible for her control to assume any lesser degree.

But the concern is not for the mother's person, but for the mother's WILL.

So the child's right to free development does not include the prevention of his genes being determined by the mother?

The genes are not determined by the mother. Which potential child actually becomes a child is determined by the mother.

The effect of this is that the mother gets the genes she wants - not by determining the genes, however, but by determining the child.

You have already argued that a woman can have precise control over the genes of the child, while not violating the rights of the child.

Isn't this inconsistent with your "independence" justification for a natural gestation rights?

No, for the reasons I give above. There is no specific child who is being harmed; the choice the mother is making is not "natural or unnatural sexual orientation" as applied to a specific child (an illegitimate imposition) but "existence or non-existence" as applied to numerous fetuses (a legitimate imposition.)

Is there a sexuality present at the manipulation of the fetus? No, I think we can both agree that there is only the presence of genes that lead to a sexuality.

That is true, but irrelevant. The unnatural imposition of a sexual orientation remains.

If it is possible to choose the genes of a child in utero, and a child only becomes a child when it is born, why would the choosing of the genes of the fetus not constitute choosing among available children.

Because there is only one potential child, not many.

If a woman can produce a child of any number of different traits during her pregnancy, wouldn't she also be choosing a child?

What do you mean?

So if a mother intentionally manipulates the sperm to cause the future child to have down syndrome this is morally equivalent to adopting a child with down syndrome?

You fail.

Hilarious. Someone doesn't know what an analogous situation is. It doesn't mean they are exactly the same. Just that they are the same in some particular way. In this case, that they are both choosing.

I seperately happen to think that choosing a child in the way of specifically choosing a sperm and egg to have particular characteristics is wrong as well. However, all we are discussing is the idea of choosing. I didn't realize I had to teach you what an analogy is. I will know better next time, if I happen to care enough to remember this pitiful argument.



Yet if they change every gene of the fetus, it is still the same child?

Yep. The child is simply altered.

If you can only change the child after the embryo, and only choose a child before the fetus, then the embryo marks the beginning of the child.

Your argument is ruined.

Nope. My argument would only be ruined if I said that. I didn't. Much like if I related ability and rights like you have, my argument would be ruined, just as you said it would. It is unfortunately, not what I said at all, my friend. If they were choosing between fetuses it would be an equal event. If they were choosing between sperm and eggs. If they were choosing between partners. If they were choosing between children. All equal events. They are all part of the life cycle of human beings and in each of those events, you are not altering the development what is or will become a child, but instead choosing between children or potential children.

If they were altering the development of the child in at any of these stages it would be different than choosing between different items at any level of development.

I feel sorry for you, because you keep coming so close but your inability to see the holes in your argument keeps making you fall short.


I have egg A and sperm A.

I alter egg A and sperm A to make egg B and sperm B. If I had not changed egg A and sperm A, the child would have been born with characteristics set A, with the change the child will be born with characteristics set B.

Only one egg and sperm are used and they are altered. The genes are the chosen factor here, just as the manipulation of the pregnancy.

It is easy to declare yourself the winner after you completely misrepresent someone else's argument.

If you alter egg A and sperm B with the intent of altering the child, then you are equally altering the child. My earlier answers where to a scenario where you said she was choosing between eggs and sperm for the proper combination, not altering them. If you wanted this to be your scenario, you should have said so. You would have gotten the answer you're getting now. See why your argument sucks?


The gene set is altered in my scenario.

In the above scenario, you have altered the child, through altering the sperm and egg. However, if you simply choose different sperm or eggs, then you have a completely seperate issue. You have referred repeatedly to choosing from one egg or another as altering the genes, so referencing altering of genes is not a clear way for you to say you actually mean altering the eggs. It's called equivocation.

Perhaps we should examine your use of the word "choose". You say that when a woman manipulates the genes prior to in utero development, she is choosing a child.

Not what I said. You have said several times that her method is to choose the sperm and egg, not alter the sperm and egg. If she alters the sperm and egg, then I would argue that it is equivalent.

Show me where I ever said that altering the sperm and egg should be ignored. See, you've used the word altering to refer to choosing the sperm and eggs, so unless you specifically stated that you were refering to altering the genes in the same egg, then you're committing the falacy of equivocation. Shall I quote you?


Yet if I were to purchase all of the custom parts I desired for a car and then assembled them, everyone would refer to this as "building" a car, not "choosing" a car.

False analogy. If you build a car, you build a car. However, if a completely different set of parts you chose to build a different car. If you altered the parts you had, you built the same car. Again, this isn't complicated.

Build is equivelant to gestate, and I have never argued that an altered fetus is not gestated. If you wish to make a comparison talking about swapping out parts on the car, rather than altering the parts on the car. Again, you prove you don't know what an analogy is. How sad.

The choosing the parts that you do is choosing which car to build. They are not exclusive.

If, for some reason, I didn't like one of the parts while I was assembling the car and exchanged it for another, we would not say that we were "altering" the car, we would say we were "choosing" new parts, while still referring to the process as "building".

Except, if you exchange the parts, you have built a different car (not necessarily a different model, but a different car). If you alter the parts, you are building a different model, but not a different car. You are changing one model into another. Altering it.

However, this analogy is also flawed in that there is not a direct relationship between swapping out a part and altering the car. For exmaple, if you change the fetus, you cannot argue that the child is not effectively altered from what the child would have been. However, you can argue that about the car depending on the alteration.


Your argument is insidiously loaded with poorly and wrongly defined terms, it is almost impossible to have this discussion with the sheer amount of equivocation and conflation you resort to.

Ha. Mine? You just compared building to altering in your scenario and I'm struggling with terms. Altering and choosing equally apply to cars. If you had the chasis of a rolls royce had begun assembling it except you included an engine you altered, people would consider your Rolls Royce to be altered. See how that works. Yet, you still built it.

Seriously, are you going to tell me that you're not going to look at my response and knock yourself on the head for making such a basic mistake? Be honest. That was a pretty basic mistake and it makes it appear that you don't understand the argument at all, which I tend not to believe.



I was discussing your definition of rights, not mine.

You were trying to. However, you've just said again, and you'll say so below, that you think rights are dependent on ability and that this is a fallacious thing to believe.

You were saying that I was combining ability and rights and that to do so would make the word "rights" useless. Except, as I've shown, I wasn't combining them, you were. And I agree with you, when you combine ability and rights then you are not using a word that has to do with rights. I'll quote you again.

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

There is nothing else that could mean other than making those two terms synonymous makes the word "rights" meaningless. I couldn't agree more. So let's stop associating ability with rights, shall we?


I was pointing out that your definition of rights is pointless because it is synonymous with ability. If we possess infinite rights but can only express them when we are able to, then for any practical purpose rights=ability.

Nope. For all practical purposes, we can only do what we are able to. Not the same thing. If you have a car, but don't have the ability to use it, then you still have a car. Ability does not define what we have and don't have.

Now, please explain to me how you can express something when you are not able to? I didn't make that rule. Logic did.

Meanwhile, again, you've said repeatedly that if you don't have the ability to express a right, then you don't have a right, which makes rights synonymous with ability, which you've expressed is meaningless. Thank you for destroying your own argument. I was starting to feel lonely since I was the only one doing it.

Try this. If I say rights exist with or without ability and you say they exist only when ability exists, who is more closely relating them? The answer is obvious.


I don't know how often I have reiterated that the child has no right to determination of its own in utero development because it doesn't possess the ability. Therefore my argument is no ability=no rights.

See there you go again. If they don't have the ability, they don't have the rights. So the rights become synonymous with ability. Like this example -

"I don't have the right to write the world's greatest novel."
"I don't have the abilty to write the world's greatest novel."

You believe those are both true statements. That makes them synonymous.

Example:
"I don't have the ability to write the world's greatest novel."
"I do have the right to write the world's greatest novel."

See. I believe that both of those statements are true, and therefore, rights and ability cannot be synonymous.

I would say, those two statements are not remotely related. Rights are not dependent on ability. They have nothing to do with ability. They are expressed or not expressed. That is all. If I don't have the ability to do something, by definition I can't express that right, but that does not make them equivalent.


Your continued misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my arguments fills me with such doubt concerning the quality of discussion on NS that I may simply get myself deleted.

Hiliarious. You're the one who doesn't know what you're argument. You argue that rights are not equivelent to ability and then write that without ability you don't have rights. You equated them and then claim that I am equating them.

For me, no rights <> no ability AND rights<>ability. For you, they are equal. You've said as much, repeatedly. You can have the ability but not the right (e.g. killing someone), the right but not the ability (e.g. carving a horse), the right and the ability (e.g. a novelist who writes a book), and no ability and no right (e.g. wiping out mankind with a virus). By my definition, they have no relationship whatsoever. The only one who has ever related them is you. Are you denying this? If you are, you're going to have to quote me, since you've already admitted that you say that rights don't exist without ability, making them much more synonymous than I would ever agree with.


Let me ask you one question before I cast your argument across the River Styx into the hell of bad logic, where it will burn and fester in the underworld with all the other fallacious statements forged in the inconsistent mind.

Is the fetus a child?

(If I understand you right, I imagine that you will say "Yes, it is rendered so after the child exists.")

Nope. It's simply the means by which we create the child. And altering it is the means by which we alter the child. There is a direct relationship so we cannot alter one without altering the other.

I'll give you a similar logical example. 2A=B. Tell me how you can alter A without altering B? Give me a value of B that is not dependent on A. But A does not equal B. Just like the child is not the adult, but you cannot alter the child without altering the adult. They are stages of development.

I AM the thread.

Ha. Yes, you've been quite entertaining. It's not the popularity of your opinion that is at issue. Many, many people have agreed with you throughout this thread.

This thread is still going because I have argued an unpopular position.

Yet, oddly, the thread continued when you weren't here. You're false sense of importance amuses me.

67 of my last 72 posts have been in this thread.

All of my last posts have been in this thread. What does this have to do with anything.

Now, I understand that the position is that the fetus is not a child, but a potential child (I certainly share this position). It extends that altering the fetus when birth is intended is meant to alter the potential child.

However, when the child is born, that potential is realized and we ceasing to be speaking about the child in terms of potential. Much like if I rig up a shotgun to shoot a potential burgler, I've not actually violated anyone's rights. However, once that shotgun goes off and shoots a person, that rigging clearly no longer applies to a potential person, but a real one, and my actions no longer apply to a potential person, but an actual person.


I posit that the sperm and egg that are combined for the purpose of giving birth are also a potential child.

For example, when abortion is supported, it is argued that abortion is not murder because it is the killing of a potential child. Since we can link the fetus to the embryo to the zygote to the egg and sperm all in the linear process of creating a child, we can say that eggs and sperm are potential child, and we would think it absurd to charge someone with murder for masturbation.

Because of this linear link that (correctly) espoused when defending abortion, we can say that altering the genetics of the sperm with the intention of producing a particular child is also altering the child.

Jocabia denies this.

No, I recognize that when potential is never realized that it is different than when it is. See the example above. Are you claiming I have violated the rights of some person by rigging the shotgun if it never shoots anyone?

In abortion, the potential never becomes realized. There is the potential for children, whenever I meet a girl. Then when I move on to another girl, there is the potential for other children, and the potential for the original children is ended. Abortion is no different. Until potential becomes actual there is no existing thing to apply it to. However, once it is actual, then every action that affects that existing thing can be applied not to the potential child, but the actual child. Abortion affects no actual child. Altering the genetic code of a potential child that becomes on an actual child obviously affects the genetic code of that child.

The genes are not determined by the mother. Which potential child actually becomes a child is determined by the mother.

The effect of this is that the mother gets the genes she wants - not by determining the genes, however, but by determining the child.

Isn't the mother's determination of the child the problem?

And anyways, what if the mother is able to determine just exactly what genetic code will arise from the combination of the genes prior to the gestation period?

No, for the reasons I give above. There is no specific child who is being harmed; the choice the mother is making is not "natural or unnatural sexual orientation" as applied to a specific child (an illegitimate imposition) but "existence or non-existence" as applied to numerous fetuses (a legitimate imposition.)


No, I am not talking about abortion here. I am referring to the situation where the mother has the ability to control the entire genetic output of the fertilization of the egg, giving her complete control over the genes of the fetus with no interference with the pregnancy. Is this precise control without interference into the gestation a violation of the child's rights?

I should note that I think your insistence on the importance of intent makes your argument against controlling the output of the pregnancy through abortion untenable. In both situations there is intent to give birth to a specific child, a child whose genetics were intentionally determined by the mother.

In both situations, the mother is intending to create a particular child (and does so), not choosing between children in one and changing a child in another.

Because there is only one potential child, not many.

In both situations the mother's will insures that only one potential child (or one genetic trait). If the fetus does will not bring about the desire child (or genetic trait), then her will insures that the fetus is no more a potential child than her unfertilized eggs.

She is not simply shopping around to see what is available, she has specific intent to produce a specific child.

What do you mean?

OK, so the child comes into existence when it is born, correct?

Now I am assuming a scenario in which the mother can manipulate all of the genes within the genetic code and therefore control the traits that child will be born with. Will you accept this?

If she is choosing all of the traits that the child will assume when it comes into existence, isn't she choosing between a large number of children that may come into existence? Isn't choosing the child to be straight the same as opting against all possible homosexual children (especially since the child is never homosexual, only a potential homosexual)?

Isn't the mother's determination of the child the problem?

Not her determination of which child, no. This falls within her rightful sovereignty.

And anyways, what if the mother is able to determine just exactly what genetic code will arise from the combination of the genes prior to the gestation period?

What does she do with this knowledge?

No, I am not talking about abortion here. I am referring to the situation where the mother has the ability to control the entire genetic output of the fertilization of the egg, giving her complete control over the genes of the fetus with no interference with the pregnancy. Is this precise control without interference into the gestation a violation of the child's rights?

My tentative position is "no"... it seems to me that this still constitutes choosing the child rather than choosing the child's genes.

She is choosing which genetic combination of many will exist, not altering one particular genetic combination to her will.

In both situations the mother's will insures that only one potential child (or one genetic trait). If the fetus does will not bring about the desire child (or genetic trait), then her will insures that the fetus is no more a potential child than her unfertilized eggs.

She is not simply shopping around to see what is available, she has specific intent to produce a specific child.

Of course, but her method is different. She is not imposing anything upon a specific child; she is just choosing which child will exist and which child won't. There is no child whose rights are violated, because the only thing she decides about is their existence, and she has rightful sovereignty there.

OK, so the child comes into existence when it is born, correct?

The being already in existence becomes a child when it is born.

Now I am assuming a scenario in which the mother can manipulate all of the genes within the genetic code and therefore control the traits that child will be born with. Will you accept this?

Okay.

If she is choosing all of the traits that the child will assume when it comes into existence, isn't she choosing between a large number of children that may come into existence? Isn't choosing the child to be straight the same as opting against all possible homosexual children (especially since the child is never homosexual, only a potential homosexual)?

No, because all of those potential children in the case of genetic or hormonal modification would be different versions of the same being.

I assumed everything else you posted is unassailable truth and not to be challenged by mere mortals so I didn't read it. I was interested in how you answered this, though.

False analogy. If you build a car, you build a car. However, if a completely different set of parts you chose to build a different car. If you altered the parts you had, you built the same car. Again, this isn't complicated.

Build is equivelant to gestate, and I have never argued that an altered fetus is not gestated. If you wish to make a comparison talking about swapping out parts on the car, rather than altering the parts on the car. Again, you prove you don't know what an analogy is. How sad.

The choosing the parts that you do is choosing which car to build. They are not exclusive.

Except, if you exchange the parts, you have built a different car (not necessarily a different model, but a different car). If you alter the parts, you are building a different model, but not a different car. You are changing one model into another. Altering it.

Let us assume that person A is building car A, person B is building car B.

Person A wants to build a Firebird, but a Camaro kit is less expensive so he purchases it instead, person B wants to build a corvette and purchases the a corvette kit.

Person A, alters every single piece of the Camaro kit in some way in order to assemble a perfect replica of a Firebird.

Person B wanted to build a 1972 Corvette, but realized that he unwittingly purchased the kit to build a 1971 Corvette. Luckily for him, there is only one part that needs to be exchanged. He does so and assembles a perfect replica of a 1972 Corvette.

According to you the person who altered every single part still built the same car, but the person who exchanged one single part built an entirely different car.

That is completely counter to common sense, because we associate the decision of what to build with whether the product is different or not. It is the will that determines what we are building, not the original materials.

So the woman who decides she wants to "build" a homosexual child is building the same child no matter which method she uses.

Okay.

No, because all of those potential children in the case of genetic or hormonal modification would be different versions of the same being.

Show why that is relevant.

Show why that is relevant.

Because it means the mother is not choosing between the future existence or non-existence of the child, which is within her rights.

The mother is choosing between a natural or artificial sexual orientation for her child, which is not.

I am simply trying to address the difference Jocabia is trying to make.

He states that a woman who determines the genes of the child prior to in utero development is doing something different than the woman who determines the genes of the fetus in utero.

For example, in response to question 2, "If the mother intentionally alters the genes of the fetus with the purpose of altering the sexuality, is she choosing the sexuality of the child?", he responds: "If she simply chooses the genes, then no."

Do you agree with this, that the mother who chooses the genes that lead to sexuality is not choosing the sexuality of the child?The analogy that I would make with this issue is this -

If the mother wants a child with a particular sexuality, and she decides to adopt she chooses one with this particular sexuality from all of the possible children. I would say that this is the equivalent to aborting all of the fetuses until she gets the one that she wants.

If the mother forcibly implants a chip into the child's brain to give it a particular sexuality that also erases the child's memory of zir previous sexuality, this is the equivalent of altering the child in utero, genetically or otherwise.

I think your confusion is that you're stuck on when the alteration occurs, but when the alteration occurs is irrelevant - it's who the alteration is done on that matters.

Because it means the mother is not choosing between the future existence or non-existence of the child, which is within her rights.

The mother is choosing between a natural or artificial sexual orientation for her child, which is not.

No, why does their common original material imply that they are all the same child? Is it that they share common original material (sorry for the horrible wording)?

No, why does their common original material imply that they are all the same child? Is it that they share common original material (sorry for the horrible wording)?

It's more a question of continuity (that is, both grow from the same fetus), but we don't really need to go into the details of personal identity (perhaps even thornier, if such a thing is possible, than ethics) in order to see the difference here.

In one case, we have a number of entities. All but one are destroyed. Clearly the choice being made here is between destruction and non-destruction.

In the other case, we have one entity. We must choose between changing that entity and not changing it. However radically we change it, we will not destroy it; we are working with the same basic structure.

If the mother wants a child with a particular sexuality, and she decides to adopt she chooses one with this particular sexuality from all of the possible children. I would say that this is the equivalent to aborting all of the fetuses until she gets the one that she wants.

So if a mother wants a child with down syndrome (for whatever reason) and aborts every child until she manages to produce one (we can assume there was some intentional effort to bring this about pre-pregnancy), she is on equal moral level with the woman who adopts a child with down syndrome.

Do you think the woman who intentionally gave birth to the child with down syndrome should be held legally liable to the violation of some right?

If the mother forcibly implants a chip into the child's brain to give it a particular sexuality that also erases the child's memory of zir previous sexuality, this is the equivalent of altering the child in utero, genetically or otherwise.

I just realized this while trying to stay consistent here.

I have been agreeing all along that the intent of this is to alter the sexuality of the child, when the intent is to produce the sexuality of the child.

That is what I was coming around to when going into the "building" versus altering analogy.

I think your confusion is that you're stuck on when the alteration occurs, but when the alteration occurs is irrelevant - it's who the alteration is done on that matters.

You are exactly right, although when the alteration occurs is supremely relevant to whom the alteration occurs.

Alter - to change or make different, to adjust

Produce - To bring forth, to create or manufacture, to cause to occur

If the alteration occurs before the fetus gains personhood, the alteration is made to the fetus, the potential person. It doesn't alter the sexuality of the child, because you cannot take something that doesn't exist and make it different or change it. Altering the genetic structure produces the sexuality of the child, it brings it forth, it causes it to occur.

Now I just have to coalesce my thoughts on what it means to produce, more specifically how we know when someone is producing something.

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!

You cant have it both ways, either they get to fiddle the child or they dont.
As a parent and ... well maybe I am not anti-homosexual enough to speak on this. But if a doctor came to me and said "Do you wish to ensure that your child will not be homosexual?" I would say "no" but not because of any extra love I might feel beyond someone who would accept said treatment for their child...because I fear what else this promise of behavior change might add....does my now strapping young lad become more prone to being a serial rapist? Prehaps now I am lucky enough to have a little pedophile in the family(as it is demonstrated that Homosexual Males are LESS prone to pedophilia) does this hormone treatment increase my son's risk for future cancers...learning disabilities....myopia...fecking bad breath.

No, man has proven one thing over the years...and that is a damned poor control over the natural world...if a doctor said to me "I promise your son will be limp wristed, lisping, finger snapping, and a bopping flamer who couldnt catch one in the numbers to save his life but will smell a sale on ankle socks at a quater mile....or you can get this treatment for him..." I would put away the football and get a map for the mall.

NOTE: All stereo-typing was used expressly to make a point and no I do not believe all homosexual males speak with a lisp, can not play sports, go shopping, and or act like rutting bitches. So please...read my post in context.

It's more a question of continuity (that is, both grow from the same fetus), but we don't really need to go into the details of personal identity (perhaps even thornier, if such a thing is possible, than ethics) in order to see the difference here.

In one case, we have a number of entities. All but one are destroyed. Clearly the choice being made here is between destruction and non-destruction.

In the other case, we have one entity. We must choose between changing that entity and not changing it. However radically we change it, we will not destroy it; we are working with the same basic structure.

I agree with every last word of this, but I have to insist on the continuity argument.

I have made several attempts to show the continuity (the "linear link" is what I called it before) that exists between the child born and any number of events that occurred before the fetus.

I said it a couple pages back, it is a matter of reductionism. You are ending the continuity somewhere in between the egg and the zygote, and it seems almost willfully arbitrary to include the fetus but not the genetics of the egg, or sperm, or chosen father, or chosen grandfather.

So if a mother wants a child with down syndrome (for whatever reason) and aborts every child until she manages to produce one (we can assume there was some intentional effort to bring this about pre-pregnancy), she is on equal moral level with the woman who adopts a child with down syndrome.Not quite, I'd say she's on an equal moral level with a woman who chooses to give birth to a child with down syndrome, but wasn't chosen for that purpose. The difference is that the adoptive mother is adopting an entity that already exists, and the other mother is creating one. I would not say that the creation of one is morally wrong, though.

Do you think the woman who intentionally gave birth to the child with down syndrome should be held legally liable to the violation of some right?[/quote]No, but if she did intentially something to cause an ordinarily healthy fetus to develop down's syndrome, then yes.

I just realized this while trying to stay consistent here.

I have been agreeing all along that the intent of this is to alter the sexuality of the child, when the intent is to produce the sexuality of the child.

That is what I was coming around to when going into the "building" versus altering analogy.Ah, I see.

You are exactly right, although when the alteration occurs is supremely relevant to whom the alteration occurs.

Alter - to change or make different, to adjust

Produce - To bring forth, to create or manufacture, to cause to occur

If the alteration occurs before the fetus gains personhood, the alteration is made to the fetus, the potential person. It doesn't alter the sexuality of the child, because you cannot take something that doesn't exist and make it different or change it. Altering the genetic structure produces the sexuality of the child, it brings it forth, it causes it to occur.

Now I just have to coalesce my thoughts on what it means to produce, more specifically how we know when someone is producing something.The fetus gains personhood when the mother decides that she will bring it to term. This is why we have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Since the change to the fetus occurs after it has personhood, it is an alteration.

No, man has proven one thing over the years...and that is a damned poor control over the natural world.

As compared to what?

You are ending the continuity somewhere in between the egg and the zygote, and it seems almost willfully arbitrary to include the fetus but not the genetics of the egg, or sperm, or chosen father, or chosen grandfather.

Perhaps the egg and the sperm, but there is a break in the continuity between the father and the sperm, and the mother and the egg. The two are separate entities.

Not quite, I'd say she's on an equal moral level with a woman who chooses to give birth to a child with down syndrome, but wasn't chosen for that purpose. The difference is that the adoptive mother is adopting an entity that already exists, and the other mother is creating one. I would not say that the creation of one is morally wrong, though.

Then there is a difference between adopting the right child and aborting until you give birth to the right child, namely the creation of a child with a particular characteristic.

No, but if she did intentially something to cause an ordinarily healthy fetus to develop down's syndrome, then yes.

I am not a biologist by any means, so I don't quite know how the combining of chromosomes work, but assume the woman could, before pregnancy, choose a husband she knew would give her a child with down syndrome. She acts intentionally to bring about a child with down syndrome without ever manipulating the fetus.

Should she be held liable?

The fetus gains personhood when the mother decides that she will bring it to term. This is why we have the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Since the change to the fetus occurs after it has personhood, it is an alteration.

The idiocy that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is for another thread.

But what change occurs after the fetus has personhood?

Perhaps the egg and the sperm, but there is a break in the continuity between the father and the sperm, and the mother and the egg. The two are separate entities.

Is not the egg the product of the man and the egg the product of the woman, just as the zygote is the product of the egg and sperm, just as the embryo is a product of the zygote, just as the fetus is the product of the embryo, just as the child is the product of the fetus?

Actually I can see the division between man and sperm (although I don't hold it true) as the there is a spacial separation. But I must remind you that the sperm bears all the genes of the man, it is a cell produced by the man.

I really can't see how you separate the egg from the woman. I see it as much a part of her body as her hair or teeth.

Is not the egg the product of the man and the egg the product of the woman, just as the zygote is the product of the egg and sperm, just as the embryo is a product of the zygote, just as the fetus is the product of the embryo, just as the child is the product of the fetus?

Product, yes - but product does not imply continuity in the relevant sense. We don't say that children are the same people as their parents.

Not only must it be a product, but one must become the other.

I really can't see how you separate the egg from the woman. I see it as much a part of her body as her hair or teeth.

It is. Actually, hair and teeth are excellent examples. Get rid of a woman's hair and teeth, and she is the same woman; they do not carry identity.

Product, yes - but product does not imply continuity in the relevant sense. We don't say that children are the same people as their parents.

Not only must it be a product, but one must become the other.

It is. Actually, hair and teeth are excellent examples. Get rid of a woman's hair and teeth, and she is the same woman; they do not carry identity.

We are dealing with difficulties in semantics here. The words you used before were "being" and "entity" not "people" and "women".

We don't say the embryo is the same person as the child because it is not a person, but we can say it is the same entity. While the egg may contribute nothing to what makes the woman, it can still be a part of her body or her entity. You can say that eyes don't carry any more identity than hair, but you wouldn't say that a woman's eyes aren't part of her entity.

We don't say the embryo is the same person as the child because it is not a person, but we can say it is the same entity.

Indeed.

While the egg may contribute nothing to what makes the woman, it can still be a part of her body or her entity.

Until it is released, at which point it is a new entity.

I assumed everything else you posted is unassailable truth and not to be challenged by mere mortals so I didn't read it. I was interested in how you answered this, though.



Let us assume that person A is building car A, person B is building car B.

Person A wants to build a Firebird, but a Camaro kit is less expensive so he purchases it instead, person B wants to build a corvette and purchases the a corvette kit.

Person A, alters every single piece of the Camaro kit in some way in order to assemble a perfect replica of a Firebird.

Person B wanted to build a 1972 Corvette, but realized that he unwittingly purchased the kit to build a 1971 Corvette. Luckily for him, there is only one part that needs to be exchanged. He does so and assembles a perfect replica of a 1972 Corvette.

According to you the person who altered every single part still built the same car, but the person who exchanged one single part built an entirely different car.

That is completely counter to common sense, because we associate the decision of what to build with whether the product is different or not. It is the will that determines what we are building, not the original materials.

So the woman who decides she wants to "build" a homosexual child is building the same child no matter which method she uses.

Ha. Well, you've gotten your terms right. That's a step in the right direction. YOu have to admit, you smacked yourself in the forehead for that one, no?

Meanwhile, you have to recognize the limits of an analogy. This is the second time you've make an illogical argument because you don't realize when an analogy must necessarily end. We don't assign identity to cars. You could basically switch out every part of a car and still call it the same car, and no one would protest until you took the original parts and made the original car.

Now, since you seem unclear, let me make it clearer for you. The first person altered a camaro. There is no question about it. The other person started to build one car and ended up building a different car. He didn't alter the first car. He replaced it by choosing a different part.

See, now I think you think that car A is like your scenario about eggs, and car B is like the OP scenario, but it's actually the other way around. See, in the OP they alter the parts, but build the same car, only with the alterations. In you scenario with choosing a different egg or sperm, you are building a different car. And that's about as far as the analogy applies. Once you get too deep in such a weak analogy it starts to crack at the seams.

I am simply trying to address the difference Jocabia is trying to make.

He states that a woman who determines the genes of the child prior to in utero development is doing something different than the woman who determines the genes of the fetus in utero.

No, I didn't say that at all. You're committing the fallacy of equivocation. I said that if the mother chooses the genes then it is choosing between children. If she alters the genes, she is using that genetic manipulation to alter the child. See, that's where you fail. You don't recognize the difference between making a zygote different by altering it, and choosing a different zygote. No matter how you slice it, they are not logically the same.

For example, in response to question 2, "If the mother intentionally alters the genes of the fetus with the purpose of altering the sexuality, is she choosing the sexuality of the child?", he responds: "If she simply chooses the genes, then no."

Right, chooses the genes by simply choosing different eggs, is different than altering the egg and sperm, which would also be prior to in utero. Do I also have to explain to you how insemination works and that it occurs prior to in utero?

I find it amusing that you claim I state one thing, and for one of many times, you again quote me saying something else. You'll notice that nothing about what I said states anything about the necessity of it being in utero. The point is and always has been whether she chooses the developmental parts or she alters them to have the qualities she is looking for. One is done with intent of choosing a child with particular traits. The other is done with the intent of altering the traits of a particular child.

Do you agree with this, that the mother who chooses the genes that lead to sexuality is not choosing the sexuality of the child?

She is choosing a child of a particular sexuality.

Can you not refute my argument WITHOUT changing it?

I noticed you dropped the arguments where you claimed I equated rights and ability. Sucks to lose, huh?

Is not the egg the product of the man and the egg the product of the woman, just as the zygote is the product of the egg and sperm, just as the embryo is a product of the zygote, just as the fetus is the product of the embryo, just as the child is the product of the fetus?

Actually I can see the division between man and sperm (although I don't hold it true) as the there is a spacial separation. But I must remind you that the sperm bears all the genes of the man, it is a cell produced by the man.

I really can't see how you separate the egg from the woman. I see it as much a part of her body as her hair or teeth.

Not to be pedantic, but gamets are haploid cells. Many of your assumptions here are incorrect. I don't disagree with your point, necessarily, but you've again erred on the details of it. Hint: Details are important in debate. It's worthwhile to take a bit more care.

Until it is released, at which point it is a new entity.

And eggs that result in children are never released.

Then there is a difference between adopting the right child and aborting until you give birth to the right child, namely the creation of a child with a particular characteristic.Well, I suppose, but I have a better argument that says what I want to say.

I was assuming that the woman who is adopting the child with down syndrome was doing so out of some sort of altruism, whereas the woman who aborts fetuses until she gets one with down syndrome, whatever her motives are, they are not altruistic. So certainly an altruistic motive is better than a non-altruistic one.
I realize, though, that the adoptive mother might not be altruistic, so if her motives are the same motives as the mother who aborts the fetuses, then they are on an equal moral level.

I am not a biologist by any means, so I don't quite know how the combining of chromosomes work, but assume the woman could, before pregnancy, choose a husband she knew would give her a child with down syndrome. She acts intentionally to bring about a child with down syndrome without ever manipulating the fetus.

Should she be held liable?I could see how that might be immoral, but legally liable, no. Not any more so than choosing a father who will give her a blue-eyed child.

The idiocy that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is for another thread.

But what change occurs after the fetus has personhood?The change is that you are obligated to treat the fetus as though it's a person. This means that at this point, there is no difference between changing the child's sexuality after birth as there is before birth.

And eggs that result in children are never released.

Um, yes, they are. Seriously, if you're going to discuss a topic at least learn a little bit about it. Ovum is released into the fallopian tube during ovulation. Release is the common term for it.

Not to be pedantic, but gamets are haploid cells. Many of your assumptions here are incorrect. I don't disagree with your point, necessarily, but you've again erred on the details of it. Hint: Details are important in debate. It's worthwhile to take a bit more care.

Um, yes, they are. Seriously, if you're going to discuss a topic at least learn a little bit about it. Ovum is released into the fallopian tube during ovulation. Release is the common term for it.

My apologies for my sloppy discription of the details and definitions, the last time I had any refresher on this topic was high school biology nine years ago. You will forgive me if my memory is hazy.

I am confident that what remaining understanding I have is sufficient to support both of those points.

The change is that you are obligated to treat the fetus as though it's a person. This means that at this point, there is no difference between changing the child's sexuality after birth as there is before birth.

I am surprised I missed this part of you post, but now I must return to it:

The fetus gains personhood when the mother decides that she will bring it to term.

This is an excellent statement for my argument, as I have been trying to show how the mother starts building the specific child when she has the intention to bring the child to term. While I would never agree that the fetus gains personhood when the mother decides to bring it to term (how could a mother's will alone make a person?), but the link between the specific child and the mother's intent is a true one and establishes the difficulty in showing that the continuity of the child begins with the fetus.

So to cap this point up, when does the mother decide that she will bring it to term? Also, if the the decision to bring a child to term occurs only after the manipulation of the fetus is successful, do the rights of personhood protect the fetus?

I am surprised I missed this part of you post, but now I must return to it:



This is an excellent statement for my argument, as I have been trying to show how the mother starts building the specific child when she has the intention to bring the child to term. While I would never agree that the fetus gains personhood when the mother decides to bring it to term (how could a mother's will alone make a person?), but the link between the specific child and the mother's intent is a true one and establishes the difficulty in showing that the continuity of the child begins with the fetus.

So to cap this point up, when does the mother decide that she will bring it to term? Also, if the the decision to bring a child to term occurs only after the manipulation of the fetus is successful, do the rights of personhood protect the fetus?

These are points are not germaine to the argument. Regardless of when personhood is established, if I do something where I am altering the child, intentionally and clearly altering the child, it doesn't matter how many stages, steps or interim effects are between me and the child. Here, her intent, her clear and unavoidable intent is to alter the child, by means of altering the fetus. She's not concerned about a gay fetus. She's concerned about a gay baby. Now if she in some way prevents that baby from ever coming into existence, by turning the man, or the sperm that would have made that baby, or by turning away the woman or egg that would have made that baby or even by abortion, then she has not violated the rights of anyone by necessary logic, since you can't violate the rights for something that never has and never will exist. However, if you do so by altering the building blocks of the child, then it's clear there is a person involved. The fetus may by a part of the mother, but it's most certainly also a part of the child's development. The DNA most certainly belongs to the child, and the procedure alters that DNA.

If the alteration occurs before the fetus gains personhood, the alteration is made to the fetus, the potential person. It doesn't alter the sexuality of the child, because you cannot take something that doesn't exist and make it different or change it. Altering the genetic structure produces the sexuality of the child, it brings it forth, it causes it to occur.

So I hereby will state (you are free to agree or disagree) that in this situation the parent intends to change the sexuality of the child.

Enough said.

Time for some quotes -

First, I accept that you were correct when you said this -

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

We agree. If you relate rights to ability, then you aren't talking about rights anymore.

Second, let's see if I relate rights to ability -

Ability does not define what we have and don't have.

I say rights exist with or without ability and you say they exist only when ability exists, who is more closely relating them? The answer is obvious.

For me, no rights <> no ability AND rights<>ability.

You can have the ability but not the right (e.g. killing someone), the right but not the ability (e.g. carving a horse), the right and the ability (e.g. a novelist who writes a book), and no ability and no right (e.g. wiping out mankind with a virus).

I have said that rights are not dependent on ability or vice versa. That's the opposite of saying they are synonymous.

They[rights] are not dependent on ability. I have the right to write the greatest novel ever written, but simply not the ability. Ability has nothing to do with rights.

I have the right to life after I've died, I simply don't have the ability to be alive. I have the right to vote after I've died, just not the ability. I have the right to liberty (to freedom of movement, etc.), I just don't have the ability. I have the right to property after death. If not, the moment I expired my property would have no owner. My will would not be executed. I also have the right to expression which extends after death. I have a right to a trial that extends after death (the government cannot declare me guilty of crime without a trial even if I die).

The point is that being incapable of choosing now has nothing to do with rights. Ability has nothing to with what our rights are. It only limits us in how we excercise our rights. Rights don't appear and disappear as our abilities do. I've pointed this out repeatedly, but you've instead chosen to keep repeating yourself rather than addressing that flaw in your argument.

Now let's see if you relate rights to ability -

Show where I have argued that rights are not contingent on the ability to use them.

If there is the ability for the mother to change the genetic makeup of the fetus she is producing, and that is taken away from her, is this not a limiting of her autonomy?

According to you it's a violation of the mother's rights to not allow her to do something she is capable of.

Now who is distancing themselves from reality. Just how does one avoid a social contract, where does one go?

Again, you say that since you can't avoid the social contract that it is not a right.

From there I will ask, where are these equal rights to personhood for those who do exist but cannot claim them?

Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of holding property endlessly under your name. Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of voting after you are dead.

Again, there must be an expressed claim, or rights are lost.

Ability does have a great deal to do with what our rights are; it would be absurd to claim the right to fly on our own, or more importantly it would be absurd to claim that your right has been violated if not allowed to fly on your own.

So what do we have.

Given: Equating rights with ability is a misuse of the term. (Stated by you and agreed to by me.)

Point 1: Examination of the evidence says that I state and support that rights and ability cannot be equated

Point 2: Examination of the evidence shows you arguing repeatedly that rights and ability are dependent on one another, making arguments that say that if you limit an ability, you limit autonomy and that if you don't have an ability, you don't have a right.

Conclusion: You equate rights with ability and are therefore misusing the term.

Enough said.

As I related to JB, my confusion was established in my acceptance of your use of the word alter. It is quite clear that the intent is to design and build the child, not to change and alter the child, and I have realized that since the posting the latter statement.

It was quite an easy mistake to make considering the fetus alternates between a child and a potential child so frequently in this discussion.

Jocabia! I thought you were gone!

God how is this thread still alive?

Oh...well at least it's been reasonable people talking for the last few pages.

As I related to JB, my confusion was established in my acceptance of your use of the word alter. It is quite clear that the intent is to design and build the child, not to change and alter the child, and I have realized that since the posting the latter statement.

It was quite an easy mistake to make considering the fetus alternates between a child and a potential child so frequently in this discussion.

We weren't flopping back and forth and that's a weak argument. You stated clearly that you were referring to the child and so did I. It wasn't until you found your position untenable the you shifted it.

Shifting your position is fine, but accept that you did concede and must concede that argument. You never admit you're wrong, you simply change your argument and hope no one notices. I noticed. Your confusion is based on your lack of understanding and nothing else. You should admit that your understanding is more thorough now. It shows that you learn and it actually plays well for you. But instead you taint something that could play so well for you, but having to much pride to simply admit that you entered this argument with a flawed understanding and that you've lost several attempts at this argument many times over.

EDIT: And I suppose when you were claiming that my argument was the opposite of what it was and you claimed that your argument was a misuse of the word rights was that also someone else's fault for misusing terminology? Way to have a bit of personal responsibility.

Jocabia! I thought you were gone!

God how is this thread still alive?

Oh...well at least it's been reasonable people talking for the last few pages.

I AM the thread.

This thread is still going because I have argued an unpopular position.

67 of my last 72 posts have been in this thread.

It has nothing to do with the rest of us. It's solely because we were blessed by the flawed arguments of VtCS.

Time for some quotes -

First, I accept that you were correct when you said this -

We agree. If you relate rights to ability, then you aren't talking about rights anymore.

In what dictionary is synonomous defined as "related to"?

You are saying that we have rights to do anything, but they are limited to what we are naturally and legally able to do, so rights have the same definition as abilities.

And my argument was that, since no ability to self-determination of the fetus exists, it would be absurd to claim a right to it.

You know the George Straight song where he talks about "ocean front property in Arizona"? That is an absurd statement because there is no coastal land in Arizona, so he could not possibly have said property rights.

So rights, when related to ability through the claim on the ability, are bound by the existence of the ability. If the ability doesn't exist, neither does the right.

Given: Equating rights with ability is a misuse of the term. (Stated by you and agreed to by me.)

Point 1: Examination of the evidence says that I state and support that rights and ability cannot be equated

Point 2: Examination of the evidence shows you arguing repeatedly that rights and ability are dependent on one another, making arguments that say that if you limit an ability, you limit autonomy and that if you don't have an ability, you don't have a right.

Conclusion: You equate rights with ability and are therefore misusing the term.

The actual given that I stated: To say that unlimited rights exist and the expression of which are limited to what we are able to do is to also say that in all practicality rights=abilities.

We have abilities that aren't rights, we have rights that aren't abilities, but we cannot have rights on abilities that do not exist.

How many times do I have to explain this?

Hmmm. Perhaps I should actually read this...some of my favourite posters, going at it Jocabia/Dem style...hahahhahaa....what is the common denominator here, can't seem to put my finger on it...

It has nothing to do with the rest of us. It's solely because we were blessed by the flawed arguments of VtCS.

Any continuity this thread has had has been due to my argument that a child has no right to self-determination of the fetus.

All other arguments have lasted little more than three or four pages.

And it should be noted that I was responding to someone who said that I haven't read the thread. That is why I stated how many posts I have made in this thread.

In what dictionary is synonomous defined as "related to"?

You are saying that we have rights to do anything, but they are limited to what we are naturally and legally able to do, so rights have the same definition as abilities.

No, I am not saying they are limited to what we are able to do. I said the exact opposite. Seriously, I just quote myself saying the opposite over and over. Open your eyes.

And my argument was that, since no ability to self-determination of the fetus exists, it would be absurd to claim a right to it.

Yes, I realize that. Because you equate rights and ability.



You know the George Straight song where he talks about "ocean front property in Arizona"? That is an absurd statement because there is no coastal land in Arizona, so he could not possibly have said property rights.

You're cracking me up. Again, rights are not so limited. According to you I don't have the right to write a scathing political novel if I'm not capable of it, which is a misuse of the term.

Without knowledge of my abilities, it is clear that in our country we believe that people have the right to write anything, say anything, believe anything. It's called the first amendment.

Meanwhile, the term equal rights would make no sense if they were limited by ability. Because our abilities are not equal.


So rights, when related to ability through the claim on the ability, are bound by the existence of the ability. If the ability doesn't exist, neither does the right.

Yes, I recognize that you are equating rights and abilty. I don't know why you keep claiming this while suggesting I said it.

The actual given that I stated: To say that unlimited rights exist and the expression of which are limited to what we are able to do is to also say that in all practicality rights=abilities.

Pardon? Now you're just being silly. I quoted the actual given that you stated. Here it is again.

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

Actually, you said that if you treat them as synonymous then there is no point to the term rights. You were condemning me for making an argument I didn't make, an argument I've shown you were making and you continue to make. Would you like me to quote you some more?

What part of saying "Right=ability" and another time saying "no rights=no ability" is not treating them as synonymous, my dear and confused friend?


We have abilities that aren't rights, we have rights that aren't abilities, but we cannot have rights on abilities that do not exist.

How many times do I have to explain this?

Hilarious. We have rights that aren't limited by abilities? That's what rights that aren't abilities means. You've said the opposite repeatedly. You really are confused.

I do, however, agree that when one equates rights with abilities that there is no point in using the term "rights". It was a wise thing to say. Now if only I could convince you to stop contradicting that statement.

Any continuity this thread has had has been due to my argument that a child has no right to self-determination of the fetus.

All other arguments have lasted little more than three or four pages.

And it should be noted that I was responding to someone who said that I haven't read the thread. That is why I stated how many posts I have made in this thread.

Any continuity is based on the OP. You're incredible belief that you are the center of the universe is not an argument for us believing it.

The reason the other arguments were shorter is that other people have a tendency to abandon an argument when they're losing it.

EDIT: I find it amusing that you introduce number of posts as an argument for how important you are to this thread. I entered this thread when it had ground to a halt and since put in 122 posts, many more than your total. I don't believe that number of posts is an argument for your importance to the thread, but if it is the measure, it's still not you. You're not even second.

We weren't flopping back and forth and that's a weak argument. You stated clearly that you were referring to the child and so did I. It wasn't until you found your position untenable the you shifted it.

I am still referring to the child. The intent still concerns the child and not the fetus. I am simply stating that it should be referred to as designing a child and not altering a child.

Shifting your position is fine, but accept that you did concede and must concede that argument. You never admit you're wrong, you simply change your argument and hope no one notices. I noticed. Your confusion is based on your lack of understanding and nothing else. You should admit that your understanding is more thorough now. It shows that you learn and it actually plays well for you. But instead you taint something that could play so well for you, but having to much pride to simply admit that you entered this argument with a flawed understanding and that you've lost several attempts at this argument many times over.

I concede the argument that the intention is altering the child. That was a mistaken opinion on my part, I was completely wrong as a result of not thinking the statement through as well as I should have. This lack of proper thought caused me to be confused because I did not truly understand the issue at hand, and through the help of a proper analogy I know understand that the intent is to design the child and not alter it.

Now would you please make the same concession?

As to your statement that "You never admit you're wrong, you simply change your argument and hope no one notices. I noticed."

It was not hard to notice that I changed my argument when I explained the entire reasoning for my shift in argument in post #911 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12200166&postcount=911), stating:

I just realized this while trying to stay consistent here.

I have been agreeing all along that the intent of this is to alter the sexuality of the child, when the intent is to produce the sexuality of the child.

That is what I was coming around to when going into the "building" versus altering analogy.

You are exactly right, although when the alteration occurs is supremely relevant to whom the alteration occurs.

Alter - to change or make different, to adjust

Produce - To bring forth, to create or manufacture, to cause to occur

If the alteration occurs before the fetus gains personhood, the alteration is made to the fetus, the potential person. It doesn't alter the sexuality of the child, because you cannot take something that doesn't exist and make it different or change it. Altering the genetic structure produces the sexuality of the child, it brings it forth, it causes it to occur.

Now I just have to coalesce my thoughts on what it means to produce, more specifically how we know when someone is producing something.

*wonders if the olive branch will be accepted*

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. Trying to tell the rest of society that something is right or wrong implies that you're somehow better than the people who disagree with you. Perhaps we can drop the argument now.

/2¢

I seem to be a bit late.

I am still referring to the child. The intent still concerns the child and not the fetus. I am simply stating that it should be referred to as designing a child and not altering a child.

I concede the argument that the intention is altering the child. That was a mistaken opinion on my part, I was completely wrong as a result of not thinking the statement through as well as I should have. This lack of proper thought caused me to be confused because I did not truly understand the issue at hand, and through the help of a proper analogy I know understand that the intent is to design the child and not alter it.

Now would you please make the same concession?

As to your statement that "You never admit you're wrong, you simply change your argument and hope no one notices. I noticed."

It was not hard to notice that I changed my argument when I explained the entire reasoning for my shift in argument in post #911 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12200166&postcount=911), stating:

I just realized this while trying to stay consistent here.

I have been agreeing all along that the intent of this is to alter the sexuality of the child, when the intent is to produce the sexuality of the child.

That is what I was coming around to when going into the "building" versus altering analogy.

You are exactly right, although when the alteration occurs is supremely relevant to whom the alteration occurs.

Alter - to change or make different, to adjust

Produce - To bring forth, to create or manufacture, to cause to occur

If the alteration occurs before the fetus gains personhood, the alteration is made to the fetus, the potential person. It doesn't alter the sexuality of the child, because you cannot take something that doesn't exist and make it different or change it. Altering the genetic structure produces the sexuality of the child, it brings it forth, it causes it to occur.

Now I just have to coalesce my thoughts on what it means to produce, more specifically how we know when someone is producing something.

I quoted that argument. You are using alter incorrectly.

Alter both in connotation and denotation means to perform an action that has an effect on an object where without that action the traits of that object would not be the same.

No one would logically claim that to alter a child does not also alter the adult that results from that child. It goes against the very meaning of the word alter. Alter is not a point in time word.

Your oversimplification of its meaning is just another of many misuses of the english language on your part. Producing and altering are not mutually exclusive so you are creating a false dichotomy. I've explained this already. I really get tired of teaching you how to speak.

I've explained this already. I really get tired of teaching you how to speak.

What's up your butt today, Jocabia?

You cannot claim absolute jurisdiction over the English language, and demand it be used your way or not at all. Half the time, the two of you don't actually seem to be talking QUITE about the same thing...but because you are both using the same words, it's easy to believe they must be the same arguments. But words are not just shaped by their definitions, or their accepted connotations...they are also shaped by how the person using them is actually fixing that word into their understanding of the topic. So cut the guy some fucking slack, he's not trying to wiggle out of anything...he's just not using the terms exactly the way you are...AND THAT'S OKAY.

No, I am not saying they are limited to what we are able to do. I said the exact opposite. Seriously, I just quote myself saying the opposite over and over. Open your eyes.

You said their expression was limited to what we are able to do.

You're cracking me up. Again, rights are not so limited. According to you I don't have the right to write a scathing political novel if I'm not capable of it, which is a misuse of the term.

I am saying that the right doesn't exist because the ability doesn't exist, not because the child doesn't possess the ability.

There is an ability to write a scathing political novel, even if you don't possess it, but there is no ability to control your own fetus.

Without knowledge of my abilities, it is clear that in our country we believe that people have the right to write anything, say anything, believe anything. It's called the first amendment.

Meanwhile, the term equal rights would make no sense if they were limited by ability. Because our abilities are not equal.

Equal rights are assigned without consideration for arbitrary qualities, and quite often abilities are considered.

For example, we do have equal voting rights in terms of race, sexuality, and gender, but we do not have equal voting rights in terms to age and mental capacity. Why? Because youth and mental handicaps hinder your ability to cast a reasonable vote.

Pardon? Now you're just being silly. I quoted the actual given that you stated. Here it is again.

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

Actually, you said that if you treat them as synonymous then there is no point to the term rights. You were condemning me for making an argument I didn't make, an argument I've shown you were making and you continue to make. Would you like me to quote you some more?

What part of saying "Right=ability" and another time saying "no rights=no ability" is not treating them as synonymous, my dear and confused friend?

I said that there is no point to the term "right" because we might as well call them "abilities". That is what you are defining: abilities.

Hilarious. We have rights that aren't limited by abilities? That's what rights that aren't abilities means. You've said the opposite repeatedly. You really are confused.

The abilities are not the rights, the abilities are what cause the rights to exist.

I find it amusing that you introduce number of posts as an argument for how important you are to this thread. I entered this thread when it had ground to a halt and since put in 122 posts, many more than your total. I don't believe that number of posts is an argument for your importance to the thread, but if it is the measure, it's still not you. You're not even second.

I stated my number of posts to respond to Sheni's statement that I had not read the rest of the thread.

My unpopular argument which has been countered by you, Dem, Grave n' Idle, Sheni, Soheran, and Jello Biafra that has been very important to this thread.

What's up your butt today, Jocabia?

You cannot claim absolute jurisdiction over the English language, and demand it be used your way or not at all. Half the time, the two of you don't actually seem to be talking QUITE about the same thing...but because you are both using the same words, it's easy to believe they must be the same arguments. But words are not just shaped by their definitions, or their accepted connotations...they are also shaped by how the person using them is actually fixing that word into their understanding of the topic. So cut the guy some fucking slack, he's not trying to wiggle out of anything...he's just not using the terms exactly the way you are...AND THAT'S OKAY.

I can quote him to show you, if you like. For example he clearly states that I treat ability and rights as synonyms, though this is an extrapolation from an argument that says the opposite. He clearly states that I said an alteration of the egg or sperm does not count, though I said specifically and clearly the opposite. And this is all occurring because he is equivocating, but stating he is using a word one way and then intentionally using it a different way. It's a logical fallacy and because of his continued use of such fallacies the need to be explicit and correct is necessary.

When I'm being pedantic, I admit, like when I gave him a prodding over haploid cells. Here, I'm not. It's not a small difference to recognize the meaning of alter. Alter is a word I introduced into the thread and he said I was wrong to suggest there is a difference between altering something and choosing between seperate somethings and then we he got cornered he acted like he meant something else. That's the point.

:rolleyes:

That's not how I'm seeing it, Jocabia, and he's certainly tried to clarify where he wasn't understanding how you were using certain terms... but continue on. Thy crusade awaits.

I quoted that argument. You are using alter incorrectly.

Alter both in connotation and denotation means to perform an action that has an effect on an object where without that action the traits of that object would not be the same.

Alter means to change or adjust. However, for one to change or adjust a quality, said quality must exist. Since no quality exists, a child does not have a sexuality when it is a fetus, then we cannot say that the quality exists. Instead we say that it is a matter of choosing the quality in order to build the child.

I will perfectly agree that the fetus is altered, the traits of that object are changed by the action. However, since there is no established trait or status of the child, it is impossible to alter it. It is entirely possible, however, to design it.

No one would logically claim that to alter a child does not also alter the adult that results from that child. It goes against the very meaning of the word alter. Alter is not a point in time word.

Altering the child alters the person but builds the adult.

He clearly states that I said an alteration of the egg or sperm does not count, though I said specifically and clearly the opposite.

I honestly thought that you said it was not a violation of the child's rights to alter the sperm and the egg, I apologize if that was not your opinion.

:rolleyes:

That's not how I'm seeing it, Jocabia, and he's certainly tried to clarify where he wasn't understanding how you were using certain terms... but continue on. Thy crusade awaits.

Thanks, Sin, but it is my fault.

I have been sloppy in the use of my terms (I would argue that I am no more sloppy than Jocabia, though), and even though he has been increasingly obnoxious, I haven't had the willpower to just let it rest.

Thanks, Sin, but it is my fault.

I have been sloppy in the use of my terms (I would argue that I am no more sloppy than Jocabia, though), and even though he has been increasingly obnoxious, I haven't had the willpower to just let it rest.

Oh no doubt, you've been a bit of an ass yourself, don't worry, I saw:D I just wish Jocabia wouldn't insist upon total victory when a draw would do nicely.

You should both just hop into the group sex room with me and let it all get worked out.

Oh no doubt, you've been a bit of an ass yourself, don't worry, I saw:D I just wish Jocabia wouldn't insist upon total victory when a draw would do nicely.

You should both just hop into the group sex room with me and let it all get worked out.

That sounds good to me, but the first time Jocabia tells me that I am failing, I am gone.

That sounds good to me, but the first time Jocabia tells me that I am failing, I am gone.

Hahahahahahaa...how about I gag you both so you can just get along? Wait...neither of you can sign, can you?

Alter means to change or adjust. However, for one to change or adjust a quality, said quality must exist. Since no quality exists, a child does not have a sexuality when it is a fetus, then we cannot say that the quality exists. Instead we say that it is a matter of choosing the quality in order to build the child.

I can alter something that does not exist yet. It's quite easy in fact. Need I explain what cause and effect are and how they work?

Cause A -> Effect A
Cause B (which is effect A) -> Effect B
Cause C (which is effect B) -> Effect C
Cause D (which is effect C) -> Effect D
Cause E (which is effect D) -> Effect E

It would be illogical to claim that Cause A is not a cause for Effect E even if the object of Effect E did not yet exist when Cause A was performed. It's called a chain of events, and the point of that term is that it references that a cause even if not directly acting up on an effect can still be a cause for that effect. The example I've given repeated is the shotgun rigged to the door.

I rig a shotgun to a door. You don't exist yet when I do it. According to you my action on the shotgun cannot alter you because you don't exist. However, logic dictates otherwise.


I will perfectly agree that the fetus is altered, the traits of that object are changed by the action. However, since there is no established trait or status of the child, it is impossible to alter it. It is entirely possible, however, to design it.

Again, that is not the understood meaning of alter. This is the fallacy that is bringing you down. Alter references a chane in what the outcome would have been sans the altering event. And you cannot claim that such an event did not occur. In fact, you've repeatedly admitted that the alteration is the point.

It's this simple. If I perform action A and as a result object X is different than had I not performed action A then I altered object X. It's inherent to the definition (denotation and connotation) of alter.


Altering the child alters the person but builds the adult.

Ha. See, this is just ridiculous. The adult is altered by ever definition of the term. Pretending a word means something different than it is does not help your argument.

It's quite simple. Are you claiming that if I cut the arms off a child, that it has no effect on the adult? Again, if you do, then you misunderstand the term alter and treat it as a point in time term which is not found in any definition of the term.

Hahahahahahaa...how about I gag you both so you can just get along? Wait...neither of you can sign, can you?

*coughs*

*coughs*

Well as long as Vitt can't understand it, I suppose you can be left with your hands untied.

But I warn you...one universal gesture, and you'll be hanging by your wrists.

You said their expression was limited to what we are able to do.

Expression is not equal to ownership. Use of rights is limited by abilities, but the use of rights by simple use of the term suggests they still exist. Existence and use do not mean the same thing. English.



I am saying that the right doesn't exist because the ability doesn't exist, not because the child doesn't possess the ability.

There is an ability to write a scathing political novel, even if you don't possess it, but there is no ability to control your own fetus.

Equal rights are assigned without consideration for arbitrary qualities, and quite often abilities are considered.

For example, we do have equal voting rights in terms of race, sexuality, and gender, but we do not have equal voting rights in terms to age and mental capacity. Why? Because youth and mental handicaps hinder your ability to cast a reasonable vote.



I said that there is no point to the term "right" because we might as well call them "abilities". That is what you are defining: abilities.



The abilities are not the rights, the abilities are what cause the rights to exist.



I stated my number of posts to respond to Sheni's statement that I had not read the rest of the thread.

My unpopular argument which has been countered by you, Dem, Grave n' Idle, Sheni, Soheran, and Jello Biafra that has been very important to this thread.

From now on if you are if you continue to claim I said the opposite of what I did and attributing your argument to me, I will just continue to present the post that proves otherwise Your definition of rights is equated with ability. My definition has nothing to do with ability in any way. You keep exchanging the term expression with right, and they are not the same. Your misunderstanding is owned by you, not me. Incidentally that is your right.

-----

Time for some quotes -

First, I accept that you were correct when you said this -

Your definition of "rights" is synonymous with ability, so therefore we can cease giving them the special title of "rights".

We agree. If you relate rights to ability, then you aren't talking about rights anymore.

Second, let's see if I relate rights to ability -

Ability does not define what we have and don't have.

I say rights exist with or without ability and you say they exist only when ability exists, who is more closely relating them? The answer is obvious.

For me, no rights <> no ability AND rights<>ability.

You can have the ability but not the right (e.g. killing someone), the right but not the ability (e.g. carving a horse), the right and the ability (e.g. a novelist who writes a book), and no ability and no right (e.g. wiping out mankind with a virus).

I have said that rights are not dependent on ability or vice versa. That's the opposite of saying they are synonymous.

They[rights] are not dependent on ability. I have the right to write the greatest novel ever written, but simply not the ability. Ability has nothing to do with rights.

I have the right to life after I've died, I simply don't have the ability to be alive. I have the right to vote after I've died, just not the ability. I have the right to liberty (to freedom of movement, etc.), I just don't have the ability. I have the right to property after death. If not, the moment I expired my property would have no owner. My will would not be executed. I also have the right to expression which extends after death. I have a right to a trial that extends after death (the government cannot declare me guilty of crime without a trial even if I die).

The point is that being incapable of choosing now has nothing to do with rights. Ability has nothing to with what our rights are. It only limits us in how we excercise our rights. Rights don't appear and disappear as our abilities do. I've pointed this out repeatedly, but you've instead chosen to keep repeating yourself rather than addressing that flaw in your argument.

Now let's see if you relate rights to ability -

Show where I have argued that rights are not contingent on the ability to use them.

If there is the ability for the mother to change the genetic makeup of the fetus she is producing, and that is taken away from her, is this not a limiting of her autonomy?

According to you it's a violation of the mother's rights to not allow her to do something she is capable of.

Now who is distancing themselves from reality. Just how does one avoid a social contract, where does one go?

Again, you say that since you can't avoid the social contract that it is not a right.

From there I will ask, where are these equal rights to personhood for those who do exist but cannot claim them?

Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of holding property endlessly under your name. Perhaps you can explain the impossibility of voting after you are dead.

Again, there must be an expressed claim, or rights are lost.

Ability does have a great deal to do with what our rights are; it would be absurd to claim the right to fly on our own, or more importantly it would be absurd to claim that your right has been violated if not allowed to fly on your own.

So what do we have.

Given: Equating rights with ability is a misuse of the term. (Stated by you and agreed to by me.)

Point 1: Examination of the evidence says that I state and support that rights and ability cannot be equated

Point 2: Examination of the evidence shows you arguing repeatedly that rights and ability are dependent on one another, making arguments that say that if you limit an ability, you limit autonomy and that if you don't have an ability, you don't have a right.

Conclusion: You equate rights with ability and are therefore misusing the term.

I am surprised I missed this part of you post, but now I must return to it:

This is an excellent statement for my argument, as I have been trying to show how the mother starts building the specific child when she has the intention to bring the child to term. While I would never agree that the fetus gains personhood when the mother decides to bring it to term (how could a mother's will alone make a person?), but the link between the specific child and the mother's intent is a true one and establishes the difficulty in showing that the continuity of the child begins with the fetus.

So to cap this point up, when does the mother decide that she will bring it to term? Also, if the the decision to bring a child to term occurs only after the manipulation of the fetus is successful, do the rights of personhood protect the fetus?I see what you mean. You are saying that the mother would not carry the unaltered fetus to term, but that she would carry the altered fetus to term. I would say, however, that they are essentially the same fetus, though, and so when she makes the decision that she would carry the altered fetus to term, she would also carry the unaltered fetus to term, as well, and she indicates this by altering it.

You should both just hop into the group sex room with me and let it all get worked out.There's a group sex room? Why wasn't I told?

There's a group sex room? Why wasn't I told?
Well Czardas said that's what he'd gift a bunch of us if he could...so maybe it's still until construction?

I see what you mean. You are saying that the mother would not carry the unaltered fetus to term, but that she would carry the altered fetus to term. I would say, however, that they are essentially the same fetus, though, and so when she makes the decision that she would carry the altered fetus to term, she would also carry the unaltered fetus to term, as well, and she indicates this by altering it.

There's a group sex room? Why wasn't I told?

Used to be but Sin got it shut down.

Used to be but Sin got it shut down.

Yeah stupid me...thinking the group sex room was for...sex. Sheesh!

Yeah stupid me...thinking the group sex room was for...sex. Sheesh!

Ha. It wasn't specifically a group sex room... duh. It was a room where we did stuff like have big adventures while playfully making allusions to group sex and destroying peasants and turning our friend into a budweiser dispenser made out of skin.

EDIT: Almost forgot and destroying our friend's crotch.

Well as long as Vitt can't understand it, I suppose you can be left with your hands untied.

But I warn you...one universal gesture, and you'll be hanging by your wrists.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

:rolleyes:

That's not how I'm seeing it, Jocabia, and he's certainly tried to clarify where he wasn't understanding how you were using certain terms... but continue on. Thy crusade awaits.
I'm going to agree with Neesika here. Jocabia, although I respect you as a debator, I think you can be a little too harsh at times. Throwing in personal attacks just confuses the topic even further. Vittos did make a mistake, and he was rather adamant in repeating it, but why resort to insults? Besides, simply proving the other disputant wrong by use of their own words can be far more effective in the end. :) Mechanically cold argumentation is every bit as intimidating, if not more so, than impassioned forms.

I'm going to agree with Neesika here. Jocabia, although I respect you as a debator, I think you can be a little too harsh at times. Throwing in personal attacks just confuses the topic even further. Vittos did make a mistake, and he was rather adamant in repeating it, but why resort to insults? Besides, simply proving the other disputant wrong by use of their own words can be far more effective in the end. :) Mechanically cold argumentation is every bit as intimidating, if not more so, than impassioned forms.

EDIT: Meh, what's the point. I've tried to show the difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person, but no one seems to care. He's misusing terms. In a debate, that shouldn't be ignored and demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the subject matter. He's dropping arguments. He's contradicting himself. These are all part of his argument. He's clearly attempting to employ the "38 ways" and I can give examples of each. It puts me as a debater in a position to prevent it and doing so can appear harsh. I'm sure he's a wonderful person and have never indicated otherwise. I even paused once to comment that I had high hopes for this debate with him (a rather high compliment if you know me) and was disappointed that he was choosing not to deal with many of the arguments.

Whatever. It's clear that he's not going to be goaded into actually addressing those holes. Further "debate" is pointless.

If you'd like I can show you the difference by quoting his intentional and direct attacks on me as a person versus my attacks on his methodology.

For the love of all things wonderful Europa....do NOT take him up on this. Please.

I see what you mean. You are saying that the mother would not carry the unaltered fetus to term, but that she would carry the altered fetus to term. I would say, however, that they are essentially the same fetus, though, and so when she makes the decision that she would carry the altered fetus to term, she would also carry the unaltered fetus to term, as well, and she indicates this by altering it.

Well, sort of. I am saying that she makes the decision to bring a particular child into existence, and her intent to bring a child into existence starts when she has the possibility of bringing the child into existence. In other words, her intent begins when her desires are met by the "potential child". Only then is her intent to bring a child into the world. Since that is when you would apply rights, that is when the rights would begin.

Now I may end up putting word in your mouth so correct me if I'm wrong or use these words if I'm right: I think I see what you are saying here, that her decision to manipulate the fetus represents her intention to bring this specific fetus to term. This is a valid point, but I think you got a little caught up in altered/unaltered dichotomy, because she never makes the decision to carry the unaltered fetus. I think it is that her decision to manipulate expresses her intent to carry this specific fetus (not altered or unaltered) to term is what you are trying to say.

To this I would say that this is not an expression of her intent to bring the child into the world (as she would not bring the child into existence if the manipulation were unsuccessful), but an expression of her intent to create a fetus that she would intend to bring into existence.

Her intent to bring the child into existence is dependent on the outcome of the manipulation, she only makes the decision upon seeing the results of the alteration.

*Snip*

Okay, okay. I'm being a bully. I'll stop.

No, I didn't see it. What did it say.

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

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

Short answer: No.
Long answer: No way in hell, man.

Short answer: No.
Long answer: No way in hell, man.

Ha, it's an "or" question.

Okay, okay. I'm being a bully. I'll stop.

No, I didn't see it. What did it say.

:fluffle: That's all I ask.

I never said your argument wasn't valid, and I never said I agreed with Vitt...just...it seemed like you could use a bit of time away from the topic, to cool down, and come back in better form. And the white text said basically that I'm the worst for wanting the last word, and I know it.

It's quite simple. Are you claiming that if I cut the arms off a child, that it has no effect on the adult?

Having no arms has a definite affect on the adult, the act of cutting off the arms does not. Now the act of cutting off the arms has a definite effect on the person, of which the child and the adult are a part of.

The child and the adult are two different existences that make up a greater existence called the person. What happens to the child changes the person but makes the adult.

[QUOTE]Again, if you do, then you misunderstand the term alter and treat it as a point in time term which is not found in any definition of the term.

No, I agree that if you cut off a person's arm, you are altering them, and that the alteration has an effect on the person for as long as they have that altered state.

What I am saying is that you can't alter one thing, and then say that you also altered the thing that it will become but doesn't yet exist.

When you alter something, you take its current state of existence and form it into another state. If something doesn't have a state of existence, it cannot be altered.

That was my original argument, and it wasn't until I went away from that argument that I lost consistency.

:fluffle: That's all I ask.

I never said your argument wasn't valid, and I never said I agreed with Vitt...just...it seemed like you could use a bit of time away from the topic, to cool down, and come back in better form. And the white text said basically that I'm the worst for wanting the last word, and I know it.
Fair enough.
I am annoyed. I really did expect better and this argument has been a comedy of errors. He has clearly and obviously just ignored the arguments that he can't deal with, like the fact that the right to free speech protects Samuel Clemens even today, or that I've established why rights and abilities can not depend on one another. However, my tactics in this thread are not born of annoyance, but an attempt to prevent him from even giving the appearance of winning a debate but clear and proven mistruths.

I'm going to agree with Neesika here. Jocabia, although I respect you as a debator, I think you can be a little too harsh at times. Throwing in personal attacks just confuses the topic even further. Vittos did make a mistake, and he was rather adamant in repeating it, but why resort to insults? Besides, simply proving the other disputant wrong by use of their own words can be far more effective in the end. :) Mechanically cold argumentation is every bit as intimidating, if not more so, than impassioned forms.

Europa, we are very similar in our thought processes and I respect you, so if I can't convince you that I am being consistent, I will concede that I am being inconsistent.

So where have I been adamant in repeating a mistake?

EDIT: Also, do you agree that Samuel Clemens still maintains a natural right to free speech even though he has been dead for nearly a century?

No, I agree that if you cut off a person's arm, you are altering them, and that the alteration has an effect on the person for as long as they have that altered state.

What I am saying is that you can't alter one thing, and then say that you also altered the thing that it will become but doesn't yet exist.

When you alter something, you take its current state of existence and form it into another state. If something doesn't have a state of existence, it cannot be altered.

That was my original argument, and it wasn't until I went away from that argument that I lost consistency.

You certainly can. It's called a chain of events. Alter is not a point in time term no matter how many time you claim that it is. And I know "what you are saying". It's simply wrong and misuses a basic english term.

Alter is relatively basic term. If you do something that has an effect on another thing that makes it different in some way, then you have absolutely altered it. Different in the usage clearly refers to if it's state would have been another state minus the action. You cannot claim that an effect occured but alter doesn't apply. It's ludicrous.

Alter (Mirriam - Webster)
1 : to make different without changing into something else

The reason alter doesn't apply when you choose a different sperm or different egg is that you're addressing something else. However, there is no limit to the time that alter applies. To suggest otherwise is quite simply to ignore the simple meaning of a word.

Europa, we are very similar in our thought processes and I respect you, so if I can't convince you that I am being consistent, I will concede that I am being inconsistent.

So where have I been adamant in repeating a mistake?

EDIT: Also, do you agree that Samuel Clemens still maintains a natural right to free speech even though he has been dead for nearly a century?

Is banning Huckleberry Finn a violation of the first amendment? You know it is. I know it is. It's a violation of the freedom of speech that applies to Samuel Clemens. We consider that right so inalienable and so eternal, that it applies to the dead and to citizens of other countries.

Is banning Huckleberry Finn a violation of the first amendment? You know it is. I know it is. It's a violation of the freedom of speech that applies to Samuel Clemens. We consider that right so inalienable and so eternal, that it applies to the dead and to citizens of other countries.

*intrigued by the tangent* Now that is an interesting thought...do you have any caselaw to back that up? (the right to free speech of the dead)

You certainly can. It's called a chain of events. Alter is not a point in time term no matter how many time you claim that it is. And I know "what you are saying". It's simply wrong and misuses a basic english term.

So when I alter something, I am acting constantly to change everything that follows it? That by altering one link in a chain of events I am consciously changing every link?

Alter is relatively basic term. If you do something that has an effect on another thing, that makes it different in some way, then you have absolutely altered it.

So there is a thing required to be altered. If nothing exists I cannot alter it.

Different in the usage clearly refers to if it's state would have been another state minus the action. You cannot claim that an effect occured but alter doesn't apply. It's ludicrous.

My sexuality certainly has an effect on me, but no one ever "altered" it.

The reason alter doesn't apply when you choose a different sperm or different egg is that you're addressing something else.

A woman intends to have a child. She is not altering the possible existence of her child by rejecting different sperm samples?

Can a woman manipulate the sperm sample with the intent to use it to fertilize her egg without altering the possible existence of her child.

Note, we don't delinieate children by their possible existence, so changing the possible existence is not changing the child.

However, there is no limit to the time that alter applies. To suggest otherwise is quite simply to ignore the simple meaning of a word.

There is no limit to the time that "effect" applies, there is a very rigid amount of time that alter applies, namely the amount of time one is acting.

*intrigued by the tangent* Now that is an interesting thought...do you have any caselaw to back that up? (the right to free speech of the dead)

Working on it. I can provide many cases of first amendment cases continuing after the complaintant died, which suggests it's still pertinent. I can also provide examples of how I am still granted a trial before I can be declared guilty of something even if I died before that trial. I can also provide that rights ended at death that there would be no reason why would honor a will.

There is not a right that is not applied equally in life and death or (if it is a limited right) equally between a human being (mortal) and a corporate entity (immortal). I can even establish that rights are applied to the anonymous who may or may not be living.

Working on it. I can provide many cases of first amendment cases continuing after the complaintant died, which suggests it's still pertinent. I can also provide examples of how I am still granted a trial before I can be declared guilty of something even if I died before that trial. I can also provide that rights ended at death that there would be no reason why would honor a will.

There is not a right that is not applied equally in life and death or (if it is a limited right) equally between a human being (mortal) and a corporate entity (immortal). I can even establish that rights are applied to the anonymous who may or may not be living.
Yes, but there is a difference between arguing that the right to free speech extends to those who have died, and that it is this right that protects their work....and saying that the right to free speech includes the right to access such works, and that the right lies in the reader. As in, would the censorship of a novel infring upon the dead man's right to free speech, or upon the right of the reader to access the novel itself? I suppose I just always assumed the latter.

Is banning Huckleberry Finn a violation of the first amendment? You know it is. I know it is. It's a violation of the freedom of speech that applies to Samuel Clemens. We consider that right so inalienable and so eternal, that it applies to the dead and to citizens of other countries.

I would think that is a violation of the free speech of whoever is desiring to publish it, not of Samuel Clemens.

It is also addressable through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Or by international law:

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

So when I alter something, I am acting constantly to change everything that follows it? That by altering one link in a chain of events I am consciously changing every link?

You are consciously acting to change everything you can reasonably anticipate. Meaning, if you cut the arms off a child you are most certainly altering the adult knowingly. We know that you are most certainly altering the child here, because you've already admitted that is the intent of the process.

So there is a thing required to be altered. If nothing exists I cannot alter it.

Something does exist. It simply doesn't exist at the time of the process. Again, it is no different than rigging up a shotgun that shoots a person 100 years down the road. I only acted on the shotgun, but I most certainly alter the person (who didn't exist when I set up the shotgun). You can divorce an action from it's logical effects.


My sexuality certainly has an effect on me, but no one ever "altered" it.

Amusing. You just used your sexuality as the cause in that sentence and then said it was not altered. Logic. Try it.


A woman intends to have a child. She is not altering the possible existence of her child by rejecting different sperm samples?

You're right. She's not, because included in the definition of alter is that the object not become a different object. In this case, it does.

Can a woman manipulate the sperm sample with the intent to use it to fertilize her egg without altering the possible existence of her child.

Depends. Is she altering the actual individual sperm? Then yes, because the object has not become another object, it's still the same sperm, same egg, same embryo, same fetus, same child, just in an altered state. If she choosing another sperm then she is choosing another embryo, fetus, and child. Again, not complicated. The original sperm can still be used and can still create another child.


vNote, we don't delinieate children by their possible existence, so changing the possible existence is not changing the child. [/QUOTE]

We do when using the word alter. It's the meaning of the word. It's a future term designed around establishing that potential has changed. It's the point of the word. You can't talk about alter and claim that potential doesn't matter. It denies the very meaning of the term.

There is no limit to the time that "effect" applies, there is a very rigid amount of time that alter applies, namely the amount of time one is acting.

Really? Prove it. It's not available in any description of the term I can find.

As in, would the censorship of a novel infring upon the dead man's right to free speech, or upon the right of the reader to access the novel itself? I suppose I just always assumed the latter.

As would I, and as would international law.

I don't believe the US Constitution establishes this with the freedom of speech, but who really gives a shit about the US.

I would think that is a violation of the free speech of whoever is desiring to publish it, not of Samuel Clemens.

It is also addressable through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Or by international law:

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

However, it doesn't matter if anyone is actually seeking or recieving it, only that it is being prevented from being imparted and there is the obvious problem. Again, you quite clearly deny the meaning of terms.

As would I, and as would international law.

I don't believe the US Constitution establishes this with the freedom of speech, but who really gives a shit about the US.

I'd say the same of international law, frankly, as it's going to be the laws of the country we happen to live in that will affect us most personally.

Yes, but there is a difference between arguing that the right to free speech extends to those who have died, and that it is this right that protects their work....and saying that the right to free speech includes the right to access such works, and that the right lies in the reader. As in, would the censorship of a novel infring upon the dead man's right to free speech, or upon the right of the reader to access the novel itself? I suppose I just always assumed the latter.

Certainly, it includes the right to access, but we also recognize that even if no one is causitively prevented from access that the rights must be respected as a right of the person who is expressing.

Again, it is applied the exact same way that law must prove guilt even for someone who is dead. Are you denying that the law can't declare you guilty of a crime without a trial even if you're dead?

Really? Prove it. It's not available in any description of the term I can find.

al·ter

VERB:

Its a verb, an action. You can only alter something while you are acting.

However, it doesn't matter if anyone is actually seeking or recieving it, only that it is being prevented from being imparted and there is the obvious problem. Again, you quite clearly deny the meaning of terms.

Look at it this way, is there any possible situation where Samuel Clemens right to free speech could be denied? Could he possibly have the will to free speech? No, he couldn't.

If there is a violation of free speech, there must be a will to establish the right that is broken. Therefore the right to free speech in this situation concerns the person or company that is seeking to publish the works of Samuel Clemens.

If I were forbidden to quote Adolf Hitler, would it be Hitler's right to free speech violated, or mine?

However, it doesn't matter if anyone is actually seeking or recieving it, only that it is being prevented from being imparted and there is the obvious problem. Again, you quite clearly deny the meaning of terms.
As much as I know you like certainty of terms, taking this from a legal perspective, the dictionary isn't going to help you much, and it's why I asked for some case law on point...because frankly, the issue could be argued either way. I hadn't considered the position that the dead could retain some right to free speech, and I would be very interested if any courts have come to that conclusion, and how. It great to have an opinion on how the Constitution could be interpreted, but it isn't going to get either of you anywhere alone, because it's not actually up to any of us.

The same goes for property. If the government confiscates a dead man's property, it is not the dead man who sues, but the direct relative who possesses the entitlement to said property.

al·ter

VERB:

Its a verb, an action. You can only alter something while you are acting.

False. That is not true. Alter refers to the object, it's being used transitively. That means it's not important how long the actor is acting or when they are acting but only if the object is effected and that it doesn't become a different object.

It can be used intransitively as well, but we aren't here, obviously.

The same goes for property. If the government confiscates a dead man's property, it is not the dead man who sues, but the direct relative who possesses the entitlement to said property.

True, just as it is not the dead man who is held to any contract he made in life, but rather his estate is (if that was expressly considered in the contract). The dead man, and his estate, are not the same things.

The same goes for property. If the government confiscates a dead man's property, it is not the dead man who sues, but the direct relative who possesses the entitlement to said property.

Untrue. When you can not act on your own behalf, so you have a proxy. If the goverment confiscates a dead man's property then the executor of the estate would sue. That is not necessarily the person who would receive the property, but just the person who was chosen by the dead person to act on their behalf.

In fact, explain who an executor is acting on behalf of if not the producer of the will.

True, just as it is not the dead man who is held to any contract he made in life, but rather his estate is (if that was expressly considered in the contract). The dead man, and his estate, are not the same things.

It is the dead man who is held to a contract and he is held in the only way possible by addressing his estate. His contracts are part of his estate, as are all of his entitlements and all of his debts. The debts aren't to the estate, the contracts aren't with the estate, they are part of it.

False. That is not true. Alter refers to the object, it's being used transitively. That means it's not important how long the actor is acting or when they are acting but only if the object is effected and that it doesn't become a different object.

It can be used intransitively as well, but we aren't here, obviously.

It requires both the action and the object, not just the object.

If it does not have both, the word does not apply.

I see you.

See is the transitive. You is the object, see is the action. If either you cease to exist or I cease to see, the statement is untrue.

As much as I know you like certainty of terms, taking this from a legal perspective, the dictionary isn't going to help you much, and it's why I asked for some case law on point...because frankly, the issue could be argued either way. I hadn't considered the position that the dead could retain some right to free speech, and I would be very interested if any courts have come to that conclusion, and how. It great to have an opinion on how the Constitution could be interpreted, but it isn't going to get either of you anywhere alone, because it's not actually up to any of us.
I'm not talking about lexical definitions, but the legal definition. In this case the will of the dead is most certainly protected. It's clear.

Again, keep in mind that all persons who would recieve property has a lawyer in a dispute and the executer of the will acts on the behalf of the person who chose them.

It is the dead man who is held to a contract and he is held in the only way possible by addressing his estate. His contracts are part of his estate, as are all of his entitlements and all of his debts. The debts aren't to the estate, the contracts aren't with the estate, they are part of it.

I haven't seen this position taken in any case in contract law yet...nor do I see that it would be necessary to take that position, and I'm still waiting to see on what you're basing this line of legal thought.

True, just as it is not the dead man who is held to any contract he made in life, but rather his estate is (if that was expressly considered in the contract). The dead man, and his estate, are not the same things.

Just in case you didn't know, this relates to Jocabia's claim that a person's right extend infinitely into the past and into the future, extending the right of the child to not be altered into the past to cover it while it was a fetus.

It should be noted that I was the only individual who actually wanted to address the nature of rights and determine what is the justification for natural rights and their eternal extension, so his accusation that I ran away from this argument is untrue.