“Allowing parents to select their children’s sexual orientation would further a parent’s freedom to raise the sort of children they want to raise.” December 31, 2006 2:51 PM Subscribe
Hmm...what about a cure for being straight? posted by niles at 2:54 PM on December 31, 2006 [4 favorites]
My thoughts exactly; a world of six billion doesn't need even more people reproducing.
I'm gay, and this is pretty scary stuff. In some ways a vaccine is worse than a cure; in X3 the cure wasn't entirely bad because some people freely chose to take it, and it truly improved their quality of life. If I lived in a less free place than Canada, I would seriously consider such a cure.
With a vaccine, the choice is not yours to make. And what's truly terrible is the vaccine would be largely available in rich, developed nations, shrinking their homosexual populations; thereby leaving the truly oppressed homosexuals in nations where homosexuality is criminalized without any voice whatsoever.
Not to mention it would shrink the dating pool even further. :P posted by mek at 3:00 PM on December 31, 2006
This is great! But what to do with all the gays already out there mincing around trying to destroy our families? There must be some sort of... I dunno, "solution" to this problem... yes... some sort of "final solution"... MUHUHAHAHA... posted by wfrgms at 3:04 PM on December 31, 2006
Anyone who is pro-abortion would be hypocritical to deny a woman this choice. posted by stbalbach at 3:05 PM on December 31, 2006
Most things that happen to fetuses are not choices either. If you believe that a woman has sovereignty over her body (and can have an abortion) then why shouldn't she be able to take drugs that alter prenatal development?
Actually, from what I've read a lot of "personality" traits have a lot to do with hormone levels in the womb, rather then straight genetic differences. You might be "born" being gay, but that doesn't mean you're conceived gay. posted by delmoi at 3:05 PM on December 31, 2006
This has been in the works for a while--it was inevitable.
I think it'll fail, personally--it's not just hormones that make someone gay or straight, and this could be (and probably will be) incredibly dangerous to fetal development--it'll be years if not decades before it's perfected, and by that time, God willing, discrimination will have lessened so that it's not even seen as necessary at all. And where will they find willing pregnant volunteers to test it? How? At what risk? posted by amberglow at 3:09 PM on December 31, 2006
I'm not so sure I'm in favor for a "cure" for teh gay but I'm definitely for any scientific examination that will finally shut up the religous right's argument that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
The day I can definitively tell my ignorant-due-to-her-belief-in-the-baby-jeebus mother-in-law that homosexuality is genetic and have the data to back it up will be one of the best days of my life. posted by photoslob at 3:09 PM on December 31, 2006
photoslob, do you really think the data will be enough to change her mind? posted by NationalKato at 3:11 PM on December 31, 2006
And where will they find willing pregnant volunteers to test it? How? At what risk?
Actually I don't think it would be difficult all... posted by delmoi at 3:12 PM on December 31, 2006
photoslob: Do you really think scientific data will have any influence on fundamentalists' beliefs re: homosexuality? If so, I have a creationist museum to sell you. posted by papakwanz at 3:12 PM on December 31, 2006
These studies have nothing to do with people. They're looking at behavior in animals. Researchers are investigating homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom from fruit flies to monkeys. Ranchers who breed their animals to have whiter fur are not secretely trying to figure out how to "cure" black people. Farmers who breed their corn to be taller are not hoping to figure out how to "fix" short people. For a sheep rancher, a gay ram is a ram that will not impregnate female sheep. This is a problem for the rancher and deserves to be investigated how it can be overcome. posted by pwb503 at 3:12 PM on December 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Damn you NationalKato! posted by papakwanz at 3:12 PM on December 31, 2006
Quite honestly, any pregnant woman who would volunteer or allow herself and her potential child to be experimented on this way does not deserve to be a parent at all, i don't think. Incredibly dangerous. posted by amberglow at 3:13 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
If there's a cure that worked, I'd take it. posted by mike3k at 3:13 PM on December 31, 2006
But that said, I can't imagine this ending up being widespread at all, I mean in order for it to reduce the gay population it a patch (or whatever) would need to be worn by an overwhelming majority of pregnant women, since there is no way to test to see if you're "at risk" of having a gay baby. posted by delmoi at 3:13 PM on December 31, 2006
photoslob, I used to think a biological explanation for sexual preference would be a good thing to shut the religious right up as well, but ultimately I think that distinction is missing the point. So what if it's a choice or it's not? Either way it's just people having sex which is a good thing. posted by sineater at 3:14 PM on December 31, 2006
Great movie that attacks this topic: Hard Pill. posted by ao4047 at 3:14 PM on December 31, 2006
pwb503, if you think this doesn't eventually lead to something to be used on people, you're dreaming. There are many many rightwing orgs with millions and millions ready and waiting to pour money into something like this. posted by amberglow at 3:14 PM on December 31, 2006
These studies have nothing to do with people.
Such an argument could be made, but it's difficult when the scientists involved insist on how their findings can and probably will be relevant to human sexuality. posted by mek at 3:16 PM on December 31, 2006
I look forward to a cure for bigoted wimps who can't wrap their heads around the simple notion that all forms of love are equally wonderful and in short supply in this cesspool of a universe.
I mean a cure other than six point restraints, a sawzall and a melon baller. posted by Divine_Wino at 3:16 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
If there's a cure that worked, I'd take it.
mike, would you have wanted your mother to take it before you were even born?
Probably not but she works in the medical profession so it should really throw her for a loop i.e. does she believe in what her pastor tells her to believe or does she believe the science she depends on daily to save lives.
It will be a blast to watch her brain explode as it overloads with fact versus fantasy. posted by photoslob at 3:16 PM on December 31, 2006
This is such a fascinating issue to me. Unlike many other issues of genetic or biological engineering of sorts, this issue of influencing the biological determinants of sexuality is so much more volatile right now. There are so many perspectives to approach it from...
I find it hard to accept that one day parents will use conception as a moment in which they are presented with their "child template," a nice outline of how their current "work" will probably turn out. They will then be given a list of "options," a bit like purchasing a luxury vehicle, with which to modify their "base child template."
Choosing sexuality, at that point, becomes no more or less meaningful as customizing hair color, or muscle mass, etc. because all the humanity will have been cleansed from the collective mindset from the get-go.
Right now, however, I was born not-gay, and I do not miss being gay. If my parents had made that decision, would I thank them or resent them? I don't know. I am not sure I'd care, because I don't have a personal frame of reference to understand what I'm missing out on... If the opposite had been true, I'd only care because of the current political/social climate that I currently live in, otherwise my thoughts would be the same.
Not sure if any of the above is sensible... sorta just splurged a reaction out of the gut. This stuff fascinates me, though. posted by dopamine at 3:17 PM on December 31, 2006
And there's no one on Earth who can yet perfectly predict the sexual orientation of a child. If that's not perfected before a treatment is made, what happens? People just act out of fear that just maybe possibly they'll have a gay kid? posted by amberglow at 3:17 PM on December 31, 2006
amberglow wrote: Quite honestly, any pregnant woman who would volunteer or allow herself and her potential child to be experimented on this way does not deserve to be a parent at all, i don't think. Incredibly dangerous.
The only reply to which can be what delmoi wrote: If you believe that a woman has sovereignty over her body (and can have an abortion) then why shouldn't she be able to take drugs that alter prenatal development?
Is the fetus human, deserving of protection under the law, or not?
No mother wants their child to have a harder life than others. I know for sure my mother would have taken the treatment for this had it been available (i don't know if now, 42 years later, fewer mothers would do so or not). posted by amberglow at 3:21 PM on December 31, 2006
Is the fetus human, deserving of protection under the law, or not?
sits back, watches fellow liberals implode
Nicely done. I'll grab the popcorn. posted by frogan at 3:22 PM on December 31, 2006
eustace, i would never call for anyone to be prevented from doing this, if and when it's perfected and available--ever. A fetus is only potentially human, and getting to the place where this is allowed will mean many willing pregnant volunteers--that's what i find dangerous and immoral. posted by amberglow at 3:23 PM on December 31, 2006
A fetus that is brought to term and is born is deserving of the full protection of the law. posted by Divine_Wino at 3:23 PM on December 31, 2006
What a terrifying world these people must live in, these people who want everyone to be the same. And what a boring world that would be. posted by interrobang at 3:24 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
If there is a gay patch that would solve the problem, let the parents choose, if they want. It's all about freedom of choice. With IVF, parents get to choose which embryo from a selection of a dozen or so. It may also be possible to determine if a child is gay pre-birth making abortion another option, similar to aborting female babies in India and China. posted by stbalbach at 3:26 PM on December 31, 2006
The whole process of gestation is so complex and not fully understood--inserting hormones like this cannot be ethical, and the aim of such treatment certainly isn't.
Look at gender tests--right now pregnant women can know which gender their fetus will be. They can then either abort or carry the fetus to term--it's not like they take a treatment to change or fix that. (i'd be happier with that choice for women in terms of orientation--no one should be forced to have a child they'll hate or treat as less than.) posted by amberglow at 3:26 PM on December 31, 2006
eustace, i would never call for anyone to be prevented from doing this, if and when it's perfected and available--ever. A fetus is only potentially human, and getting to the place where this is allowed will mean many willing pregnant volunteers--that's what i find dangerous and immoral.
amberglow, I was mostly just going for a laugh, but seriously, your reply makes no sense. You find the fact that women would volunteer for this dangerous and immoral? Why? Are you concerned that the procedure will somehow harm the women who undergo it?
I agree that the idea that this would happen is scary, and I'm opposed to mucking about with genetic makeup for mostly practical concerns. But if you're pro-choice, and the fetus is just a tissue blob, I just don't see the moral dimension. posted by eustacescrubb at 3:27 PM on December 31, 2006
stbalbachwrites"Anyone who is pro-abortion would be hypocritical to deny a woman this choice."
What the gibbering fuck?
mike3kwrites"If there's a cure that worked, I'd take it."
The use of the word 'cure' presupposes that homosexuality is a disease. And I don't think you have any idea how very sad reading that statement made me. posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:31 PM on December 31, 2006 [5 favorites]
There's a moral dimension for the simple fact that a woman who becomes pregnant--if she wants the eventual result--protects that fetus as it grows. It's her responsibility to do so--again--if she wants it to ever be a baby. Any tests for this would have to involve pregnant women--it would be required by law to do human testing.
A pregnant woman who wanted to carry to term that would allow herself and her potential offspring to be used as a guinea pig like this is not acting morally. This would be extraordinarily dangerous to both her and her fetus. posted by amberglow at 3:32 PM on December 31, 2006
Divine_Winowrites"A fetus that is brought to term and is born is deserving of the full protection of the law."
Yes, precisely. Correcting medical problems in utero is a no-brainer. Something like this..? Disgusting.
eustacescrubbwrites"Why? Are you concerned that the procedure will somehow harm the women who undergo it?"
No, that it would harm their potential children. (And don't, please, bother getting into a 'well then all aborted fetuses are potential children' derail. If you have chosen to bring your child to term, then you don't get to experiement on that child). posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:34 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
homosexuality aside, this leaves me somewhat speechless. in my world, a beast isn't capable of "preference" or "orientation". it simply reacts to the blind instinct to hump something. talk of gay sheep is insane. 1 in 10 rams "prefers" to mount other rams? probably one in ten dogs will hump a table leg. i suppose that makes them furnisexual?
looking for a "cure" by studying beasts is as stupidly degrading as pointing to same-sex-humping beasts as evidence that homosexuality is "natural".
The day I can definitively tell my ignorant-due-to-her-belief-in-the-baby-jeebus mother-in-law that homosexuality is genetic and have the data to back it up will be one of the best days of my life.
Not genetic. In utero hormonal balance. The big difference? To the extent that homosexuality is biological in origin, it most likely isn't inheritable. However, I remain convinced that homosexuality isn't purely biological in origin. I know gay people who say it isn't a choice, and gay people who say it totally is for them.
Amberglow: if my memory of Breedlove/Jordan's research into this is correct, then the hormonal balance in question is a fairly simple proposition provided there is close monitoring. Except in cases of extreme malpractice it seems like it would be reasonably non-threatening to both participants. As far as the biological component goes, there's not likely to ever be a 'cure' but the vaccine doesn't seem like it would be terrifcally complicated or dangerous. I think our society will be somewhat poorer if homosexual people are all but eliminated, but as you just said - no mother wants to make their life harder, and I think that unfortunately most would opt to have straight children. posted by Ryvar at 3:37 PM on December 31, 2006
stbalbach writes "Anyone who is pro-abortion would be hypocritical to deny a woman this choice."
If you have chosen to bring your child to term, then you don't get to experiment on that child
Exactly. It's abhorrent. posted by amberglow at 3:37 PM on December 31, 2006
getting to the place where this is allowed will mean many willing pregnant volunteers--that's what i find dangerous and immoral.
i suppose they'll be "murdering gay babies in the womb", eh? posted by quonsar at 3:40 PM on December 31, 2006
Ryvar, it would have to shown clearly and completely and with no doubt that the process of gestation itself, this proposed treatment, and possible ramifications on development in general, and the future life of the child, etc, would not have been otherwise harmed. Is that possible? Wouldn't it have to be experimented and then the children followed for years--at least until sexual awakening or puberty? And watched for all signs that this affected them in other ways? posted by amberglow at 3:41 PM on December 31, 2006
i suppose they'll be "murdering gay babies in the womb", eh?
Nope. I would be more ok with that scenario, as i said above. posted by amberglow at 3:41 PM on December 31, 2006
Look at gender tests--right now pregnant women can know which gender their fetus will be. They can then either abort or carry the fetus to term
Wow. We found out the gender of our children via ultrasound, because we were curious and excited. It never occured to me that someone would abort the fetus on the grounds of it being the wrong gender. That too, is scary.
What the gibbering fuck?
Eh, dirtynumbangelboy, stbalbach is right -- if you're pro-choice, then the fetus, at the time this procedure would be done, is part of the woman's body, and she is free to do as she pleases to it.
There's a moral dimension for the simple fact that a woman who becomes pregnant--if she wants the eventual result--protects that fetus as it grows. It's her responsibility to do so--again--if she wants it to ever be a baby. Any tests for this would have to involve pregnant women--it would be required by law to do human testing.
On what moral grounds should a woman be bound to protect what is, at this point, considered to be a part of her body, a part which, according to the reasoning behind pro-choice politics, is free game for elective surgery? Are you saying that because she wants it to eventually be a baby, she's bound to protect it? Where does this moral imperative come from?
I understand that women who want thier babies do, as part of being mothers, feel an instinct to protect them, but from a pro-choice standpoint, any such instinct directed towards a fetus would be anthropomorphizing, or it would be explainable by something like selfish genes, but neither of those things constitues a moral position.
If you have chosen to bring your child to term, then you don't get to experiement on that child
But (and I'm playing devil's advocate here) why not? Says who? And, most importantly, how do you write a law that protects the rights of unborn children not to be experimented upon, when we don't recognize unborn children as deserving of protection under the law? You may want to pass it off as a derail, but it's a serious legal quandry for the pro-choice, pro-gay folks. posted by eustacescrubb at 3:42 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
My wife and I want one more child. I hope that someone out there, preferably a sinister European transplant with a shoe fetish or something, is working on a vaccine against not having super-strong squid tentacles and death-ray eye-beams. I want the best for my unconceived child (a sperm is a child!) and nothing is better than super-strong squid tentacles and death-ray eye-beams. posted by Mister_A at 3:43 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
Ryvar, aren't they going to be watching these sheep for their whole lifetimes to see if it worked? They would have to watch children as well, no? posted by amberglow at 3:43 PM on December 31, 2006
If you have chosen to bring your child to term, then you don't get to experiement on that child
i see. the fetus becomes human at the moment of its mothers choosing. posted by quonsar at 3:44 PM on December 31, 2006
Meanwhile, the GOP's only gay congressman retires.
The only one, eh? That sounds as likely as the GOP having only one congressman who takes money from special interest groups. posted by five fresh fish at 3:46 PM on December 31, 2006
i see. the fetus becomes human at the moment of its mothers choosing.
if you're pro-choice, then the fetus, at the time this procedure would be done, is part of the woman's body, and she is free to do as she pleases to it.
Not necessarily true. If, for example, an intruder breaks into your home, you may be entitled to shoot them, but you wouldn't be allowed to perform involuntary surgery or medical treatment on them!
Not saying a fetus is necessarily "an intruder," but I think you're statement espouses a bit of a false dichotomy. posted by blenderfish at 3:47 PM on December 31, 2006
Not necessarily true. If, for example, an intruder breaks into your home, you may be entitled to shoot them, but you wouldn't be allowed to perform involuntary surgery or medical treatment on them!
Huh? Pulling out the Chewbacca Defense this soon? posted by eustacescrubb at 3:48 PM on December 31, 2006
Is claiming that homosexuality is strictly and always genetic any less ideological/dogmatic than claiming that it is strictly and always a matter of individual choice? posted by kowalski at 3:49 PM on December 31, 2006
Why would somebody want to bring a homosexual child into this world of blind, seething hate and institutionalized discrimination? How can this neonatal vaccine be a bad thing? Do you want god-fearing bible-thumping Christians to keep having gay babies, who are forced to repress everything about themselves just to survive in their culture? posted by tehloki at 3:49 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
blenderfish makes a good point, one that's taught to most law students: the fallacy of the lesser included right. posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:50 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Are you saying that because she wants it to eventually be a baby, she's bound to protect it? Where does this moral imperative come from?
eustace, because she wants it to be born at all, born healthy, and to survive, she is obligated to protect it while it's inside her--again if she wants it at all. I don't know that it's an uncommon view. When a woman decides to carry to term, she gains responsibility for doing so. The (wanted) product and result of the pregnancy is in itself dependent on the woman acting responsibly. posted by amberglow at 3:51 PM on December 31, 2006
blenderfish makes a good point
No he doesn't. Point me to an instance where a woman is prosecuted for drinking alcohol while pregnant. posted by frogan at 3:53 PM on December 31, 2006
The use of the word 'cure' presupposes that homosexuality is a disease. And I don't think you have any idea how very sad reading that statement made me.
I agree (despite the fact that I just did it myself for the sake of convenience), but that's how it's going to enter the vernacular unless anti-discrimination groups do a massive PR push *now*.
If you have chosen to bring your child to term, then you don't get to experiment on that child
Parenting *IS* experimentation on children, start to finish. Most people fail at it, too. I'm not sure what makes this morally worse than the ideological conditioning fundie children undergo.
Ryvar, it would have to shown clearly and completely and with no doubt that the process of gestation itself, this proposed treatment, and possible ramifications on development in general, and the future life of the child, etc, would not have been otherwise harmed. Is that possible? Wouldn't it have to be experimented and then the children followed for years--at least until sexual awakening or puberty? And watched for all signs that this affected them in other ways?
Amberglow what *appears* to be involved is a minor offset of prenatal testosterone levels. The more male children a mother has had, in general the lower the levels and the higher likelihood of a gay child being produced. In the rare cases of someone being the 11th male child in their family, homosexuality is occurs at an almost 50% rate (with no data on whether they feel they have a choice, unfortunately). A minor raising of the testosterone level in the mother with some careful monitoring to make sure it doesn't go too high or too low should really be all that's involved. In the grand scheme of medicine this is not exactly rocket science, nor does it seem likely to be terribly dangerous or require significant followup beyond the usual for any child. posted by Ryvar at 3:53 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
Next time someone breaks into my house, I'm totally performing surgery on them! posted by aubilenon at 3:53 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Point me to an instance where a woman is prosecuted for drinking alcohol while pregnant.
frogan, here you go: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7058/645/a
that's the first hit out of 130,000 posted by sineater at 3:55 PM on December 31, 2006
Pro-choice + a stance against a anti-homosexuality patch = you're OK with killing the fetus, but not drugging it.
I think the argument would be, you can choose whether or not to have a child, but if you are going to have a child, you cannot choose to manipulate its genes/hormonal environment to fit your preconceived expectation of what your child should be like. I don't see how abortion has anything to do with it, because we're not talking about the actual blob of tissue, but the potential child that is being created.
It isn't a simple issue... no one would deny a parent the right to solve disease or disfigurement in utero, but altering personality or identity traits is harder to accept. What about largely negative but still potentially interesting / unique traits, like being a 'little person'? Or what about less desirable aspects of a personality like having a bad temper? maybe if we erase the anger component, we also lose some portion of creativity in the person. If we normalize everyone, we're at risk of losing something valuable... posted by mdn at 3:55 PM on December 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
Do you want god-fearing bible-thumping Christians to keep having gay babies, who are forced to repress everything about themselves just to survive in their culture?
It's not their choice--it keeps on happening no matter what they believe, which should be showing them how wrong they are about their hate and the impact it has on all of us, let alone their own kids. God has never ever listened to them on this, contrary to their explicit and fundamental beliefs. posted by amberglow at 3:55 PM on December 31, 2006
I think the gummint should figger out what hormone makes people comminists and libruls and put somethin in the water to prevint it posted by George_Spiggott at 3:55 PM on December 31, 2006
eustace, because she wants it to be born at all, born healthy, and to survive, she is obligated to protect it while it's inside her--again if she wants it at all. I don't know that it's an uncommon view. When a woman decides to carry to term, she gains responsibility for doing so. The (wanted) product and result of the pregnancy is in itself dependent on the woman acting responsibly.
But, as I wrote above, this is a practical, survival-related instinct, not a moral imperative. In what way is it a moral issue? posted by eustacescrubb at 3:56 PM on December 31, 2006
A fetus never becoming a person is 'better' than a person being created who may have horrible physical or mental problems because of the mother's choices. I don't see the pro-choice comparison. posted by hypervenom at 3:57 PM on December 31, 2006
mmmm... sheep. posted by R. Mutt at 3:59 PM on December 31, 2006
If the fundamentalists are ok with an anti-gay-baby patch, should they not also accept the anti-brown-skin patch? The pro-gay-baby patch? The anti-religion-tendency patch? posted by Kickstart70 at 4:01 PM on December 31, 2006
blenderfish makes a good point, one that's taught to most law students: the fallacy of the lesser included right.
isn't the right in question really a woman's right to privacy? ... isn't that the whole justification for roe vs wade?
how can one have a right to privacy for selecting whether a fetus lives or dies and not have a right to privacy for influencing the child's sexual preference? ... and if you allow the first and not the last, how are you going to prohibit people from aborting fetuses because a test shows they might be gay?
no one would deny a parent the right to solve disease or disfigurement in utero, but altering personality or identity traits is harder to accept.
except that some will choose to do it posted by pyramid termite at 4:02 PM on December 31, 2006
Parenting *IS* experimentation on children, start to finish. Most people fail at it, too.
With the exception of most of the parents of the six billion people currently on this earth, and the exception of their parents, and the exception of their parents, and the exception of their parents, and the exception of their parents... posted by furtive at 4:04 PM on December 31, 2006
A fetus never becoming a person is 'better' than a person being created who may have horrible physical or mental problems because of the mother's choices. I don't see the pro-choice comparison.
Because, hypervenom, the law, and pro-choice politics deliberately refuse to consider what the fetus will become in making judgement calls on what a woman can and cannot do to it. So considering what might happen to a fetus that is expermineted upon would mean consdering what the fetus will become in the future and protecting that future human being from harm -- which contradicts pro-choice ideology and (at present) would be a legal nightmare if made law. posted by eustacescrubb at 4:06 PM on December 31, 2006
This might not turn out well. Say a hormonal patch is developed that is fairly effective at preventing male fetuses from turning out gay. I bet one effect on some of the treated would be that it hyper-masculinizes them. The grow up to be physically aggressive, prone to fight, not willing to back down and hard chargers in general.
Some parents might welcome this because they hope to raise football players or police men or top CEOs.
However if this treatment is widely adopted in society that I fear that there will be a large increase in psychopaths and assholes. posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 4:08 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
In 3 billion years, when our galaxy collides with Andromeda, just remember that it was all because of the gays. posted by Mikey-San at 4:09 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
But, as I wrote above, this is a practical, survival-related instinct, not a moral imperative. In what way is it a moral issue?
It may or may not be an instinctual thing--it could be and often is wholly conscious and rational (you want something; you do these things to ensure the most likely success). And since when is morality unrelated to our choices? posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on December 31, 2006
while we're at it, there's another issue here ... why shouldn't sheep ranchers have the right to maximize the reproductive capability of their flocks by research? posted by pyramid termite at 4:09 PM on December 31, 2006
looking for a "cure" by studying beasts is as stupidly degrading as pointing to same-sex-humping beasts as evidence that homosexuality is "natural".
PUHLEEEEEEEEZE.
posted by quonsar at 3:35 PM PST on December 31 [+][!]
This is a very weak argument. Are you trying to say that animal testing is not effective? That's clearly false. Are you saying human sexuality is completely incompatible with animal sexuality? Even that statement contradicts a lot of science. Simple anatomy says otherwise. Do you not consider humans animals?
I think if anyone is being degraded by the sheep testing, it's the sheep that are getting hormones injected directly into their brains. I'm not exactly an advocate of animal rights - I believe animal testing is often good and saves lives - but science can't be performed in a vaccuum, and it's unclear what good will be achieved with this research; the animals we torture on the way are just more victims.
Though ultimately I do agree with you. It is degrading work, and I would be ashamed to work on such a study. Looking for a cure FULL STOP is the degrading part - not the animal involvement, that's valid science. posted by mek at 4:10 PM on December 31, 2006
I don't know why people want to believe that they are nothing more then instinct controlled animals... posted by kolophon at 4:11 PM on December 31, 2006
Monkey, i see that too, and that's why i think any children that resulted from this treatment would have to be studied for impacts. posted by amberglow at 4:12 PM on December 31, 2006
I don't know why people want to believe that they are nothing more then instinct controlled animals
but if you believe that, how does one argue that they have rights? posted by pyramid termite at 4:13 PM on December 31, 2006
It may or may not be an instinctual thing--it could be and often is wholly conscious and rational (you want something; you do these things to ensure the most likely success). And since when is morality unrelated to our choices?
Eh, you're not answering the question. You're right that it might not be instinctual, but it doesn't follow that all behavior that is not instinct-based is therefore motivated by moral concerns. When you first replied to me, you used very strong wording: "that's what i find dangerous and immoral" -- what I'm curious to know is why you find it immoral. For example, I find murder immoral because I believe that no one has the right to take life from another, or, indeed, to bring harm to another person. A pro-life person finds abortion immoral because they believe the same and include fetuses in the set defined by the term "person." Pro-choice people don't include fetuses in the set of things defined by the term "person", and so don't find abortion immoral.
Now, it's your turn... posted by eustacescrubb at 4:18 PM on December 31, 2006
This is a very weak argument. Are you trying to say that animal testing is not effective?
talk about missing the point. talk of gay sheep is insane. posted by quonsar at 4:20 PM on December 31, 2006
On one hand: the idea of designer babies is extremely creepy.
On the other hand: creepy does not equal wrong.
I'm pro-choice, and yeah, I can see how this would be a mother's choice, as long as it isn't physically dangerous to the potential infant. What if science finds that eating large numbers of cucumbers also prevents future children from being gay? Do we prevent cucumber-eating?
I think there will always be people who will choose the natural route of genetic trait selection... in fact, I suspect that even people who might pick the cucumber method will be creeped out by the idea of a "gay vaccine." posted by mazatec at 4:23 PM on December 31, 2006
the idea of designer babies is extremely creepy.
Yeah. just where exactly do they intend to stitch the label? posted by jonmc at 4:25 PM on December 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
As to the livestock angle, the commercial viability of such a vaccine would be a big stretch. I don't have a lot of experience in raising livestock, but I do have some with cattle, and generally a very small fraction of the herd are the reproductive males, pre-selected for their ideal attributes and virility.
The presence of homosexual animals is not a significant concern since the vast majority of males are slaughtered at a young age, and not kept for reproductive purposes. It would certainly be impractical to test every pregnant cow, so the other option is to administer the vaccine indiscriminately. This might not even be possible due to side-effects: as others have mentioned, hypermasculinity would be an extreme negative side effect, as aggressive bulls are truly dangerous to ranch workers. That would be a deal-breaker to livestock farmers, without a doubt - bulls can kill, both humans and other cattle. Subsequently, side-effects would have to be nonexistent when mis-administered, OR testing would have to be simple and super-cheap. The vaccine itself would also have to be cheap.
Even in a best-case scenario, the vaccine's benefit would be small and long-term. posted by mek at 4:26 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
frogan, here you go: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7058/645/a
that's the first hit out of 130,000
I'm so glad you feel better about your point.
So, I'm sure you'll favor legislation outlawing the purchase of aspirin, alcohol and cigarettes to women of child-bearing age because they might be experimenting on their fetuses?
Yeah. just where exactly do they intend to stitch the label?
Self-Made Man
by David Byrne
We're living in a dump
Trying to figure out what sex we are
Exchanging chromosomes
Trying to bargain for a better future
Well I'll trade you my potential mental illness
For your bad teeth
How 'bout trading your sexy body for a full head of hair
Well we can't predict the future
But we're trying to do the best that we can
My cards are on the table
I'm gambling everything that I am
And some of us are hoping
To end up with a perfect life
I'll trade you everything that I got
For the chance to be someone else
But what you see is what you get
And what you give is what you choose
And what I am
What you see
Is exactly what I chose to be
Now we got a black market
Black market in designer genes
Most beautiful, most intelligent criminals you've ever seen
Now you're paying top dollar
For what you used to get for free
They'll stun you with their looks
And charm you with effortless ease
They've taken everything from you
The way you walk
The way you smile
The sound of your voice
Don't even know who you are
Who are you now?
Who are you now?
I'm a self made man, I'm a self-made man
I'm a self-made man (I got nothing left to give)
I'm a self-made man (I got nothing left to lose)
On down the hallway
The freaks are waiting for you
Somebody calls me
The freaks are waiting for you
And the clown will laugh in your face
Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho
The clown will laugh in your face
Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho
The clown will laugh in your face posted by eustacescrubb at 4:27 PM on December 31, 2006
A pregnant woman who wanted to carry to term that would allow herself and her potential offspring to be used as a guinea pig like this is not acting morally. This would be extraordinarily dangerous to both her and her fetus.
Well the 'treatment' hasn't even been proposed yet, so how can you tell if it will be dangerous or not. I mean it could be as simple as eating certain types of food with the right metabolic precursors.
The fact is people manipulate their hormone levels all the time, it would be no different then taking birth control during pregnancy, which happens all the time by mothers who don't realize their pregnant (yes, some pregnant women continue to have periods)
All your arguments center around danger, and then you go on to say that even if there were no immediate abnormalities then you still can't know, unless you track the babies their whole lives and bla bla bla.
Unless you can scientifically prove there is a real danger, you're not making a compelling argument. posted by delmoi at 4:31 PM on December 31, 2006
Greg Egan wrote a short story that involved something like this is 1994, Cocoon. posted by Iax at 4:32 PM on December 31, 2006
A pregnant woman who wanted to carry to term that would allow herself and her potential offspring to be used as a guinea pig like this is not acting morally. This would be extraordinarily dangerous to both her and her fetus.
Aside from the fact that the "gay vaccine" is wholly hypothetical at this point, how is this any different from any other human drug testing on pregnant women and young children? posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:33 PM on December 31, 2006
Anyone who is pro-abortion would be hypocritical to deny a woman this choice.
"Pro-abortion" is a typical example of the either-or fallacy. It would already be hypocritical to be "pro-abortion" since it implies that one thinks someone should first get pregnant, then abort (which is why we self-describe as pro-choice, as in pro-freedom). In fact, pro-life is a hypocritical position because it implies that those who should not otherwise be pregnant in their eyes should then be forced to have a child. posted by Brian B. at 4:33 PM on December 31, 2006
A pro-life person finds abortion immoral because they believe the same and include fetuses in the set defined by the term "person." Pro-choice people don't include fetuses in the set of things defined by the term "person", and so don't find abortion immoral.
again, as I said above, I imagine the argument would be that while the fetus is not included in the set of things defined by the term person, the resulting child will be, and that child will have been determined to chosen specifications by its parents like a product. I find it hard to call this directly immoral; like mazatec, I am not sure we can truly connect creepy and wrong - but if people were arguing for it being wrong, presumably the complaint would be the level of active control the parents engaged in designing their progeny, which would alter the child from being a gift to being a product. It just doesn't seem like a healthy direction to move in. I'm not saying they're immoral, but I do think they're misunderstanding the parent-child relationship in a fundamental way... posted by mdn at 4:36 PM on December 31, 2006
I imagine the argument would be that while the fetus is not included in the set of things defined by the term person, the resulting child will be
mdn, I was asking amberglow, but thanks for the reply anyhow. I'm curious -- are you pro-choice? If you are, then feel free to answer: how can a pro-choice person see one fetus (one destined to be aborted) as not deserving of protection from harm, while seeing another (one destined to be un-gayed) as deserving of it? Either the fetus's future status as a person ought to be considered or it oughtn't, yes? posted by eustacescrubb at 4:40 PM on December 31, 2006
1) Too much testosterone in the womb has also been linked with autism, so I'm doubting anyone would wish to perform that particular manipulation once mothers realized that that would be a risk.
2) Most of the choosing of characteristics of babies is not done on fetuses, but on embryos and the choice being made is to implant one clump of cells v. another. This is about the stem cell debate, not abortion, basically.
3) Deaf people and little people are already selecting *in favor of* their own kind in pre-implantation selections-- so why wouldn't gay people decide to have gay children similarly?
Everyone thinks that "eugenics" would result in everyone being the same-- but what people select for in their children, just as they do in their mates, is very, very individualistic and by canceling each other out would likely result in rather similar outcomes to "natural" selection.
4) This stuff is so extraordinarily complex, involving multiple genes and epigenetic changes and womb conditions and environmental stuff etc. etc. that it is going to be years and years, if ever, that this animal research would have any bearing on possible human choices.
5) I imagine there'd be a market for pills to make straight people gay as well-- the number of times my girlfriends and I have bitched about men and wished we could just be gay is enormous and I suspect we're not alone.
6) Many characteristics occur on a spectrum such that having one gene (say for sickle cell anemia) produces a benefit (reduced vulnerability to malaria) but if you have two copies, you have full-blown potentially debilitating disease. Similarly, relatives of schizophrenics tend to be extraordinarily successful in life-- they may have had one copy of a gene that helps brain function, but two copies caused vulnerability to schizophrenia. A similar problem may be at fault in some cases of autism (as one Mefite wrote in a great Wired article on the possible perils of "geeks mating").
So, again, trying to eliminate "bad things" might result in the elimination of many positive qualities and trying to enhance "good things" might have negative results. posted by Maias at 4:40 PM on December 31, 2006 [2 favorites]
This might not turn out well. Say a hormonal patch is developed that is fairly effective at preventing male fetuses from turning out gay. I bet one effect on some of the treated would be that it hyper-masculinizes them.
The outcome of which may well be an increased propensity to have sex with men.
I have a friend who was experimenting with testosterone once, while body building. The drug fucked with his arousal levels so much that he found himself masturbating over a cartoon rabbit on TV.
How far can it be to go from a cartoon rabbit to sex with a man? posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:42 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
The drug fucked with his arousal levels so much that he found himself masturbating over a cartoon rabbit on TV.
neh ... (chomp, chomp, chomp) .... what's up, doc? posted by pyramid termite at 4:44 PM on December 31, 2006
the number of times my girlfriends and I have bitched about men
Metafilter: How far can it be to go from a cartoon rabbit to sex with a man? posted by eustacescrubb at 4:45 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
delmoi: Unless you can scientifically prove there is a real danger, you're not making a compelling argument.
I think this is backwards. I would say that unless you can scientifically prove there isn't a real danger, you're not making a compelling argument.
Wouldn't you want scientific testing to see what the long-term effects are first? posted by mijuta at 4:46 PM on December 31, 2006
Because, hypervenom, the law, and pro-choice politics deliberately refuse to consider what the fetus will become in making judgement calls on what a woman can and cannot do to it. So considering what might happen to a fetus that is expermineted upon would mean consdering what the fetus will become in the future and protecting that future human being from harm -- which contradicts pro-choice ideology and (at present) would be a legal nightmare if made law.
Well yes, but I don't see why liberals (pro-choice ones, I guess) should explode. Making the "cure" illegal doesn't go against pro-choice sentiments. posted by hypervenom at 4:46 PM on December 31, 2006
How far can it be to go from a cartoon rabbit to sex with a man?
Well yes, but I don't see why liberals (pro-choice ones, I guess) should explode
implode, not explode.
And it was a joke. For the ha-ha laugh-laughs. It only turned serious when the seriousistas took it too seriously. posted by eustacescrubb at 4:48 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Making the "cure" illegal doesn't go against pro-choice sentiments.
no ... but it does go against pro-choice LOGIC posted by pyramid termite at 4:50 PM on December 31, 2006
It only turned serious when the seriousistas took it too seriously.
Never fear! The Hilariapatas are here to save you! ¡Venceremos! ¡Viva! ¡Fart Noises! posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on December 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
... "that's what i find dangerous and immoral" -- what I'm curious to know is why you find it immoral. ...
Now, it's your turn...
I explained that already--i find it dangerous and immoral for a pregnant woman who wants to bear a child to be a guinea pig for the tests of this, which would have to happen. Do i really need to say it again? posted by amberglow at 4:53 PM on December 31, 2006
eustacescrubb: Huh? Pulling out the Chewbacca Defense this soon?
I'll try stating this again, hopefully in a manner clearer to you. My point is, that just because you may, in a certain situation, argue you have a right to end a person/being's life, this does not mean that you automatically are arguing that have a right to do any arbitrary thing to that person or being. As a specific example, I used an intruder breaking into one's home.
Therefore, saying that "pro-choice people think that it's okay to kill fetuses, ergo they have to think performing personality-altering procedures on them is okay." is wrong.
I'm not addressing this issue at large, or taking a particular side, just shooting down what I saw as a false dichotomy (that one has to be either "pro-life" or "anything-goes").
I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm not sure how this fits into Roe vs. Wade or US Constitutional law or anything. As far as "right of privacy" goes, I think that the Constitutional justification of something and the Moral/Ethical justification of something are often two very different things. ("interstate commerce" anyone?) posted by blenderfish at 4:55 PM on December 31, 2006
A pro-life person finds abortion immoral because they believe the same and include fetuses in the set defined by the term "person."
Hardly ever. A pro-lifer is indoctrinated with religion to breed like rabbits, for obvious benefit to a hierarchy in need of cheap labor and cannon fodder. This shallow indoctrination is evident in their common refusal to personally provide welfare for the unwanted children they force onto society. Of course, it doesn't end there. There is a strong religious desire to punish perceived sinners as well, often with the bizarre rhetoric of personal responsibility (which best fits the abortion argument). posted by Brian B. at 4:55 PM on December 31, 2006
I don't think Robert Crumb ever made that leap.
Yeah, but Crumb was a low-testosterone kind of guy. S. Clay Wilson would have been fisting Captain Pissgums in the wink of an eye. posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:00 PM on December 31, 2006
"I don't know why people want to believe that they are nothing more then instinct controlled animals..."
Double negative aside, could you clarify what this is supposed to mean? posted by vronsky at 5:09 PM on December 31, 2006
i find it dangerous and immoral for a pregnant woman who wants to bear a child to be a guinea pig for the tests of this, which would have to happen. Do i really need to say it again?
Only if you're interested in making a compelling argument. As it stands now, I know that you believe it, but I still don't know the moral framework from where it comes, which is what I've been trying to ask for.
blenderfish: your analogy (intruder in house) isn't analagous, which is why I'm having a hard time with it. The two situations are not enough alike for your intruder example to demonstrate the idea you're trying to demonstrate. Perhaps try another?
Brian B.: I'm not saying that there aren't pro-lifers with internal contradictions in their politics, but if you think al pro-lifers are indoctrinated sheep, then you obviously don't know very many.
And: I have a New Year's Eve party to go to.
Hapy New Year Metafilter! posted by eustacescrubb at 5:11 PM on December 31, 2006
The drug fucked with his arousal levels so much that he found himself masturbating over a cartoon rabbit on TV.
Bugs or Jessica?
Seriously, though, I wonder if this isn't just an excuse to abuse parental fear for the sake of opening a new market? Run off a few batches of Nicabate patches without the nicotine component, advertise them heavily as "The anti-gay patch that's safe for your family! (* guaranteed 96% effective)", then rake in the money from scared parents for the next 16 years.
By the time anyone finds out their supposedly "immune" child is gay, you've made your billions. Then just point to the small print, offer your condolences to them that their child is one of the 4%, and sell your "new improved patch - now with added molcron!" version to the next generation. posted by Pinback at 5:12 PM on December 31, 2006
I believe that the body of psychological evidence that scientists studying the human mind have collected, especially over the last century, shows that personality traits in general, even major personality traits like sexuality, are largely chemical in origin. Alter the chemical balance, and you alter the personality. Volitional resistance and/or embrace of this process derives from a comparison of current perceptive input ("how I think about things now") with previous perceptive input ("how I remember having thought about things"). Further, I believe this is in the process of becoming as useful an observation to psychology as evolutionary theory is to biology, and for the same reason: it, in a few simple sentences, explains why things are as they are.
However, as the "theory of chemical mind" becomes mainstream--and if it is correct, it will become mainstream, since experiments such as the one linked to as well as far more redeeming and terrifying experiments will prove it correct--it will profoundly alter human culture. Different subcultures will (and are) forming different protocols for chemical alteration of human personality. Courts, for example, have started using the option of ordering psychiatric treatment of personality traits that lead to criminality. I don't know, and couldn't casually google out, the proportion of children in first-world nations whose personality is currently undergoing chemical alteration; my guess is 5%. Similarly, there is a significant proportion of adults who take a prescription of personality-altering drugs, such as anti-depressants and/or calmatives.
It is in this light that the article ought to be considered. We are reaching a point where deviancy from what a society considers an acceptable personality for a human being to have will be medicable. The scientific line drawn between the possible and impossible will be in a different place from the political line drawn between the permissible and the impermissible. Of course, both lines are drawn in a cloud of unforseen consequences: it's entirely possible, my guess is likely, that a means of altering homosexuality (I won't use the term "cure"; I deeply dislike it in the context, and consider it an invitation to framing by politically driven anti-gay agenda pushers) would produce in some participants other, actually undesirable, sexual deviances - specifically, as others have pointed out, a tendency to sexual predation. Hard to tell, in sheep ... but I would be interested to see whether these rams fight each other and human handlers more; I suspect they will. Of course, these undesirable traits might be "curable" (and there, it is fair to use the word) in turn, and so on.
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that a biochemical basis for homosexuality necessarily implies a biochemical means for alteration. A biochemical basis for any personality trait necessarily implies a biochemical means of alteration. And that implies larger dangers than the important, but relatively small, threat to liberty posed by the possibility of altering sexual attraction. The thing is, in this modern world, "depression" and "stress" and "disciplinary problems" are much more justified than we allow ourselves to think. The problem isn't with the human being, the human being is sane. These are sane responses to an insane situation. We've dodged the dystopia of 1984, the information revolution has seen that spectre off, but Brave New World is looms on the horizon. posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:14 PM on December 31, 2006 [8 favorites]
i find it dangerous and immoral for a pregnant woman who wants to bear a child to be a guinea pig for the tests of this, which would have to happen. Do i really need to say it again?
So, again, is all human medical testing on pregnant women and young children out? Or is there something uniquely dangerous about the wholly hypothetical "gay vaccine"? posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:14 PM on December 31, 2006
pyramid termite"I don't know why people want to believe that they are nothing more then instinct controlled animals" but if you believe that, how does one argue that they have rights?
By detaching "having rights" from "having the physical shape and characteristics of a human". Consider rights to be shields against suffering, and grant them on the basis of capacity to suffer. See Peter Singer's writings for examples of this philosophical approach. posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:19 PM on December 31, 2006
Perhaps the best thing would be to make everyone bisexual. That way everyone's chances of getting laid doubles and we all look fablous. posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:20 PM on December 31, 2006 [6 favorites]
Making the "cure" illegal doesn't go against pro-choice sentiments.
no ... but it does go against pro-choice LOGIC
The way I see it is that both abortion and altering your offspring are on a continuum. Everyone picks a spot on the continuum that serves as their tipping point; one side of that point is fine, one isn't. But that point is different for each individual.
For instance, most pro-choice people nowadays seem to be against third trimester abortions, except in the most dire of circumstances. That doesn't mean that they are pro-life. Similarly, many pro-life people seem to feel that abortion is okay under some (very) limited conditions.
To a certain extent, everyone selects their children by the person they choose to mate with; this choice can influence intelligence, skin color, potential personality traits, etc. For IVF, as already noted upthread, people have even more freedom to choose. Yet most people don't find these methods of selection to be immoral. On the other hand, if there were a genetic process that could produce one-eyed, green-skinned monster children, most people would view that as immoral and unfair to the child.
So is this type of genetic modification immoral? Well, I guess it depends where your "tipping point" is. I think it's okay; after all, a child is probably not going to miss being gay if they are straight (just for the record, I think that a "straight vaccine" would be just as acceptable). posted by mazatec at 5:20 PM on December 31, 2006
I want a vaccine to prevent any future unborn children of mine from voting Republican. posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:23 PM on December 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Similarly, relatives of schizophrenics tend to be extraordinarily successful in life-- they may have had one copy of a gene that helps brain function, but two copies caused vulnerability to schizophrenia. A similar problem may be at fault in some cases of autism (as one Mefite wrote in a great Wired article on the possible perils of "geeks mating").
Very interesting, thanks for reminding us Maias.
On a side note , it may be useful to differentiate between:
a) homosexual because of how brain is "wired" (a person with a "gender" different from the one suggested by genitals)
b) homosexual because of preference choice
Some would argue this is a false dicotomy as , after all, choice isn't but the product of some process that is likely to be affected by how our brain is formed. Yet there I am aware of heterosexuals who , later in their adult life, "discovered" they "really" were homosexuals. How is this compatible with an "homosexual gene" or gene defect ?
If the onset of sexual desire is set at beginning of puberty, why wasn't the sexual preference almost immediately clear to the children , who later "discovered" they homosexuality or heterosexuality ? If social pressure or personal choice is enough to switch a natural homosexual to heterosexual behaviors , one could argue a gene doesn't really "dictate" the choice.
We should also consider this : given that homosexual do not reproduce as much or are not as likely to reproduce as heterosexuals, if homosexuality is an entirely genetic determined behavior , it would probably have been removed from gene pool a long time ago.
Not because of some pseudo-darwinian, superior race bullshit "selection of the fittest", but quite simply because such a gene would be less likely to be passed down by heterosexual reproduction. posted by elpapacito at 5:27 PM on December 31, 2006
The way I see it is that both abortion and altering your offspring are on a continuum. Everyone picks a spot on the continuum that serves as their tipping point; one side of that point is fine, one isn't. But that point is different for each individual.
Then influencing your child by any means at all, including conversation, example, and guidance, belongs on that same continuum. I think pro-choice/pro-life philosophy is all but irrelevant to this discussion. Those debates are about whether to have a child at all; this discussion is about the child as he or she "turns out" as a member of society.
The only way abortion choices might matter in this context is to a possible mother who, given a certainty of having a homosexual child (not something that's detectable, to my knowledge), might choose abortion; however if told of this treatment, she might instead choose to have the child. That's a bizarre mix of philosophical views. I'm not saying it's impossible to be both willing to have an abortion and unwilling to have a homosexual child; it just strikes me as rather unlikely in practice. posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:30 PM on December 31, 2006
I want a vaccine to prevent any future unborn children of mine from voting Republican.
Not impossible. Republicanism may derive from deficiencies of imagination, empathy, and intellect; at least, it correlates heavily with such deficiencies. posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:32 PM on December 31, 2006 [3 favorites]
if you are going to have a child, you cannot choose to manipulate its genes/hormonal environment to fit your preconceived expectation of what your child should be like
So, no genetic or hormonal manipulation ever? You just cut an entire area of medical science off -- that could help with who knows how many actual defects that make people suffer -- in order to make sure we continue to keep having gay children? Shit. I'm all for making sure we treat the people who are gay and are alive like human beings, but seriously, being gay is probably not essential enough to actively preserve, and it's damn sure not important enough to keep from trying to work out serious congenital disorders.
If the fundamentalists are ok with an anti-gay-baby patch, should they not also accept the anti-brown-skin patch? The pro-gay-baby patch? The anti-religion-tendency patch?
Fundamentalists will almost certainly hate it, which would give them something in common with the don't-change-the-gay-fetus advocates. Maybe that oughta give the latter group pause. posted by namespan at 5:34 PM on December 31, 2006
Well, as long as we're at it, there are many countries where they would like a vaccine for having babies that are... dare I say it... female. And a lot of people in those countries would readily take that vaccine. (Although... then... it would become increasingly difficult to have more babies of any kind, wouldn't it?) posted by miss lynnster at
Subscribe
posted by niles at 2:54 PM on December 31, 2006 [4 favorites]