Inspired by another thread. I got to thinking. It's not really understood why people are gay. Doctors and scientists have been tending toward people being born gay. Let us for a moment presume this is true. If doctors and scientists actually do discover exactly what makes a person tend toward homosexuality (be it genetic or prenatal hormones or whatever) it is likely they will develop a means to control it. This poses an interesting situation. Imagine if a doctor gave mothers a choice in deciding if they wanted their children be born gay or straight. Is this ethical? Is it ethical to not allow the mother a choice?
I imagine some sort of routine prenatal test followed by some kind of therapy done to the fetus in the womb (maybe as simple as some kind of pill taken by the mother). As most parents are going to be straight, and most people want their children to be like them, it is likely if such a technology existed it would greatly reduce the number of homosexuals and lesbians in the population.
Before Marty comes in here saying I'm trolling, I think honestly think this is possible and may be an issue in the future. I don't know when it would be possible. It could be 10 years from now, it could be a hundred years from now. I'm not up on medicine that much, but I do think this is a possible situation. Let us say for the sake of argument that such a screening and procedure to shift a child toward homosexuality or heterosexuality is not far off, this way we don't have to worry about some future alien morality and only worry about modern day moral standards. It's also possible that pre-natal tests will exist before a way to alter sexuality in the fetus is possible giving the mother a choice if she wants to abort a fetus with an orientation she doesn't like. I find he idea repellent and don't want to dwell on it, but I suppose I should raise that issue as well.
I should reiterate the key point of this post and it's question. Would it be ethical to allow mothers to chose the sexuality of their children and conversely would it be ethical to disallow mother to chose the sexual orientation of their child?
This kind of ethical argument could easily be lumped into the entire debate on "designer babies", be it sexual orientation, or even just gender, eye color, hair color, dimples, cleft chin, lactose intolerance, or hipsterism.
I don't see why not.
I'm generally against designer babies. Not because of moral issues with it, but because many parents are stupid and I don't trust them to make good choices. Just look at some of the names that parents, esp. from less educated, lower classes, give their kids. Do we want such people deciding genetic makeups of their kids? I think not.
I think that designer babies would lead to a reduction in genetic diversity as people favoured "good" genes over the "bad". Such a reduction would reduce the survivability of the species in the long term.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 13, 2012, 01:04:39 AM
This kind of ethical argument could easily be lumped into the entire debate on "designer babies", be it sexual orientation, or even just gender, eye color, hair color, dimples, cleft chin, lactose intolerance, or hipsterism.
I wasn't really thinking of "designer babies". Simply a battery of tests that discover genetic or hormonal irregularities. Just a baby might be screened for spina bifada, they are alerted if the hormonal balance is consistent with a straight or gay person. They then offer to "fix" the baby either way. Or as a I alluded to, perhaps simply abortion. I suppose that should be an issue as well (since it is more likely in the short term). Would it be ethical to abort a baby the doctors think it will grow up gay?
Interesting question.
To be honest, if this was available, and it would be discovered that my kid would grow up gay, I would be tempted to change.
Why? Because I would rob him all the negative social aspects, without robbing him anything positive - he would just grow up to desire the opposite sex, instead of the same.
However, this IS the matter of designer babies. Along my line of thinking, genes helping one grow seriously overweight could also be removed, or genes making you a nerd. :P
So yeah, tricky one.
I disagree with the 'born gay' stuff, I think upbringing has a much bigger part in it (though genetics, hormones, etc... do play a large part).
But yeah, theoretically; pretty unethical. If you choose to have a gay kid....then all the crap he goes through in school for being gay is your fault. On the other hand if you choose to have a straight kid...then its omg you're trying to eradicate the gays (and we all know the gays love their fresh meat...).
Even beyond this level parents having such a say in the personality of their kid down to what kind of things he likes and doesn't like...that is just getting into really bad territory. Down the road of turning kids into robots effectively.
I find it highly unlikely that any kind of upbringing could overcome:
-the most basic and strongest instinct, right after survival
-the big (and of course totally unfair) social stigma associated with gayness
It has to be genetical.
People are forgetting that "genetics" is not the only alternative to "upbringing" - various biological, hormonal, fetus development etc. factors play a role too.
Anyway, I don't think "what causes/influences sexuality" is a very useful argument, except for scientists and lunatics.
It would be a tremendous loss for the arts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 06:15:34 AM
It would be a tremendous loss for the arts.
I don't know. There are lots of people who would want gay kids, just for that very reason. That being gay would give their kids super gay powers.
QuotePeople are forgetting that "genetics" is not the only alternative to "upbringing" - various biological, hormonal, fetus development etc. factors play a role too.
We are? Didn't Raz mention this in his opening post?
Quote from: Syt on April 13, 2012, 01:10:47 AM
I'm generally against designer babies. Not because of moral issues with it, but because many parents are stupid and I don't trust them to make good choices. Just look at some of the names that parents, esp. from less educated, lower classes, give their kids. Do we want such people deciding genetic makeups of their kids? I think not.
I am more concerned that governments would step in and start legislating certain procedures be done to make 'better citizens' or whatever.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 13, 2012, 01:19:58 AM
I think that designer babies would lead to a reduction in genetic diversity as people favoured "good" genes over the "bad". Such a reduction would reduce the survivability of the species in the long term.
This.
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
"Life finds a way."
--Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
I fail to see how this is relevant unless gays are able to metabolize proteins that straights are not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 09:23:22 AM
"Life finds a way."
--Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
Well, I don't think they are going to turn into Dinosaurs. If I recall from that novel, the opposite was happening. Female animals were spontaneously turning male (due to sloppy genetics) thus allowing breeding pairs.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 13, 2012, 01:19:58 AM
I think that designer babies would lead to a reduction in genetic diversity as people favoured "good" genes over the "bad". Such a reduction would reduce the survivability of the species in the long term.
Yeah. And it wouldn't be long before someone like Jordan created a gay baby they can go shopping with :bleeding:
It's the woman's body. She can kill it but she can't design it? Fuck that.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
I fail to see how this is relevant unless gays are able to metabolize proteins that straights are not.
It is relevant because it is a simple explanation why all forms of eugenics, social darwinism and attempts at designing homo superior. Furthermore the idea that gentic engineering can cure gayness is also a misunderstaniding on the nature of the effects of genes (I'm taking no position on the genetic origin of gheyness, for that I refer you to [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation]twin studies[/url]). The best way to put it is that every gene affects everything. Curing the ghey might give you diabetes, cancer or premature balding.
There are a few cases of single mutations/genes that can be removed or replaced which will remove succeptability to a particular disease or genetic mutation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 09:33:42 AM
Yeah. And it wouldn't be long before someone like Jordan created a gay baby they can go shopping with :bleeding:
Whose Jordan?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2012, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 09:23:22 AM
"Life finds a way."
--Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
Well, I don't think they are going to turn into Dinosaurs. If I recall from that novel, the opposite was happening. Female animals were spontaneously turning male (due to sloppy genetics) thus allowing breeding pairs.
Sharks do it. Some species of shark females can spontaneously pop out future Mono appetizers by themselves.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 09:33:42 AM
Yeah. And it wouldn't be long before someone like Jordan created a gay baby they can go shopping with :bleeding:
Whose Jordan?
She belongs to the world.
Quote from: The Brain on April 13, 2012, 09:49:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 09:47:59 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 09:33:42 AM
Yeah. And it wouldn't be long before someone like Jordan created a gay baby they can go shopping with :bleeding:
Whose Jordan?
She belongs to the world.
:lol:
Katie Price:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FLifeandhealth%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2009%2F7%2F28%2F1248782275864%2FKatie-Price-001.jpg&hash=a98523f9a5d0cf3b216d30601b51a500dfb5c01e)
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:45:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
I fail to see how this is relevant unless gays are able to metabolize proteins that straights are not.
It is relevant because it is a simple explanation why all forms of eugenics, social darwinism and attempts at designing homo superior. Furthermore the idea that gentic engineering can cure gayness is also a misunderstaniding on the nature of the effects of genes (I'm taking no position on the genetic origin of gheyness, for that I refer you to [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation]twin studies[/url]). The best way to put it is that every gene affects everything. Curing the ghey might give you diabetes, cancer or premature balding.
There are a few cases of single mutations/genes that can be removed or replaced which will remove succeptability to a particular disease or genetic mutation.
Well, I didn't actually designate it as genetic. As I point outed out in the OP, it's not actually known. It's very likely the result of a certain balance of hormones in womb. Are you arguing that all attempts to alter a child in the womb are destine to failure? That attempts to prevent say, birth defects are folly?
Or does the question itself make you uncomfortable? I could see why it would. If you don't want to participate in the discussion on those grounds, I understand. I knew the question had uncomfortable ramifications when I asked it. I think the question bothers Marty as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 09:58:29 AM
:lol:
Katie Price:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FLifeandhealth%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2009%2F7%2F28%2F1248782275864%2FKatie-Price-001.jpg&hash=a98523f9a5d0cf3b216d30601b51a500dfb5c01e)
You really are so truely ghey. Any self respecting male would have show her boobs as well.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fteakdoor.com%2FGallery%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10615%2Fkatie_price_black_bikini.JPG&hash=893065a1e43e8e575fb180fabf1890529eb59214)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 09:48:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2012, 09:31:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 09:23:22 AM
"Life finds a way."
--Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
Well, I don't think they are going to turn into Dinosaurs. If I recall from that novel, the opposite was happening. Female animals were spontaneously turning male (due to sloppy genetics) thus allowing breeding pairs.
Sharks do it. Some species of shark females can spontaneously pop out future Mono appetizers by themselves.
I don't think lesbians will be evolve parthenogenesis anytime soon. Marty is even less likely.
I'm respecting her choice to move from glamour model Jordan to reality TV star Katie Price.
And she got her boobs reduced.
QuoteI don't think lesbians will be evolve parthenogenesis anytime soon.
Lord knows what they're up to.
Katie Price?
Wait this woman named her daughter Princess Tiaamii Crystal Esther Andre? That just screams trashy person.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2012, 10:07:29 AM
And she got her boobs reduced.
Well sorta. She got her fake boobs made smaller. And there is something to respect about reality TV?
Quote from: Syt on April 13, 2012, 01:10:47 AM
I'm generally against designer babies. Not because of moral issues with it, but because many parents are stupid and I don't trust them to make good choices. Just look at some of the names that parents, esp. from less educated, lower classes, give their kids. Do we want such people deciding genetic makeups of their kids? I think not.
What defines a designer baby? Right now if there's a prenatal test for a genetic defect or has symptoms that are detectable by early ultrasounds, parents tend to abort it more often than not. There's certainly a lot of negative selection going on already.
I tend to favor the fraternal birth order hypothesis given the observation that the probability of being gay increases for every older brother that you have. It's not thought to be a hormonal thing. Maternal antibodies to "maleness" are thought to increase in titer with every successive male pregnancy (interspersed female births seem to have no effect.) No one's been able to definitively prove the existence of such antibodies though. Although this is probably just one of many physiological, genetic, epigenetic, and social factors that determine heterosexuality vs homosexuality.
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:45:34 AM
Curing the ghey might give you diabetes, cancer or premature balding.
It would definitely give you a severe case of un-fabulousness.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2012, 11:40:57 AM
It would definitely give you a severe case of un-fabulousness.
What are you talking about? Viking is fabulousness personified.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 11:42:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2012, 11:40:57 AM
It would definitely give you a severe case of un-fabulousness.
What are you talking about? Viking is fabulousness personified.
My theory still stands.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 11:42:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2012, 11:40:57 AM
It would definitely give you a severe case of un-fabulousness.
What are you talking about? Viking is fabulousness personified.
And Marty certainly lacks taste and class.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2012, 10:08:28 AM
Katie Price?
Wait this woman named her daughter Princess Tiaamii Crystal Esther Andre? That just screams trashy person.
She's a clever businesswoman who has made millions out of manipulating the media despite her not actually being more than slightly pretty.
But yes, complete trash :bowler:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 06:15:34 AM
It would be a tremendous loss for the arts.
Would it? It's not like being gay automatically gives someone artisitic gifts and good taste. I can think of a pseudo-Russian example of this on this very board.
Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2012, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 06:15:34 AM
It would be a tremendous loss for the arts.
Would it? It's not like being gay automatically gives someone artisitic gifts and good taste. I can think of a pseudo-Russian example of this on this very board.
Our fags are better than their fags.
Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2012, 04:38:15 PMIt's not like being gay automatically gives someone artisitic gifts and good taste.
It vastly improves the odd though :P
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
I fail to see how this is relevant unless gays are able to metabolize proteins that straights are not.
I can think of some proteins that gays are a lot more likely to metabolize...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2012, 04:46:05 PM
I can think of some proteins that gays are a lot more likely to metabolize...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qANmSzTS1-Q%2FTxkdeIP2jbI%2FAAAAAAAACpY%2FyJVSj7leT9A%2Fs640%2Frainbow_vomit_by_panda_P0P.jpg&hash=cb1965d68b386f8e6e413898e333051fabbd6f8f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_S_Lk3uU18Do%2FTAAn0-I3tiI%2FAAAAAAAAATk%2Fj1xxCl6YLQk%2Fs1600%2Fp_p_f_rainbow_vomit.jpg&hash=d20822e79674e6aeb5b7407956ca005fc4bc5a43)
I haven't been vaguely racist for a few days....
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 13, 2012, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
I fail to see how this is relevant unless gays are able to metabolize proteins that straights are not.
I can think of some proteins that gays are a lot more likely to metabolize...
I was beginning to think nobody was going to go there. Thanks for restoring my faith in Languish.
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
That's dumb. Evolution has no purpose, and is certainly not "cleverer" than anything, as that is an adjective entirely inapplicable to a mindless sorting process that can almost certainly be demonstrated to have, over 700 or million years, to have generated vast negative utility and few and arguably no positive outcomes; even attributing a computational aspect to it, it's shockingly inefficient. Just look how poorly "designed" humans, or indeed most life forms, are. Natural selection is a very, very, very low bar to clear for an intelligent species, and no changes for the better can ever be expected unless we make them ourselves.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 13, 2012, 11:15:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 13, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
"Evolution is cleverer than you are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule)
That's dumb. Evolution has no purpose, and is certainly not "cleverer" than anything, as that is an adjective entirely inapplicable to a mindless sorting process that can almost certainly be demonstrated to have, over 700 or million years, to have generated vast negative utility and few and arguably no positive outcomes; even attributing a computational aspect to it, it's shockingly inefficient. Just look how poorly "designed" humans, or indeed most life forms, are. Natural selection is a very, very, very low bar to clear for an intelligent species, and no changes for the better can ever be expected unless we make them ourselves.
It's an articular of faith. The idea that science in all it's splendor might inadvertently fulfill the goals of the homophobe is likely troubling for a lot of people.
Quote from: Syt on April 13, 2012, 01:10:47 AM
I'm generally against designer babies. Not because of moral issues with it, but because many parents are stupid and I don't trust them to make good choices. Just look at some of the names that parents, esp. from less educated, lower classes, give their kids. Do we want such people deciding genetic makeups of their kids? I think not.
Yes, let the big goverment decide.
They know what's good for you.
Quote from: Siege on April 15, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 13, 2012, 01:10:47 AM
I'm generally against designer babies. Not because of moral issues with it, but because many parents are stupid and I don't trust them to make good choices. Just look at some of the names that parents, esp. from less educated, lower classes, give their kids. Do we want such people deciding genetic makeups of their kids? I think not.
Yes, let the big goverment decide.
They know what's good for you.
You are a fucking retard. He is saying that nature should decide, not people - whether parents or the government.
Sickening cretin. I'm really happy you can't procreate.
Except nature doesn't "decide" anything. It takes a strikingly ebon view of human nature to suppose that decisionmakers (economically rational, or less so) would be less good at identifying desirable phenotypes for their children.
Silly too, given that's what people already do when they fuck, except they do it in an glitch-ridden, information-poor system.
Quote from: Siege on April 15, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 13, 2012, 01:10:47 AM
I'm generally against designer babies. Not because of moral issues with it, but because many parents are stupid and I don't trust them to make good choices. Just look at some of the names that parents, esp. from less educated, lower classes, give their kids. Do we want such people deciding genetic makeups of their kids? I think not.
Yes, let the big goverment decide.
They know what's good for you.
Big government has decided stuff for you for almost your entire life.
Quote from: Martinus on April 15, 2012, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 15, 2012, 04:21:25 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 13, 2012, 01:10:47 AM
I'm generally against designer babies. Not because of moral issues with it, but because many parents are stupid and I don't trust them to make good choices. Just look at some of the names that parents, esp. from less educated, lower classes, give their kids. Do we want such people deciding genetic makeups of their kids? I think not.
Yes, let the big goverment decide.
They know what's good for you.
You are a fucking retard. He is saying that nature should decide, not people - whether parents or the government.
Sickening cretin. I'm really happy you can't procreate.
Marty don't pay attention. Siege is going to have a kid.