Curing the gay: a sceintifc scenario

[Razgovory]

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?

[Tonitrus]

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.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't see why not.

[Syt]

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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

[Razgovory]

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?

[Tamas]

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.

So yeah, tricky one.

[Josquius]

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.

[Tamas]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

It would be a tremendous loss for the arts.

[Valmy]

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.

People 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?

[Valmy]

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.

[mongers]

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.

[Viking]

"Evolution is cleverer than you are."