What should we do if there was a medical treatment that prevented people from being gay?

[AngryAmish]

<http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/29/do... >

This is a huge issue. People are born gay. Scientists are beginning to figure out why. The article above describes a medical procedure that may prevent girl fetuses from becoming gay. (which may or may not be efficacious or even safe)

Let's think about a hypothetical: genetic screening for likelihood of being gay. Right now there are tests for a lot of chromosomal irregularities - Down's for example. It may/will get to the point where we can tell mothers that their kid will have a 50-95% chance of being gay. Some mothers will then abort. Do we want that sort of eugenics? 90% of Down's fetuses are aborted. We are already there with Down's.

So say you?

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Why would we want to prevent that?

We don't have enough breeders already?

(I'm straight, but not responsible for any of the world's 6+ billion)

[closeupready]

2. If society decides it doesn't want anymore stuff like Michelangelo's sculpture of David or

the biting humor of Ellen Degeneres or Oscar Wilde, then it can look forward to a plain, bland, average society such as you have in much of the American Midwest, since most gay people from the Midwest flee for either coast once they come of age. Personally, I wish there were lots more gay people than there seem to be.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoSheep]

19. LOL! The things people WILL say!

[xchrom]

27. He ran out of PBR just as you posted that and blew a gasket. Nt

[closeupready]

29. oh, the irony of what you just posted.

[Fla_Democrat]

23. Talent and humor

is the new Gaydar?

[msongs]

3. lol gestapo type christians will embrace abortion for all on demand nt

[SunnySong]

47. It's not just born again types... plenty of "Liberals" will choose to abort.

We plan only to have one child they will claim...


In fact in my experiance those Christains are the type to care for down's syndrome babies while more progressive types have abortions.

[ParkieDem]

4. It's scary to think about.

Along similar lines, there have been recent studies about the "gender gap" in places like India and China. Due to rapidly advancing -- and falling costs of -- medical technology, more and more couples in these places are able to determine the sex of their child before birth. It may be technically illegal to abort based on gender, but it happens anyway. Originally, people thought that better education, economic advancement and other forms of progress would lead to people becoming more enlightened and less likely to take these measures. However, this has not occurred -- gender-based abortions are on the rise, even among professional, educated couples in China and India.

This could even translate to the US. I know an Indian-American couple that just had a baby girl. Before she was born, one set of grandparents was -- quite openly, mind you -- very, very disappointed that the child was not a boy. They did not come out and directly suggest an abortion, but it was implied.

This is just part of a potential brave new world scenario as prenatal screening becomes more advanced. For example, what if doctors could go in pre-term and fix a gene giving a person a predisposition to cancer? Most of us would have no problem with that. But what if the parents said "hey, while you're in there, can you go ahead and give the kid blonde hair and blue eyes?"

[AngryAmish]

5. Or gene therapy to make you a better athlete

Is that fair?

[Lance_Boyle]

6. Downs is a DISEASE and its a GOOD THING we are reducing the incidence of it.

Being homosexual is not a disease.

[AngryAmish]

12. Folks with Downs like to be alive

Don'y you think they are capable of a good life? Or are they merely unfashionable?

on edit:

We are doing nothing to reduce the incidence of Down's. We are just making sure they are not born.

[FedUpWithIt All]

34. What a disgusting thing to say. n/t

[SunnySong]

46. Downs babies are like short people or those with brown eyes... better to abort.

I would be careful down that path that cat is coming out o the bag soon.

Something tells me homosexuals are not going to get better treatment from most parents than down's babies have. (And yes even so called progressive parents)

[booley]

7. This why Eugenics could never work

We have no ability as a species to distinguish what is harmful with what is merely different.

We could just as easily ask what if we would make black people caucasian?

We actually can do that to a degree now.

But why would we want to? Or more importantly why would we need to?

In both cases, these are benign traits and that do not inherently harm the individual possessing them. The problem lies with other people who don't like the trait.

IF your problem is that other people have a problem with you, you may not really be the one with the problem.

As for other traits that can be said to have a deleterious effect, there are no easy answers. Many parents do decide they can't care for a special needs child. Others say they couldn't imagine life with them.

And we cant' always be sure that bad trait really is as bad as we originally thought. Even genetic diseases may have a purpose.

Which is why I say leave it to the parents to decide. More often then not , when given all the information they will make the best decision that one can make (none of the decisions being good, mind you. Just some are better then others)

[customerserviceguy]

32. Parents will be the ultimate decision makers

especially the mothers. That's the other edge of the sword called reproductive choice.

When I was a kid, the gender of a baby was almost always a surprise until the birth. Today, parents-to-be routinely know well in advance whether to paint the baby's room blue or pink. Telling them that they really shouldn't have the right to know would seem draconian.

I can see that same attitude drifting over to every other thing they want to know about a child in utero, or even the gametes that can be combined to make the embryo. It will be the 'right' of parents to pre-select anything they want or don't want in their offspring.

And there is nothing that can be done about that.

[glowing]

8. That would mean they would have to find the genetic market

And if it is genetic, then the holy rollers would have to embrace that God who makes all in his image makes teh gay. So why would natural occurring genomes be considered a defect anyway. Is gay a disease? I don't think so.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. First, do no harm...

I consider such treatments, at best, highly unethical. Being gay is not a medical problem. They can and do live long worthwhile lives.

If the religous really believe that homosexuality is a choice, then they are seeking out a medical treatment that is utterly unnecessary and worthless. If children are born gay, then that is about as close to God's will, if there indeed is a god, as we can get.

[guitar man]

10. not play "god"

nuff said...

[AngryAmish]

14. Really?

Yours is the Roman Catholic Church's position. No contraception. No abortion. No artificial insemination or in-vitro.

[guitar man]

42. that's not what I meant

I was being a little tongue in cheek about it and it didn't come across like I intended. I wanted to take a slap at the fundies who would insist that being gay is a choice, but given the chance would jump at the opportunity to "guarantee" that their child would be born heterosexual.

I am 100% pro choice and pro contraception.

[brewens]

13. 90% of Down's fetuses? I'm not surprised. That was my theory

of why Palin was keeping her pregnancy secret. I think she may have been trying to secretly get rid of the baby at first then maybe later in the pregnancy looking for an adoption or other way out.
That would explain her strange behavior. Otherwise you would have expected a conservative woman to exploit the family values angle. She never misses any other chance to do it.

[KonaKane]

15. What's the point of stopping people from being Gay?

First of all, right from the get go that frames the issue as homosexuality = pathology, which I do not believe at all. Homosexuality is a naturally recurring part of human society and has always been so. Just because a certain segment of that society, at an isolated point in time I might add, decided they didn't like it doesnt magically mean it is turned into a malady that requires a cure.

I would prefer medical research monies be spent on more worthwhile pursuits - like a cure for cancer, AIDS, etc.

[AngryAmish]

21. The point in stopping people from being gay is some people don't like gay folks

I suspect you and I do not think it is a pathology but others do. We cannot act like they don't exist. This research is going on. We can outlaw it. We can change the constitution to outlaw selective abortions for gay fetus or treatment to prevent someone from being gay. I think we need to discuss this before the fait accompli is here.

[KonaKane]

30. I believe you are preaching to the choir, here.

If this is going to be a real looming threat, we need to take it our reps.

[closeupready]

31. Some people don't like women.

so what.

[BanzaiBonnie]

16. Gay is not an illness

People are who they are, including people with Down's.

[Mike Nelson]

17. Currently, people would opt for this... for their offspring...

...and the human race would suffer. Hopefully, future people would not consider a gay child something to be altered.

[county worker]

18. It is not a thing that could happen so why ask?

My sister-in-law was born gay as was her partner and every other gay person I know. That's like asking if being heterosexual is a preventable disease.

[madokie]

20. Hey my goofy assed neighbor

already thinks there is a cure. I shit you not.

I'm straight but I have a good friend who was born gay and when I tell him, (goofy assed neighbor,) that he doesn't believe me so I ask him how old were you, (goofy assed neighbor,) when you decided you didn't want to be gay and all I get is a blank stare, again, I shit you not.

To answer your question, NO we don't want to go there as there is nothing wrong with being gay.
Peace

add: rec

[NoSheep]

22. Give it to the homophobes so they'll shut the fuck up?

[qb]

24. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Being gay is awesome!

[xchrom]

25. The next legal frontier?

And may be another good reason for a federal
recognition of things like marriage equality, crimes bills,
employment non-discrimination.

The more it is spelled out in the law that we are full and
equal persons the less likely such a procedure would
be approved.

That being said - if is available to people
they will use it.

[walldude]

26. Being gay is not a disease.

I don't care what the fundies think. I'm sure they would have loved Dr Mengele too...

[flvegan]

28. I'm trademarking the "Proud Parent of a Gay Fetus" marque.

Seriously, it's sad that homosexuality is such a frigging threat to some people. Someone is gay, good for them. Let them be happy. Jesus.

[slackmaster]

33. This may prove unpopular, but if I was a prospective parent and had some control...

...over the sexual orientation of my son or daughter, I'd certainly choose for him or her to be heterosexual.

Not that there's anything wrong with gay people or with being gay,



...but I believe life is easier for straight people, and is likely to always be so in some measure.

I'm reminded of a deaf couple, with an infertile man, who intentionally sought a sperm donor so as to engineer a deaf child. I have a real problem with that.

[gleaner]

49. I'm not trying to bone you or make you feel bad ...

but these are decisions for the people who are actually involved to make. Not other people, not someone else's religion and not society at large.

Being gay is not a disease. Many Moms elect to have their Downs babies because they want the child no matter what. The couple who wanted a Deaf child is a gray area, because society is not kind to people with any kind of disability, but it is still their choice to make. Remember too, that disabilities are not limited to congenital problems. I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis when I was in my early thirties. If my Mom had known would she have aborted me? She said no way. It pained her that I have such a cruel disease, but my life is meaningful to me and those who love me.

It kind of raises my hackles when people who are not familiar with living with a disability pronounce on doing so for someone else. If that is not you, I'm sorry. If you are not disabled, think about how you sound. And folks, I do not think being gay is a disability. I was referring to the statement on deafness. Being gay in a natural state of being and gay people live full and happy lives. If they were not harassed for being gay and were given full citizenship under the law they would live even happier lives.

[Poll_Blind]

50. I remember that story, I thought that was fucked up too.

And frankly, and this is the kind of basic honesty that usually gets one set on fire at DU, I'd engineer my child to be hetrosexual if I had a say in it, as well.

If there was a drug, say some sort of injection which could be given to a mother with a developing fetus and it could cause the baby to be born with a certain skin color (i.e. Nordic pink to African Ebony, your pick) and have that color for the rest of its life, the same questions would arise.

I think we might be surprised and deeply disturbed at some of the choices potential parents would make if they had that power. Give you a quick example, the phrase: MEJORAR LA RAZA. Look that up, it's Spanish for "Bettering the race" or "For the betterment of the race", and it has to do with a pretty prevalent (in my experience) movement in South American cultures to seek out white/European partners to literally get those lighter-skinned genes.

Now, how fucking fucked up is that? If this is the first time you've ever heard of it, I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me, especially in its prevalency in South American countries (some more than others). My latina girlfriend explained this to me several years back and I thought she was making a really sick joke. She works with women from many different countries in South America, usually first-generation Americans or who moved here when they were younger and they've confirmed this sentiment is relatively "wide spread" (whatever that really means).

So what if African American/Latina mothers start choosing Nordic-skinned (or at least much, much lighter-skinned) children?

I have no idea, but obviously genetic manipulation, as difficult as it is technologically, has much sticker ethical, moral and religious implications- or would appear to, depending on how important the lost traits might be to the person making the argument.

Does being gay or having a certain skin color make us a certain way or enable or prevent things or experiences from happening to us? Like your example from that (very effed-up) news story, how about being deaf?

What about selecting for a child with only hands and feet, but no arms and legs- like the victims of Thalidomide poisoning? We can't imagine someone would knowingly and lovingly make that choice but as the article about the deaf couple above shows, not everything is as clear as it might seem.

PB

[RC]

35. A better use for this genetic screening would be to detect conservatives in the womb.

Maybe gene therapy would help.

[Clintonista2]

36. Or at the very least, rehabilitation therapy from a young age

[JitterbugPerfume]

37. "The Gay"

is not a disease

[pipi_k]

38. It would be interesting, to say the least....

to see what the homophobe RW nuts who are "Pro life" would do if given the choice between having a child they KNEW would be gay vs being able to abort the pregnancy.

Which one would they choose?

It would be fun to see their heads explode over that dilemma.

[Smashcut]

39. This is an issue for the FDA I believe

"The specific drug we're talking about, dexamethasone, is not a benign drug for pregnant women, nor for the children exposed in utero. The studies we do have on the early prenatal use of "dex" are worrisome. The number of women and children missing from the follow-up studies of this drug use is more worrisome still."

Not to mention the bioethical issues, obviously, which are addressed here:

"Needless to say, we do not think it reasonable or just to use medicine to try to prevent homosexual and bisexual orientations. Nor do we think it reasonable to use medicine to prevent uppity women, like the sort who might raise just these kinds of alarms. Consider that our declaration of our conflict of interest."

Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.as...

Sadly, many eager woodchucks will simply shrug it off. After all, we have too many more important issues like finding common ground with Republicans to let this "pet issue" distract us...

[jp11]

40. I wouldn't alter my child for something like this.

This issue has been brought up in the past about dwarfism which has medical complications in many cases, it is only a matter of time before other medical conditions can be predicted, prevented etc and of course other issues that have nothing to do with health like being LBGT.

At some point somewhere here or there the services will be offered to let people design their children, tall, muscular, blonde, blue eyes, etc it will happen because not all countries or societies view these things as wrong or right. Some people want the best and extend that towards their kids, even without design a child people do that now pushing their kids to be perfect at sports or beauty queens, forcing their desires on them.

Many people who have conditions or traits also won't want people like them to be erased from the world through screening or 'cures/fixes/what have you'. I think the sentiment is right to not erase differences between people but that doesn't mean if there is a way to prevent or 'fix' deafness/blindness we shouldn't do it, the ultimate choice is up to the parents so long as no one starts telling people they NEED to do it. That is a risk I think people will face several years/decades after these types of choices/fixes are introduced, how long before someone allowing their child to be born as a dwarf before society/the medical community says it is wrong to let someone be born with the types of health problems that child will face, how long before it is said that this gene should be tweaked or fixed to fight off cancer etc?

[AngryAmish]

43. services will be offered to let people design their children, tall, muscular, blonde, blue eyes, et"

Actually, there already is. Look at sperm donor or egg donor sites. People pay a large premium for tall, ivy league genetic material.

When kids can actually be created adding and subtracting genes, then it will be moreso.

[Greyhound]

41. I say that what "we" want is irrelevant. n/t

[SunnySong]

44. The result will be the same as with Downs Syndrome.

Homosexuals will disappear from western society in a few generations.

That is the likely scenario no matter how hard you wish. Esp since many progressives simply choose not to have children.

[ruggerson]

45. this thread is majorly fucked up

[Xithras]

48. We are less than 20 years away from having the ability to do a full genetic workup on fetuses

In other words, a simple test shortly after fertilization that will tell the parent(s) everything and anything they might ever want to know about their upcoming kid. Disease suceptibility, eye color, hair color, sexual orientation, whether or not he/she will have freckles, etc. All of this information is in our genetic code, but we don't yet have all the keys to read them. People are working on those keys right now.

What people choose to do with that information is, in my opinion, entirely up to them. If someone wants to abort their kid because its gay, or a boy, or because they don't like freckles, that's THEIR choice. They'd be assholes for doing so, but freedom of choice is freedom of choice. The fetus has no rights in this discussion, and the potential future sexuality of that fetus isn't relevant.

Somehow, I don't see homosexuals becoming extinct anytime soon.

[Grateful for Hope]

51. We are locking this

It is the opinion of the moderators that this thread is insensitive to the sexual orientation of some of our members.

Grateful for Hope
For the DU Moderators