Playing God with the Homosexual Gene (if it exists)

[MKSheppard]

Lets say that oh, three or four years from now, scientists conclusively prove
that there's a "gay gene" that makes people who have it predominantly
gay or lesbian, into einhanders, in other words.

And about a year after that scientific discovery, the first "gene tests" are
being marketed and sold to expectant couples to find out if their baby-to-be
is carrying the gene....and what this initally results in is a lot of abortions
of said fetuses carrying the "gay gene", for about four years, before we have
a genetic engineering cocktail which can "Deactivicate" the gene in fetuses.

Would doing all this be ethical, or immoral as hell?

[Sea Skimmer]

Given the large negative stigma that so often comes with being gay in this day and age, someone could argue its immoral NOT to deactivate the gene.

[Enforcer Talen]

I dont put an ethical thing on it. Ive no doubt some parents will want bi or gay kids.

[SirNitram]

Are we assuming we can flip this switch with zero negative side effects? Then yes, it should be allowed.

[MKSheppard]

Are we assuming we can flip this switch with zero negative side effects? Then yes, it should be allowed.

What about the cries of "genocide" which will inevitably be raised by the more whackaloon groups out there? This isn't as easy cut as it sounds, this is only the beginning of a very nasty moral and ethical mess.

[HemlockGrey]

If they're aborting the "gay embryos" or 1st/2nd trimester fetuses, eh, but obviously if you have people aborting third trimester fetuses that's gotta stop.

As far as "flipping the gay switch", I don't really see how it would be any more immorale than any other sort of "designer baby" stuff you could do with genes- hair color and the like.

[HemlockGrey]

What about the cries of "genocide" which will inevitably be raised by the more whackaloon groups out there?

There are whacko Christians out there who claim legalized abortion is worse than the Holocaust yet that has had little effect. I don't see groups like these doing much.

[SirNitram]

Are we assuming we can flip this switch with zero negative side effects? Then yes, it should be allowed.

What about the cries of "genocide" which will inevitably be raised by the more whackaloon groups out there? This isn't as easy cut as it sounds, this is only the beginning of a very nasty moral and ethical mess.

Genocide is the slaughter of a race, Sheppard. Genetic alteration of your offspring is neither killing, nor race based. Could you possibly use the grey matter your ancestors went to all that trouble to evolve for you?

[MKSheppard]

Could you possibly use the grey matter your ancestors went to all that trouble to evolve for you?

I was about to ask you the same thing, Martin. You obviously have no experience with the kind of craziness that really out there groups can generate; I can easily see a Gay Rights group decrying this as "genocide" of the gay population; it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be a catchy soundbite on the evening news.

[Pick]

I would have a problem with aborting the fetuses. If they don't want a baby at all, that's one thing, but to say "This one's gay, let's rip it out and try again" is hardly what I'd consider appropriate. Can you imagine someone saying that if their baby was going to be blue-eyed instead of brown-eyed?

As for turning the gene off and making a hetero baby... I don't personally approve, but I have no ethical grounds for denying it, and thus would have to consider it not only an appropriate option but also one without real immorality involved.

[SirNitram]

Could you possibly use the grey matter your ancestors went to all that trouble to evolve for you?

I was about to ask you the same thing, Martin. You obviously have no experience with the kind of craziness that really out there groups can generate; I can easily see a Gay Rights group decrying this as "genocide" of the gay population; it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be a catchy soundbite on the evening news.

OH NOES!!! NOT PEOPLE SAYING IT IZ BADE!!!!!!

Oh, wait. Slippery Slope Fallacy.

You asked a moral question, you retard. Just because you ran from a debate elsewhere to try and rally support to your preconceived notions and are confronted with actual sense, doesn't make this a logical argument.

[Kuroneko]

If one admits that a fetus is simply an extension of the mother's body rather than an entity that has rights on its own, it immediately follows that unconditional abortions of fetuses are not immoral. From this, the implication that the above actions are not immoral is a clear tautology.

I can easily see a Gay Rights group decrying this as "genocide" of the gay population; it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be a catchy soundbite on the evening news.

By your own scenario, the hypothetical reaction of extremist groups would be a red herring; lacking sense, their outcries will simply be irrational.

I would have a problem with aborting the fetuses. If they don't want a baby at all, that's one thing, but to say "This one's gay, let's rip it out and try again" is hardly what I'd consider appropriate. Can you imagine someone saying that if their baby was going to be blue-eyed instead of brown-eyed?

Yes, I could. One could argue that this kind of action indicates something negative about the character of the parent(s), but there is no rational reason for finding their acts immoral. That kind of action is more of an example of "my, that's a very stupid reason," rather than indicative of something genuinely immoral.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I would say that aborting fetuss just for being possesed of a certain charictaristic is wrong.
However parents could claim to want to abort him (the fetus) on general terms so I would say that the pre-pregnancy tests for "gayness" should be illegal until its impossible to abort (a month before birth).


For the cocktail mix if there werent any side effects then I would be very eager to use it for my potential off spring (no offense to any members).

Since being gay is (in my opinion) simply a change/long term mutation in the biological and sexual processes of a individual, and while I dont have anything against homosexuality I would like non addopted grandchildren and to spare my children the stigma attached to homosexuality.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The ethical weight of changing a gay gene to prevent future social discrimination is the equivalent to a southern African American family changing their unborn baby's genes into a white baby to prevent future social discrimination.

[The Grim Squeaker]

The ethical weight of changing a gay gene to prevent future social discrimination is the equivalent to a southern African American family changing their unborn baby's genes into a white baby to prevent future social discrimination.

The difference is that "Africans/black people"/"white people"/"yellow skinned people"/"Asians" are a true breeding "race" (see below to understand that I don't think that different skinned people are an inferior race, god forbid),
Homosexuality cant breed by itself and only pops out randomly as a mutation, a common one but still a mutation.

The only difference between white and black people is a slight difference in pigmentation ( -Yes, black is not a race- it is a simply a increase in skin pigmentation), both can inter breed and continue to exist, Homosexuality is a mutation that cant breed or continue naturally without a high degree of scientific assistance and use of hetero sexual people.

A black baby would be born black but any child could be born heterosexual or possibly bisexual or homosexual,
In other words the child would 99.9% of the time be born black but would be born a non hetero sexual in a far tinier percent of probability.

[FSTargetDrone]

The only difference between white and black people is a slight difference in pigmentation ( -Yes, black is not a race- it is a simply a increase in skin pigmentation), both can inter breed and continue to exist, Homosexuality is a mutation that cant breed or continue naturally without a high degree of scientific assistance and use of hetero sexual people.

A black baby would be born black but any child could be born heterosexual or possibly bisexual or homosexual,
In other words the child would 99.9% of the time be born black but would be born a non hetero sexual in a far tinier percent of probability.

I've always found it odd that we don't generally hear of people differentiated in terms of "breeds" instead of races. As you say, aside from superficial physical differences, skin color, as well as shape of eyelids, height, etc., humans can all interbreed.

"Race" to me seems more appropriate in describing a whole type of animal, as well as the various culturally different groups of people. Surely "breed" is just as correct, if not moreso, but I suppose the use of the derogatory "half-breed" or the desire to not have people be associated with other animals in general is the reason for that. It still amazes me how some people find it so offensive or bothersome that humans are just another type of animal.

The Dictionary.com entry has an interesting section on the use of "race" to describe humans.

In any case, I bet describing gayness as a "mutation" could be problematic for various reasons as well.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The ethical weight of changing a gay gene to prevent future social discrimination is the equivalent to a southern African American family changing their unborn baby's genes into a white baby to prevent future social discrimination.

The difference is that "Africans/black people"/"white people"/"yellow skinned people"/"Asians" are a true breeding "race" (see below to understand that I don't think that different skinned people are an inferior race, god forbid),
Homosexuality cant breed by itself and only pops out randomly as a mutation, a common one but still a mutation.

The only difference between white and black people is a slight difference in pigmentation ( -Yes, black is not a race- it is a simply a increase in skin pigmentation), both can inter breed and continue to exist, Homosexuality is a mutation that cant breed or continue naturally without a high degree of scientific assistance and use of hetero sexual people.

A black baby would be born black but any child could be born heterosexual or possibly bisexual or homosexual,
In other words the child would 99.9% of the time be born black but would be born a non hetero sexual in a far tinier percent of probability.

That's a nice explanation on the difference between race and sexual orientation. However, I already know that and I don't see how that applies to what I had said.

[Broomstick]

I would have a problem with aborting the fetuses. If they don't want a baby at all, that's one thing, but to say "This one's gay, let's rip it out and try again" is hardly what I'd consider appropriate. Can you imagine someone saying that if their baby was going to be blue-eyed instead of brown-eyed?

Yeah, I can imagine that.

I don't really agree with it, but I can certainly imagine it.

[Dahak]

I think it should be done.
It's a parents job to care as best as they can for their child, and in removing a gene that would bring only problems to them, would be the right thing to do.
It would be different if the society was different and no discrimination against homosexuals existed, though.

[Broomstick]

I have trouble with the idea of permanently altering a non-harmful characteristic in someone because someone else wouldn't approve of that characteristic.

How about we eliminate left-handedness while we're at it? Congenital short stature? Other non-harmful details society isn't thrilld to see?

If it's available and truly a free choice homosexuals won't vanish entirely. Down's syndrome can be detected before birth, is far more detrimental to its carriers, yet Down's children are still born because not everyone who finds their child carrying the extra chromosome chooses to abort.

Likewise, if a "gay gene" test and "switch flip" are available I don't see universal use unless it was made mandatory. For every ignorant bigot there are people who genuinely don't care if their child is homsexual or not. Saying they'll be less than fully accepted by society... well, racial minorities and Jews continue to breed even if THEY aren't "fully accepted" or experience prejudice, without feeling compelled to change their children to be more "acceptable".

[Zero]

It wouldn't only be bigots that didn't want homosexual children. There are those of us in the world who want grandchildren. Even so, I don't think such an act is quite right either. It does seem quite useless to eliminate something that has no apparent drawbacks, but the trouble here is that if we want to say eliminating any kind of fetus is wrong, first it must be admitted that the fetus is a person, in a way. As Kuroneko pointed out above, if the fetus is seen merely as an extension of the mother, then it shouldn't be an issue why she aborts it, even if such a thing would cause an enormous downtrend in homosexuality.

[Molyneux]

If one admits that a fetus is simply an extension of the mother's body rather than an entity that has rights on its own, it immediately follows that unconditional abortions of fetuses are not immoral. From this, the implication that the above actions are not immoral is a clear tautology.

Except it's not as clear-cut as that; until some time before birth, a fetus may be more an extension of the mother's body than an organism itself, but it's undeniable that a fetus carried to term will eventually become a free-willed entity. It may not be immoral for a mother to alter the genes of a part of her, but what about later on, when the offspring finds out that it was altered, irreversibly, without *any* possibility of consent on its part?

I can't definitively say that this is immoral for the same reason I cannot say that abortion is immoral; I simply do not have a sufficient grasp of the situation. It still seems fishy, though.

[Caius]

The Question of course is, can the gene be turned back on?

[Crondeemon]

If one admits that a fetus is simply an extension of the mother's body rather than an entity that has rights on its own, it immediately follows that unconditional abortions of fetuses are not immoral. From this, the implication that the above actions are not immoral is a clear tautology.

Except it's not as clear-cut as that; until some time before birth, a fetus may be more an extension of the mother's body than an organism itself, but it's undeniable that a fetus carried to term will eventually become a free-willed entity. It may not be immoral for a mother to alter the genes of a part of her, but what about later on, when the offspring finds out that it was altered, irreversibly, without *any* possibility of consent on its part?

The problem with this argument is as follows;
You state that it is immoral to change a child (offspring) without his/her consent. However, (first assuming that having a child is not immoral), when you have a child, you are infact completing the greatest change he/she will embark opon. Wether you look opon it as a ~= 50% change or a 100% change (from nothing to something); you are still doing it without the child's consent. (See common argument of young children
"Well I didnt ask to be born!")

I can't definitively say that this is immoral for the same reason I cannot say that abortion is immoral; I simply do not have a sufficient grasp of the situation. It still seems fishy, though.

My beleifs are of the opposite, I would have to say that if we cannot specifically prove morality, I would have to say that is in fact immoral; since morality by definition does not allow for one to do something that is possibly immoral.

Sort of the "better safe than sorry" philosophy.

This is the reason for my view about abortion, which is that abortion should not be done until science proceeds to the point where we can specifically tell when it goes from moral to immoral (where the child gains it's self-awareness) better safe than sorry...

Therefore, if you want to turn on or off the "Gay" gene while the child does not know of its own existance, its not really relevant.

If you think about it, all the answers to any question in this thread can be derived from this sentence.
Thou shalt not manipulate the genetic information of a self-aware being, without its consent.

[Darth Wong]

(See common argument of young children "Well I didnt ask to be born!")

Which is a stupid thing to say since it is impossible even in principle to ask to be born, therefore the absence of such a request is meaningless.

My beleifs are of the opposite, I would have to say that if we cannot specifically prove morality, I would have to say that is in fact immoral; since morality by definition does not allow for one to do something that is possibly immoral.

Sort of the "better safe than sorry" philosophy.

And how does one go about proving morality, genius? Prove that something is harmless? That is a demand for proof of a negative, which is logically unworkable. Do you also believe that criminals are guilty until proven innocent?

This is the reason for my view about abortion, which is that abortion should not be done until science proceeds to the point where we can specifically tell when it goes from moral to immoral (where the child gains it's self-awareness) better safe than sorry...

Science has already proceeded to that point, dumb-ass. No brain function, no self-awareness. If it works as a definition for the end of life, it should work for the beginning too.

If you think about it, all the answers to any question in this thread can be derived from this sentence.
Thou shalt not manipulate the genetic information of a self-aware being, without its consent.

Bullshit. That sentence doesn't answer a damned thing about this thread unless we accept your totally false assumption that science has no way of knowing whether a recently fertilized egg is self-aware.