Playing God with the Homosexual Gene (if it exists)

[The Guid]

Hang on a minute. Surely if such a thing was allowed it would have the wider implication of making a statement from society to gay people along the lines of "We prefer straight people." I know this can sometimes be seen rather blatantly anyway but it further alienates one's fellow human beings.

[Flagg]

Maybe I'm just a pussy, but something about "flipping the gay switch off" just sits very wrong with me. I have no problem with fixing genetic defects that can cause hereditary disease, and other issues which could cause problems, but I don't see how being homosexual is essentially harmful. I mean aside from certain sects in our society who are prone to abusing them, and treating them as second class citizens, I just can't see the harm in someone being a homosexual. I think it's societies responsibility to change its attitude concerning gays and lesbians rather than altering their sexuality while in the womb.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't see what the big deal is. If, within a specific period of time, you can abort a being, thus killing it, what is the big problem about changing the being genetically? As long as the child will not end up mutilated or something when eventually born, it does not seem like a real issue.

Abortions up to a point are fine, so why would trying to help someone by modifying him not be?

Furthermore, you are doing the child a favour by eliminating the suffering and pain of having to live under inevitible cruelty, while still giving the child the benefit of life's experiences.

[Flagg]

But they are not suffering due to their genetics, they are suffering due to others intolerance. It may sound like splitting hairs but I think it's an important difference. As far as aborting it goes, that's up to the mother. I would be against aborting a pregnancy simply because you dislike the genetic makeup (unless it's actually debilitating) of it, but it's not a choice I will ever have to make so I'm sure as hell not going to try and force my beliefs on that issue on a pregnant woman.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I feel that this line of thought tends to support the idea of an "idealistic" human being and is essentially an outlet of avoidance when it comes to dealing with prejudice. If there is nothing wrong with altering an unborn baby's sexual orientation, why not other attributes? Why not change the baby's skin color or their dominant hand? Why not change the sex of the baby? In certain places of the world, millions of couples who love to be able to do that.

Altering the unborn baby to avoid health problems is one thing. But simply altering genetics to avoid suffering caused by prejudice and intolerance is another. It sounds as if you're trying to avoid the problem rather than addressing it. And for people to change such attributes to their liking, diversity suffers in its meaning. And if there are any ethical problems with the ability to change one's unborn baby's sexual orientation, it would simply be the devaluing of that facet of humanity.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

They will probably be ignored just like all the other extreme groups that make outrageous accusations.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I personally would find it distasteful bordering ethically wrong since it ends up avoiding the issue of prejudice and intolerance rather than addressing it and downplays the importance of diversity in humanity.

[Genii Lodus]

The idea is rather repugnant. Essentially in my view it would be giving in to all the bigots and fundamentalists and letting them win. At the same time spitting in the face of every homosexual who has ever struggled against discrimination. I think this is the exact same as suggesting black foetuses be made white to help them fit into mainstream wealthy western society.

[Darth Wong]

The idea is rather repugnant. Essentially in my view it would be giving in to all the bigots and fundamentalists and letting them win. At the same time spitting in the face of every homosexual who has ever struggled against discrimination. I think this is the exact same as suggesting black foetuses be made white to help them fit into mainstream wealthy western society.

Perhaps you should read the post again. No one was saying that all fetuses with this gene would be tracked down and eliminated by the government. They were just proposing the hypothetical scenario where it was possible for parents to know in advance and make the decision.

[Crondeemon]

(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.

I quite agree, I was attempting at pointing out the problem with saying that- not using it as a valid point of view to support any point I am making.

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?

What? That would only be demanding a proof of a negative if you dont take into consideration the special mutally exclusive nature of "morality"; which I specifically made sure to point out in my post.
I dont see your critisism of what I said.

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.

I agree that this is an acceptable boundary for the end of life, however we arent talking about the end of life. The important issue is the point that self-awareness may arise. If by saying this you are saying that you specifically include all brain function as self-aware, then yes what you are saying is fine. I would however be even more careful than that, as science has not progressed to the point where we know if creatures without specific brains have, or could have, self awareness. Since we cannot know that, we cannot know the ability of a fetus to comprehend its surroundings or wether it does or can have a sence of self; apart from the ovbious boundaries of brain function.. Therefore, it is better to be safe than sorry. If you beleive that science can determine wether any perticular being is self aware or is not, I would like to know why.

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.

You will notice that I never said anything about a "recently fertalized egg", so that is not my assumption. And since my last paragraph explains that what you thought about my 'assumption' was just a misunderstanding, and assuming that you agree with my new 'assumption', then you by your own words agree with me.

Oh, and by the way, I was intruducing abortion into this thread only to make my point more clear, not to change the subject. (someone asked me to make it clear why I did, appearently people anger at that topic easily here.)

[Darth Wong]

What? That would only be demanding a proof of a negative if you dont take into consideration the special mutally exclusive nature of "morality"; which I specifically made sure to point out in my post.

I dont see your critisism of what I said.

Yet more nonsense. You completely ignore the possibility of morally neutral actions, and your "special mutually exclusive nature" is just a bullshitter's way of describing a black/white fallacy.

I would however be even more careful than that, as science has not progressed to the point where we know if creatures without specific brains have, or could have, self awareness.

So you feel it may be immoral to kill bacteria? Do tell.

Since we cannot know that, we cannot know the ability of a fetus to comprehend its surroundings or wether it does or can have a sence of self; apart from the ovbious boundaries of brain function.. Therefore, it is better to be safe than sorry. If you beleive that science can determine wether any perticular being is self aware or is not, I would like to know why.

You are obviously appealing to the lack of absolute proof in science as an excuse to engage in voluminous bullfuckery. Unless you cry yourself to sleep at night over your guilt at killing bacteria by washing your hands, you're full of shit. You haven't even defined what "self-aware" is, except to imply that it's somehow really important and that you might even have it without a brain.

appearently people anger at that topic easily here.)

No, people anger easily at ignorant unscientific bullshit.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I feel that this line of thought tends to support the idea of an "idealistic" human being and is essentially an outlet of avoidance when it comes to dealing with prejudice. If there is nothing wrong with altering an unborn baby's sexual orientation, why not other attributes? Why not change the baby's skin color or their dominant hand? Why not change the sex of the baby? In certain places of the world, millions of couples who love to be able to do that.

Well, why not change it? What is the objective harm it is doing to others, and if it makes the parents happy, but causes no problems, I don't see how someone can forbid it. Why not alter in favour of eye or skin colour. It's your fetus, after all. As long as you aren't doing something that will inevitabely cause misery to your child later in life, I don't see the problem.

Altering the unborn baby to avoid health problems is one thing. But simply altering genetics to avoid suffering caused by prejudice and intolerance is another.

So you just allow them to suffer under endless intolerance? It's not like you're killing the kid. This would be all nice if intolerance would end, but I doubt it will. People are generally crappy to others. Isn't suffering suffering? Why allow it to occure in any form if you can stop it?

It sounds as if you're trying to avoid the problem rather than addressing it. And for people to change such attributes to their liking, diversity suffers in its meaning. And if there are any ethical problems with the ability to change one's unborn baby's sexual orientation, it would simply be the devaluing of that facet of humanity

I think the question is: Can the problem be fixed sufficiently. Untill that time, I think it would suffice to eliminate the problem alltogether, while harming no one in the process.

[Broomstick]

It wouldn't only be bigots that didn't want homosexual children. There are those of us in the world who want grandchildren.

Sexual preference and reproduction are two separate issues.

Throughout history, homosexuals have managed to reproduce. In the past that required overcoming their reluctance to engage the opposite sex. Now, even that is not required - homosexual couples, or even a single individual, can reproduce without heterosexual intercourse.

[Zero]

It wouldn't only be bigots that didn't want homosexual children. There are those of us in the world who want grandchildren.

Sexual preference and reproduction are two separate issues.

Throughout history, homosexuals have managed to reproduce. In the past that required overcoming their reluctance to engage the opposite sex. Now, even that is not required - homosexual couples, or even a single individual, can reproduce without heterosexual intercourse.

Thank you for this, Broomstick. I suppose I had forgotten, when making that statement, that so many other options are available.


And just as a comment, I must say I'm surprised by Boyish's position, considering his position.

[Kuroneko]

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.

Yes.

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?

Indeed--what about that?

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.

Well, there you go. If you can provide no rational reason to object, then your misgivings are irrational.

Maybe I'm just a pussy, but something about "flipping the gay switch off" just sits very wrong with me. I have no problem with fixing genetic defects that can cause hereditary disease, and other issues which could cause problems, but I don't see how being homosexual is essentially harmful.

You're missing the point. If there is no rational reason for objecting abortion simply because the parent(s) do not want to have a child (perhaps barring truly exceptional circumstance), then it follows rather tautologously that there is no rational reason for protesting abortion for by any reason which caused them not to want it, be it homosexuality, blue eyes, skin color, likelyhood of being too tall or short, having blonde hair--whatever. Whether or not the trait the parent(s) find unlikable is harmful, neutral, or even beneficial is irrelevant.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well, why not change it? What is the objective harm it is doing to others, and if it makes the parents happy, but causes no problems, I don't see how someone can forbid it. Why not alter in favour of eye or skin colour. It's your fetus, after all. As long as you aren't doing something that will inevitabely cause misery to your child later in life, I don't see the problem.

Because a vast majority of parents would want their child heterosexual. The homosexual population will reduce dramatically, further alienating those who already are homosexual. Again, it's not so much the harm changing sexual orientation will produce but as I said, the devaluing of homosexuality that will ensue and a less diverse humanity. What one feels about the diversity homosexuality brings to humanity is obviously subject to debate and I am not going to pretend that it's a higher priority than the suffering homophobia causes in all cases. However, it is my personal opinion that I am not willing to sacrifice that component of the population just yet just to simply avoid intolerance.

So you just allow them to suffer under endless intolerance? It's not like you're killing the kid. This would be all nice if intolerance would end, but I doubt it will. People are generally crappy to others. Isn't suffering suffering? Why allow it to occure in any form if you can stop it?

Because I feel that the loss of homosexuality would generally be a sad thing for humanity.

I think the question is: Can the problem be fixed sufficiently. Untill that time, I think it would suffice to eliminate the problem alltogether, while harming no one in the process.

Again, harm to the child is not the issue. It's what you're willing to sacrifice. And really, it's just pandering to the fundies' wishes that all gays disappear and thus avoiding the intolerance rather than addressing.

[Kuroneko]

Your position must depend on homosexuality dying out as a result of allowing such actions, which is a very strong claim--please prove it. What will the present homosexuals be doing during all of this, for instance, and will there really such a strong deficiency of parents that simply won't care?

One could bring a kind of universality argument (which was brought up in a thread not long ago but is locked now). The basic principle behind it seems to be that if many people perform action X, and it leads to bad societal consequences, then action X is immoral. This is obviously not acceptable, as something like "X: selling all of one's stock next Tuesday" demonstrates. Now, there is an easy way to repair it, by adjoining a condition that requires the details in specifying action X to be morally relevant, which can be defined as those details that alter the consequences of the action in a significant way (as there does not seem to be anything special about selling stock on Tuesdays as compared to other days, it is not morally irrelevant). However, this opens the principle to the following criticism: the fact that many people won't perform X becomes a morally relevant detail. While this is far from an unconditional defense, it does offer a large amount of leeway under normal conditions.

[Darth Wong]

Question for the people who say it shouldn't be allowed:

If we were to disallow this, as you seem to suggest, how would we go about doing so? Would we criminalize genetic research? Would we make it illegal to perform these tests on a fetus? What penalties would we apply for people developing or using this technology, and what ethical justification would we employ for these penalties?

[Darth Wong]

Your position must depend on homosexuality dying out as a result of allowing such actions, which is a very strong claim--please prove it. What will the present homosexuals be doing during all of this, for instance, and will there really such a strong deficiency of parents that simply won't care?

Interestingly enough, the people most likely to hate homosexuals and be willing to abort their own offspring in the event of homosexuality are also the people who think that abortion is a mortal sin. That fact alone would tend to dramatically lower the number of people who abort homosexual fetuses in this scenario, even leaving aside the huge number of people today who don't even do ultrasounds to determine the gender of their children.

One could bring a kind of universality argument (which was brought up in a thread not long ago but is locked now). The basic principle behind it seems to be that if many people perform action X, and it leads to bad societal consequences, then action X is immoral. This is obviously not acceptable, as something like "X: selling all of one's stock next Tuesday" demonstrates. Now, there is an easy way to repair it, by adjoining a condition that requires the details in specifying action X to be morally relevant, which can be defined as those details that alter the consequences of the action in a significant way (as there does not seem to be anything special about selling stock on Tuesdays as compared to other days, it is not morally irrelevant). However, this opens the principle to the following criticism: the fact that many people won't perform X becomes a morally relevant detail. While this is far from an unconditional defense, it does offer a large amount of leeway under normal conditions.

Interesting. Of course, the argument does become relevant when you have examples where the action is realistically feasible on a universal or near-universal basis (for example, in the aforementioned example of racial self-segregation, there are many regions in which this was or is a near-universal practice). In this case, the universality argument might still apply if you hypothetically assumed that all parents go to an ob-gyn who proactively does this test without being asked, all ob-gyns present the results, and all parents are willing to consider abortion. Not the most realistic scenario.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

You may be right and it might have been knee-jerkish of me to think that the large majority of people would decide to change their unborn baby's sexual orientation if given the choice.

However, consider if the doctor simply raised the question whether they wanted their child's sexual orientation determined, who in their right minds would refuse to prevent their child from living a life under an intolerant society? I suppose if the procedure was complicated and costly, then I could see people taking the risk. But if the procedure was simple and cheap, even the most gay friendly parents would seriously consider keeping them heterosexual.

[Darth Wong]

However, consider if the doctor simply raised the question whether they wanted their child's sexual orientation determined, who in their right minds would refuse to prevent their child from living a life under an intolerant society? I suppose if the procedure was complicated and costly, then I could see people taking the risk. But if the procedure was simple and cheap, even the most gay friendly parents would seriously consider keeping them heterosexual.

OK, take the scenario where it's as easy as flipping a switch. Every pregnant woman is asked "do you want to pay $2 to make sure your child is heterosexual". In that case, I could see the practice being extremely common, perhaps near-universal.

So let us follow this scenario through to its logical conclusion: why would this necessarily be a bad thing? The reason homophobia is immoral is the fact that it makes its victims miserable. It is unjust, and cruel. But in the case of simply taking a fetus which would have become homosexual and "flipping a switch" to make it heterosexual, what's the harm? Who's the victim? What reason is there to say that this is immoral?

Is there some ethical imperative to ensure that homosexuals will always exist? I suppose one could make the "genetic diversity" argument, but it seems rather doubtful that the particular gene identified in this scenario will ever become crucial to the survival of the human species. Is it any more rational to bemoan the potential disappearance of homosexuals than it is for white supremacists to bemoan the disappearance of pure Aryans from humanity as a result of interbreeding? No homosexual would actually be killed or locked in a prison camp here; they just wouldn't be replaced by new ones as the generations pass.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Aren't homosexuals less likely to reproduce? Wouldn't making them heterosexual increase their ability to reproduce, thus helping genetic diversity?

[tharkûn]

Is there some ethical imperative to ensure that homosexuals will always exist? I suppose one could make the "genetic diversity" argument, but it seems rather doubtful that the particular gene identified in this scenario will ever become crucial to the survival of the human species.

The gene will always be present. By the time you could realisticly test and correct you would already have hundreds of thousands of ova present. "Flipping the switch" would not touch these cells, at least I see no way to do it without risking infertility, so the gene itself would survive. Indeed it would be excrutiatingly difficult to rewrite all the other cells in the body so most like such a switch flip would be a targeted intervention in the brain/endocrine system and leave the gene active elsewhere should it have a secondary function.

From a biological point of view the only danger is if some malady comes along and only the homosexual phenotypes survive. In any other case the homosexual genotype will always exist and the phenotype can be revived in a generation. Should that come to pass by act of advanced aliens or other dues ex machina, methinks we are already screwed enough for it not to matter.

[Molyneux]

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?

Indeed--what about that?

I'd like to compare this with the practice of circumcision, if I might. It seems to be a fairly similar situation - a permanent change imposed on a child below the age of "personhood", as recognized by our society, done at the dictates of the parents. Homosexuality is a more central change in the person, but the core of the issue seems the same to me.

Do parents have the right to make permanent, irreversible decisions for their child when it is not a matter of danger to the offspring, but instead a matter of religion/social mores/convenience?

We're not talking about an aberration, like, say, a tail; it's a question of parents making the choice to remove a natural, non-pathological facet of the child.

I don't think that they have that right.

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.

Well, there you go. If you can provide no rational reason to object, then your misgivings are irrational.

Or maybe I just was not able to articulate the reasons behind my misgivings at that point ^_^

Maybe I'm just a pussy, but something about "flipping the gay switch off" just sits very wrong with me. I have no problem with fixing genetic defects that can cause hereditary disease, and other issues which could cause problems, but I don't see how being homosexual is essentially harmful.

You're missing the point. If there is no rational reason for objecting abortion simply because the parent(s) do not want to have a child (perhaps barring truly exceptional circumstance), then it follows rather tautologously that there is no rational reason for protesting abortion for by any reason which caused them not to want it, be it homosexuality, blue eyes, skin color, likelyhood of being too tall or short, having blonde hair--whatever. Whether or not the trait the parent(s) find unlikable is harmful, neutral, or even beneficial is irrelevant.

True; however, I tend to believe that a parent who has consentually conceived a child has a responsibility to that child to carry it to term if it does not involve undue danger; they have a similar responsibility to raise the child if they are capable of doing so, but at least they can give the child up for adoption if they want to shirk that duty.

[Kuroneko]

I'd like to compare this with the practice of circumcision, if I might. It seems to be a fairly similar situation - a permanent change imposed on a child below the age of "personhood", as recognized by our society, done at the dictates of the parents.

Frankly, that is one of the most stunning statements I've ever had to read in recent memory. Unless one denies that children have certain rights, one would have to admit that they are persons as far as ethical considerations, and unless one denies that children are human beings perceptible through the senses, they are natural persons as far as the law is concerned as well. The former would be completely incoherent, since then it would follow that parents do indeed have the right to do this to their children (something you seem to deny), while the latter option is just plain ignorant. I am at a loss at what you could possibly mean here, and find the whole analogy impenetrable to comprehension.

Do parents have the right to make permanent, irreversible decisions for their child when it is not a matter of danger to the offspring, but instead a matter of religion/social mores/convenience?

I would hold that the question is overly broad, as it obviously depends on the particular kind of social construction in question--in fact, parents have an obligation, not just a right, to make (possibly) permanent and irreversible decisions for their child when it is a matter of making sure that their offspring becomes an ethical member of the society in question, for example. But let's not go into that yet, as first I have to ask why your query is even relevant--before it becomes so, it must be established that the fetus is a child, i.e., a rights-bearing individual human being that just happens to be young. Let's not beg the question by putting a label on it that just happens to presuppose what must be proven.

Or maybe I just was not able to articulate the reasons behind my misgivings at that point ^_^

If this is indeed the case, I certainly hope you will be able to locate the most rational of reasons--that would be most enlightening.

True; however, I tend to believe that a parent who has consentually conceived a child has a responsibility to that child to carry it to term if it does not involve undue danger; they have a similar responsibility to raise the child if they are capable of doing so, but at least they can give the child up for adoption if they want to shirk that duty.

Excellent. Now, please explain why that is the case.