Ultrasound abortion bill not having intended effects

[Resinence]

Obviously, the solution is to let gay parents find a way to insert the gene to make up for the losses. I wonder what would happen to bisexuals? Heck, any nonstandard mental profile. On the bright side sociopaths would probably be the first thing people try to purge from the gene pool.

Not to derail the thread, but I find that last sentence to be slightly disturbing, it is a very steep slippery slope to start deciding we are going to remove genes because they cause different mental patterns. 4% of the population are "sociopaths", and they are overrepresented in the upper positions of corporations. These people are perfectly capable of functioning in normal society, it's not an on-off TED BUNDY switch, some people are more so than others. Should we start removing the gene for aspergers too? Their mode of thought is less emotional than other people too, and they too can function perfectly fine in normal society. I'd stretch to say that many would refuse a "treatment" if it was discovered, should it then be forced on them because "they don't know better"? 1984 here we come, fuck yeah!

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I worked with severe Asperger's kids when I worked for the school district, and it can be a terribly debilitating affliction that can condemn kids to a life of alienation and torment. Why wouldn't you spare your child from it if you could? Similarly, I can't think of too many people who would join your clamor in favor of the sociopath gene because without it we might not have enough asshole CEO's destroying their companies and the economy to line their own pockets (the horror!).

[Alphawolf55]

But what about the kids with aspergers who bring something new to the world?

[ShadowDragon8685]

Not to derail the thread, but I find that last sentence to be slightly disturbing, it is a very steep slippery slope to start deciding we are going to remove genes because they cause different mental patterns. 4% of the population are "sociopaths", and they are overrepresented in the upper positions of corporations. These people are perfectly capable of functioning in normal society, it's not an on-off TED BUNDY switch, some people are more so than others. Should we start removing the gene for aspergers too? Their mode of thought is less emotional than other people too, and they too can function perfectly fine in normal society. I'd stretch to say that many would refuse a "treatment" if it was discovered, should it then be forced on them because "they don't know better"? 1984 here we come, fuck yeah!

Nobody is advocating forcing a psychoalteration treatment on CEOs (though the prospect of standing a lot of them against a wall has, if anything, only gotten more popular in the last decade,) but I'm not sure I'd argue against legislatively selecting against certain genes that produce a negative effect; mental diseases and disorders, sociopathy and the like.

The trick is that you'd have to put in very heavy safeguards against allowing people to select against traits for personal reasons, like selecting against the "gay" gene if it's found that homosexuality has a genetic trigger and what-not. You'd also have to make it outright illegal to discriminate in any way, shape, or form, upon genetic grounds.

[Temujin]

If am not mistaken, are we really certain that just one gene is 100% responsible for all the different conditions were talking about? And even if that is the case, aspects of the gene should theoretically be able to be modified, keeping the good and eliminating the bad; though granted were currently far away from that capability and it would require a lot of testing to perfect.

[Resinence]

Yes the CEO mention was probably a bad idea considering the current social climate, the point I was trying to make is that some of these disorders confer benefits as well as the horror cases in certain fields of study or business. So who gets to decide whether removing them is worth the tradeoff?

Ultimately it should be up to the parents to decide, not the voters, whether their child should be gay/bi and risk getting beaten up or discriminated against or live the "horror" of a personality "disorder". Thats all I meant. I just found the fact that he instantly jumped to hey we should wipe out this group of people who don't think like I do out as soon as the technology to do so in a politically acceptable fashion a little... hypocritical in a thread containing people mocking the very same likely behaviour in conservatives towards aborting gay children.

And even if that is the case, aspects of the gene should theoretically be able to be modified, keeping the good and eliminating the bad; though granted were currently far away from that capability and it would require a lot of testing to perfect.

That would be the best case scenario though I would hazard a guess there would still be plenty of people against it for the simply fact that they are still not neurotypical. Just like there would right away be a movement to cleanse gay people in a politically correct fashion by "fixing" them before they are born. Every group just wishes the other groups would just stop being so difficult and act like them.

[Formless]

Yes the CEO mention was probably a bad idea considering the current social climate, the point I was trying to make is that some of these disorders confer benefits as well as the horror cases in certain fields of study or business. So who gets to decide whether removing them is worth the tradeoff?

Ultimately it should be up to the parents to decide, not the voters, whether their child should be gay/bi and risk getting beaten up or discriminated against or live the "horror" of a personality "disorder". Thats all I meant. I just found the fact that he instantly jumped to hey we should wipe out this group of people who don't think like I do out as soon as the technology to do so in a politically acceptable fashion a little... hypocritical in a thread containing people mocking the very same likely behaviour in conservatives towards aborting gay children.

Are you high? Do you realize how god awful stupid your suggestion is? Do you realize that most personality disorders (FYI, sociopathy is just one such disorder, and its one of the hardest classes of mental illness to treat) confer NO obvious benefit, and often make life miserable for both the person suffering from it and those around them? Are you saying that just because some morons might get it in their head that hey, if I have a sociopath for a son maybe he'll end up a businessman and not a two bit criminal (but I repeat myself) that we should allow people to take that risk should we ever identify a genetic factor for sociopathy? (like personality is that simple )I mean, look at a list of personality disorders some time. Do any of them look the least bit advantageous to you?

This is as idiotic as the wankers who think depression is a positive thing rather than, you know, fucking depression.

Edit: oh, and nice job conflating homosexuality with mental illness. Idiot.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

There are people who think depression is a positive thing? It took me 13 years to overcome that horrible disease and I'm convinced my ex-girlfriend's depression is responsible for ruining the best thing that ever happened to me. I suppose you could say it's produced a lot of good music and art, but only at the cost of abject misery for so many people.

[Tanasinn]

Though personality disorders (and psychological disorders in general) can be extremely debilitating, Resinence actually touches on a legitimate point. Psychological disorders can be controversial and of questionable legitimacy, both inside and outside the field. Politics and social attitudes color what's seen as disordered behavior, after all. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was seen as a psychological aberration to be addressed.

On a personal note, I don't particularly trust a government bought and paid for by corporations and at the beck and call of Jesus freaks to decide what a normal personality is.

[Starglider]

Should we start removing the gene for aspergers too?

Yes. You can mess about with alternate brain configurations when we have the technology to do it safely. In the near term, far better to remove what is for most sufferers a crippling and unwanted mental condition.

1984 here we come, fuck yeah!

Don't be idiotic. Eugenics didn't feature in 1984 at all. Specifically don't make allusions to books you haven't even read. The correct classic literature reference is Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'.

[Resinence]

Edit: oh, and nice job conflating homosexuality with mental illness. Idiot.

Sigh, lets try again.

1) Homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder by mental health professionals

2) It could easily be said it "confers no benefits" but only makes life harder

3) Any person suspected of being one risked being possible institutionalised or at the very least discriminated against.

4) This only changed when the social climate was change to be more favourable.

4) 1 is currently true for many different personalities, as well as 2.

5) The social climate towards people with different mental patterns currently fits 3, simply being diagnosed with a PD may be grounds for being institutionalised, they have no choice but to hide.

C) Mental health professionals are too heavily influenced by prevailing social attitudes and the field not rational enough to be trusted to decide what traits or personalities should be considered advantages. ESPECIALLY when the way to filter them out is to abort them.

I have not said that I consider depression, which you are not born with like many personality disorders, advantageous, nice straw man.

Yes. You can mess about with alternate brain configurations when we have the technology to do it safely. In the near term, far better to remove what is for most sufferers a crippling and unwanted mental condition.

I suppose I can agree with that, however I still find the idea of deciding its ok to abort foetuses because they won't be normal vaguely repulsive.

Yes it was brave new world, I have actually read both but it has been a while, need to stop getting my dystopia's mixed up.

[Resinence]

Ghetto edit: "because they won't have a typical personality vaguely repulsive."

[Einzige]

The instant that a gay gene is identified, the conservatives will out themselves as the collectivistic, communistic doucheturds they actually are. They will deny the individuality of the child to support the herd mentality of the group. As in all things they cannot live without the good will of the race or the nation.

[The Yosemite Bear]

now where's the internet asshole/tough guy gene?

[Ariphaos]

Not to derail the thread, but I find that last sentence to be slightly disturbing, it is a very steep slippery slope to start deciding we are going to remove genes because they cause different mental patterns. 4% of the population are "sociopaths", and they are overrepresented in the upper positions of corporations. These people are perfectly capable of functioning in normal society, it's not an on-off TED BUNDY switch, some people are more so than others. Should we start removing the gene for aspergers too? Their mode of thought is less emotional than other people too, and they too can function perfectly fine in normal society. I'd stretch to say that many would refuse a "treatment" if it was discovered, should it then be forced on them because "they don't know better"? 1984 here we come, fuck yeah!

4%? That's the highest statistic I've seen anyone claim for sociopathy. Where is your source on that?

[Temujin]

I've seen figures stating 3% in males and 1% in females. Perhaps he added the two together?

I do recall hearing some less conservative figures, but I can't recall exactly what they were or where the source was from.

[Channel72]

Discovering a "gay gene" is not likely to simplify the situation. Firstly, we need to spell out exactly why the discovery of such a gene would be harmful to the socially conservative mentality. Obviously, the reasoning here is that if homosexuality is a definitively genetic trait, all of the conservative blatherings about "life-style choices" will be challenged with the full force of science.


Unfortunately, the situation is likely to be somewhat more complicated. Firstly, conservatives can always fall back on the "fallen world" argument. This is the same sort of thing they use to explain away questions about why their loving Creator likes to create babies with Down syndrome or what have you. Secondly, the reality of the situation is probably that homosexuality is not entirely determined by genetics. Obviously, human sexuality is more of a spectrum than a straight/gay binary condition. Some men are bi-sexual, some are strictly homosexual or heterosexual; others fall somewhere in between. Many heterosexual men have gay fantasies from time to time, and homosexual men may become aroused by certain aspects of femininity. The extent to which any particular human being acts on his genetic predispositions towards whatever sexual orientation likely will have much to do with his life experiences.


So even if a "gay gene" is discovered, it will probably be more indicative of the probability that a man will exhibit homosexual tendencies, rather than a definite indicator of homosexuality. If that's the case, the conservatives are likely to simply argue that such a gene is no different than a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. Rather than some natural/divine endorsement of the sin, the gene is merely a reflection of what sort of personal weakness the individual is likely to have.

[Samuel]

2) It could easily be said it "confers no benefits" but only makes life harder

Only due to social repression. By contrast things like aspergers make it physically harder to function in any society.

I suppose I can agree with that, however I still find the idea of deciding its ok to abort foetuses because they won't be normal vaguely repulsive.

Any specific reason why it is wrong?

On a personal note, I don't particularly trust a government bought and paid for by corporations and at the beck and call of Jesus freaks to decide what a normal personality is.

I doubt the government will be mandating abortions any time soon.

[Zed]

2) It could easily be said it "confers no benefits" but only makes life harder

Only due to social repression. By contrast things like aspergers make it physically harder to function in any society.

But it might greatly contribute to said society.

Simon Baron-Cohen of the University of Cambridge wrote an article on this, with the following abstract and summary:

This article considers whether Asperger Syndrome (AS) should necessarily be viewed as a disability or from a different perspective, as a ‘difference’. It concludes that the term ‘difference’ in relation to AS is a more neutral, value-free, and fairer description, and that the term ‘disability’ better applies to the lower functioning cases of autism. But it recognizes that the term ‘disability’ may need to be retained for AS as long as the legal framework only provides financial and other support for individuals with a disability. A model is summarized which attempts to define in what way individuals with AS are ‘different’: the empathising-systemising model.

In a world where individuals are all expected to be social, people with AS are seen as disabled. The implication is that if environmental expectations change, or in a different environment, they may not necessarily be seen as disabled. As we have known in relation to other conditions, concepts of disability and handicap are relative to particular environments, both cultural and biological (Clark, 1999; Richters & Cicchetti, 1993; Spitzer, 1999; Wakefield, 1997). It may be time to extend this way of thinking to the field of AS. Equally, people with AS might not necessarily be disabled in an environment in which an exact mind, attracted to detecting small details, is an advantage. In the social world there is no great benefit to such a precise eye for detail, but in the world of maths, computing, cataloguing, music, linguistics, craft, engineering or science, such an eye for detail can lead to success rather than disability. In the world of business, for example, a mathematical bent for estimating risk and profit, together with a relative lack of concern for the emotional states of one’s employees or rivals, can mean unbounded opportunities.

The two reasons for retaining the term disability in relation to AS may be (1) to ensure
access to provision; it may be the legal system that needs revision, so that a child whose autistic ‘difference’ leads them to have special needs, will still receive special support. (2) And to recognize that reduced empathy can create considerable emotional difficulties for those attempting to have a relationship with someone with AS. But to focus
exclusively on the disability aspect of AS is to focus only on half of the model outlined. Family support is clearly needed for those in relationships with those with AS, but the non-disabled aspect of AS (intact or even superior systemising) also needs to be recognized.

http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/pa ... bility.pdf

[Alphawolf55]

I might be ridiculously wrong, but wasn't Hans Asperger once tasked with finding out if kids with it were fit for society during Nazi Austria and he found that they filled a needed niche in society?

[Samuel]

But it might greatly contribute to said society.

The problem is it is perfectly possible to have those skills without being remotely autistic.

Also:

In the world of business, for example, a mathematical bent for estimating risk and profit, together with a relative lack of concern for the emotional states of one’s employees or rivals, can mean unbounded opportunities.

I almost positive that people with aspergers don't like risk, change and uncertainity. Although the idea they'd be great at business is funny because a large amount of business involves social networking which they aren't good at. Leaving aside the whole "they will be good because they don't care about their workers".

[Simon_Jester]

I might be ridiculously wrong, but wasn't Hans Asperger once tasked with finding out if kids with it were fit for society during Nazi Austria and he found that they filled a needed niche in society?

Which proves nothing, really, except that Hans Asperger didn't want all the kids he'd been studying to get killed as "useless."

[Ariphaos]

I almost positive that people with aspergers don't like risk, change and uncertainity. Although the idea they'd be great at business is funny because a large amount of business involves social networking which they aren't good at. Leaving aside the whole "they will be good because they don't care about their workers".

My personal experience (take with salt) is that sociopaths tend to build their own personal power by disrupting that of those around them. They're successful relative to those they've duped (for a short while anyway), but are overall worse off because of the opportunities they have destroyed in the mean time. A larger percentage of a smaller pie.

[Starglider]

Simon Baron-Cohen of the University of Cambridge wrote an article on this, with the following abstract and summary:

What a pathetic load of mealy-mouthed doublespeak. Either it's a disability that needs support and treatment or it's a harmless difference. Trying to simultaneously force the state to provide special benefits for this subgroup, while simultaneously claiming that it is in no way a hinderance or malfunction, is hypocritical entitlement idiocy.

Of course in reality we should consider the cost/benefit trade-off of this condition (and tolerating factors that tend to cause it), but I have zero faith in the ability of that bunch of politically correct whiners to appreciate a rational analysis, so I would not even bother trying to engage them in such a discussion.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If am not mistaken, are we really certain that just one gene is 100% responsible for all the different conditions were talking about? And even if that is the case, aspects of the gene should theoretically be able to be modified, keeping the good and eliminating the bad; though granted were currently far away from that capability and it would require a lot of testing to perfect.

Homosexuality is a complex genetic and developmental trait. Multiple genes probably exist that serve other functions but in particular combinations produce homosexuality. That is why a "gay" gene is so hard to pin down. A single "gay" gene actually cannot evolve. However if you have a group of genes that control for something like testosterone receptor density in the brain of a developing fetus, some of which are always on and others that are turned on by a regulatory cascade during female-->male brain differentiation(this particular scenario is something I am tossing out there, the work has not been done) combined with other genes that are non-additive in their interactions, meiotic drive, and the fraternal birth order effect, you can explain the entire spectrum. To simplify it, lets only consider the testosterone receptors.

Six genes, A, B, C, D, E. Each one has two alleles, A1 is +1, A2 is 0, same for the rest. Lets say that the A and B and C loci are always up regulated, D and E get turned on when you have a Y chromosome. Closer you are to 0, the fewer testosterone receptors and the more likely male homosexuality is, the converse is true with higher numbers and lesbians. In this scenario most people are heterozygotes at all loci. Women have 3, men have 5, though numbers as low as zero are possible for everyone, highs of 6 for women and 10 for men also possible. A male with 0 would end up basically transsexual.

This is of course ignoring the fraternal birth order effect, non-additive genes (like the one that has been detected on the X chromosome), and a bunch of other stuff, and the above is of course a theoretical exercise because the work has not been done yet.