What do you mean, what would we do with them? Keep working to let them live out their lives in the same manner that everyone deserves to. This isn’t an either/or thing. Wishing to shield your child from the possible troubles you listed up thread isn’t the same as saying we should just do away with gays altogether.
That’s why I was saying it would need to be kept in the normal range of size. No making your kid an outlier. If there’s no reason to believe that the child will have non-functioning genitals though, then there’s no reason to bother changing it.
Race has been brought up a few times. Imagine you’re black in the early stages of the Civil Rights movement. You have a young child. Someone asks your family to try to integrate the neighboring town. Send your child to a school where he will almost certainly be called racial slurs, and could possibly face physical harm, too. Maybe he’ll just be beat up, but you know about the various bombings and lynchings. Someone has to take one for the team, so why not let it be your kid? You, personally, could send money and march and take part in sit ins etc., but they need children to take part. He might suffer, but things could be better for future kids if he does. Will you do it?
Now, this is admittedly a very bleak picture, and the analogy isn’t perfect, but the reason for that was to compare it with the worst case scenario for gays that was posted by Guin.
Einstein, Mozart and Tesla all were people without serious disability. DaVinci, Galileo… do we here of any of these well respected as people born with serious debilitating defects? Now, I want to stress I think our more historical inclined savant / genetically impaired individual would most likely not survive as long (perhaps before modern medicine) so this might have a certain amount of inherent self selection. Do you know of any studies that better link things like Wild Eye Nutterness or Homicidal Mania with intelligence and throughput?
When I say “Nasty Genetic Drift” I imagine our truly unadaptive problems like Huntington’s Disease (which I have), Child Onset Diabetes (Type 1? I get them confused sometimes), MS or any other malady that removes ones ability to function. Nasty in the term of providing no good to the possessor of such faulty genes. Since we are in hypothetical land currently, and as the OP stressed, this would be processes that would be done with the full knowledge of the side effects. Lets see where research takes us in the future before we even know if this would be fully possible.
What this thread is really about is your last line Q.E.D.. If we knew a descriptor for a person was non genetically expressed (as in not determined by the parents) but was expressed during gestation should we eliminate traits that affect someone’s social vs. physical condition. I would posit that only things like ALS (which has both environmental and developmental characteristics) should be selected for. But as with most people who have posted in this thread, I really would leave the choice up to the parents of the baby. (even if they were gay parents, straight parents, religious nut parents)
Vox Imperatoris’s point was a flight of fancy. A world without feet would not recognize shoes, have no conception of shoes and could not possess a position on their feeling of shoes. Its an argument from the lack of knowledge. If all the Jews really did disappear, become devoted IPU devotees, etc, magically then yes, antisemitism would be impossible as the defining characteristic, Jews, would not exist.
Maybe you could go burn all the remaining Torah’s, and that could be antisemetic?
Condemning him? This is truly bizarre. What on earth makes you assume that procreation would be of paramount importance to your son? That’s an awfully big assumption, considering you’re willing to mess with a significant aspect of his personality. Poor kid isn’t even born yet. How do you know what he wants? OK, so adoption or finding a surrogate is stressful. I have news for you. Life is stressful. Raising kids is stressful, not to mention expensive. Sorry, but you can’t redesign someone to eliminate the stress of life.
What a bunch of narrow minded bullshit. Just because you view something as detrimental, does not make it so. Did it ever occur to you that being gay might be rewarding, not only for the gay individuals but also for families and communities? Gay people have a tough time because we live in a society that is narrow minded. Despite those social pressures (which includes the pressure to have children, by the way) it can be deeply fulfilling to live life as a gay person. It can be deeply fulfilling to experience relationships and ways of interacting with the world by sharing it with gay people. I know my life is richer because of my circle of gay friends and the refreshing ways they look at things.
Yes, life is unconventional when you are gay. I’m a lesbian. Personally, I’m not just making do with my unfortunate lot in life. On the contrary. My life is much richer and more vibrant after coming out as a lesbian than it was before. Life is not just about having the perfect family of two heterosexual parents, two kids, and a pet. Life is not just about coasting along in the mainstream of society. Variety makes life interesting.
But I believe that’s what the nature of this thread is- the premise is basically if it were possible, would you do it. And that falls pretty much on the view of what’s considered detrimental to some and what’s not to others.
There’s no easy solution, and toes WILL be stepped on. That’s why I said we’re not ready for this, because just as stated earlier- sure removing traits like Deafness would SEEM like a good idea, but there are Deaf Parents that prefer to hope to have deaf children so that they can relate and integrate into deaf society- its a case of perspective again. Just because Group A views a trait as a detriment, Group B might say it’s not true at all, and actually that trait enriches our lives and makes it better.
But either you allow both to have free will and individual choice in the matter, or you don’t really give this option yet because you don’t know the long run consequences of the actions. Unless you want to go Vox’s route and just magically hope that all the people who would disagree with the idea magically disappear, and then there’s no one left in a position of power to complain when you get rid of the trait. Plain and simple.
Me neither, and I’m a little surprised by the statements of fact being made (by straight people) that being gay is by definition harder than being straight. How would you know? If you don’t like the idea of homosexuality and don’t want your children to be gay because of that then just say that. Stop pretending that you’re doing this for the happiness of your child when it is in fact for your sake, not theirs.
Data node: whilst I was at secondary school one person killed herself. She was straight. I was gay, I didn’t kill myself, nor did all the other gay people in my school.
It might be easy to put everyone into narrow little boxes, and assume everyone who feels differently than you about this is just prejudiced, but a lot of times you’ll be wrong. It’s just plain common sense that on average, you’ll have less of a chance of suffering from prejudice if you’re part of the majority. How would you know that things wouldn’t be easier for straights? If someone said they thought blacks, on average, were more likely to get called a racial slur than whites, would you automatically disagree? Or refuse to give an opinion because you’re not black? From my American perspective, a straight adult can get married in every single state. Same sex marriages are allowed in two states. I don’t know the numbers off hand, but there were at least a couple of states that banned adoption by gays. Legally, the playing field isn’t level, and it’s not level socially in many areas either.
Will everyone have problems, and the same amount of problems? Of course not, but how do you know which one your child will be? I did a very quick internet search* that says 30% of teens who die from suicide are homosexual. You and your friend not fitting statistics isn’t proof of anything.
The teen I’m raising is bisexual. If you were correct, I would have told her not to get into a relationship with girls. That hasn’t happened though, and never would, because there’s nothing wrong with ss relationships. She’s a human being with her own thoughts and feelings and should be free to be with whom she wants, as long as it’s legal.
*So, that number may not be correct, but the last thing I want to do right now is delve deeper into things about kids killing themselves.
Would you mind not putting words in my mouth? I am in no way inferring that anyone who answered “yes” to the question in the OP is a homophobe (closeted or not). My point is that life doesn’t have to be difficult for gay people, and attempting to breed us out of the population isn’t the solution. I think you’ll find a lot of those suicides of gay teens are due to fear of coming out or suffering badly at the hands of their friends and families when they do (I don’t have any stats to back that up, but based on what I know of all the other gay people I’ve ever met I’d say that’s most likely to be the cause). Also your view of the majority is clearly heavily skewed to the US - newsflash, white people aren’t in the majority in the world, so if anything we should be making everyone either black or chinese to make them the majority.
I do understand where you’re coming from (unlike Vox and his bizarre Jewish rapture scenario), I just don’t agree that what you’re proposing is the best way to make the situation better. I also resent being told that I’m effectively a broken human who would be a lot happier if he didn’t have his detrimental genetic heritage- emotive reaction certainly, but that’s what you get for suggesting to someone that in your view they’re a mistake of nature.
Are there non-homophobes who don’t like the idea of homosexuality? Because it seems to me, that not liking the idea of homosexuality and being a homophobe go hand in hand.
Well, since my hypothetical child would be an American, of course my view is skewed toward the U.S. It’s also why I said “from an American perspective.” We- well I - am not talking about being in the “world” majority here. We’re all part of the world, but usually, the country, state, and the town we’re in are going to shape the little things in our lives to a larger extent than the world at large will. The American blacks who got treated badly in years past probably didn’t take much comfort in knowing there were more black people on another continent.
Has anyone said it would be the best way, besides CutterJohn? I also never told anyone they were a broken, or a mistake of nature, so I’m going to assume that’s not directed at me, unless someone pulls up some quotes of mine.
But, you haven’t answered my question: who draws the line between what’s acceptable to control for and what’s not? Bear in mind, we can’t allow people to simply choose whatever they want, for obvious reasons. It has to be limited and codified by law. So, who decides what the line is? And what is the line?
I like and enjoy the company of gays, but even I, as a straight male, would consider the procedure
I think a lot has been made of the slipperly slope factor, but one doesnt have to slide completely down the hill to make a point. I wouldnt consider a procedure to make the kid religious, or give him some other characteristic of the majority because I dont see those things to be as big of an impediment as being gay
So yes, I’d consider it simply because it may make the kid’s life easier
I hope you didn’t find my comments on the way gays suffer from society then offensive. I was trying to point out to the OP that there are differences between being bullied for looks and being persecuted for being gay. And that we’d definitely be a hell of a lot better off fighting the stigma of being gay rather than simply trying to mess around with genetics. And that I find it disengenious for people to claim they’re doing it “to make the child’s life easier.” Suppose said child found out? Like I said, “Would Mom and Dad not love me if I were gay/black/ugly?”
I think a lot of people here are doing it for themselves-the OP originally said he wanted to pass on his genes-then he said he wanted to make his child’s life easier. So forgive me for being skeptical if I feel that people are claiming to do it for “the children.”
I think it would be a bizarre form of sexual abuse to do anything to your child which would ensure your preferences about their adult sexuality were enforced on them against their will.
Sorry, you’re right, I was mistakenly attributing words by CutterJohn to you. Apologies for that.
I didn’t find it offensive at all for anyone to say that gays suffer because of society’s views - because that is in fact the case. I was just a little perturbed by (what I think are) straight people in this thread saying words to the effect of “gays are less happy in life than straights - fact” which I don’t agree is necessarily true.
My point was that for everything I’ve experienced in my life that was unpleasant because I was gay (and that includes a particularly hellish time at school which I just about survived) I don’t think of myself as unfortunate or worse off that straight people. Of course I understand the desire to not have one’s children suffering if it can be avoided, but tampering with people’s genes to make them “the majority” (whatever that is supposed to be) so they won’t be mistreated by ignorant people is the tail wagging the dog. If society chilled the fuck out with regard to homosexuality (and indeed other things) it wouldn’t be a problem. I think you and I agree that the solution is for people to be more accepting, not to breed out everyone who is in any way different.
Somehow, I’ve gotten sucked into all this and found myself semi advocating for something I said I didn’t like the idea of and would only consider, but I want to make it completely clear that I think education of society is what we should be doing regardless of whether we get to TFD’s fantasy world. If we ever got to the point where something like this was available, society would most likely have made so many social strides that concern for the child’s future well-being wouldn’t come into play. Unless of course you are one of those people who believe that homosexuality is a problem in and of itself. I also want to make it clear that I don’t believe each individual gay person is worse off than each individual straight person. I’m talking populations here, and no offense is intended.
I think your child would know if you were a homophobe by the the actions they saw you taking in life. Yea, I still think not liking the idea of homosexuality is homophobia. Depending on how deep that feeling runs, it can be a milder form, but it would be homophobia nonetheless. The same way not wanting Jews in your gated community isn’t on par with thinking concentration camps are the way to go, but it’s still not okay, in my view.
Here I go with speaking about this as if I’m more comfortable with it than I would be again, but I think it’s disingenuous to keep setting this up as an either you educate **or **you use the product type thing.
Again, I post this:
I think it’s human nature to not want your child to possibly go through pain, even for the sake of other people’s kids. At least one person has said flat out that being gay is a defect, but I’m not quite willing to tell anyone else that they’re not being straightforward by the current state of society is swaying their decision.
Agreed that that is human nature. But consider what you’d be asking your child to do…actually, not even asking, but basically forcing. You’re forcing this child who isn’t even born yet to be someone other than the person they would be naturally, all in the name of making things easier for him/her. You’re basically exchanging the child you would have had for a different child, before you even know who the former really is.
Frankly, if I, as I am now, were to find some sort of portal to an alternate universe, where my mother’s doctor discovered I was going to be gay and suggested that she have the procedure we’re talking about here, and I met my straight alternate in his nice house with his nice family…I think I’d be creeped out. There is SO MUCH of my personality that comes from having lived with my sexual orientation that would be completely lost from a straight me, that just the thought of having grown up without that, even with the kind of things I went through because of being gay, and not having that now, horrifies me. I wouldn’t be me, in any but the purely physical aspects.
This. A million times this.
There comes a point in our ability to manipulate our own genetics and change on a fundamental level who other people will be when they are born that we are all better off not going down that road at all.
Who decides what’s valid and what isn’t? Who decides what’s a disability and what isn’t? Who decides what’s valuable or preferred and what isn’t? I don’t think there’s a good answer to those questions that fits even a narrow range of applications of this sort of ability.
I refuse to entertain the idea of genetic or other in situ (is that the right term?) manipulation of human fetuses because despite the fact that I can certainly see situations in which I might want that, I have no good answers to the questions above.
I absolutely see where you’re coming from, Jayjay, but there’s the people like you, then there’s all the people living “on the down low” and the people signing up for those “brainwash the gay out of me” camps. Although maybe (almost definitely?) that kind of thing stems more from the family environment than society at large.
This though: “You’re basically exchanging the child you would have had for a different child, before you even know who the former really is.” is the best point yet, in my opinion, and really resonates more than not doing it for the sake of the world, etc. Also, I can only compare my own experience being a minority in the U.S and I don’t think the parallel world thing would faze me either way, since I although I have no way of knowing for sure, I don’t think it’s had a negative or positive influence on my life. But, I’m not gay, and while you can’t speak for all gay people, again I find that quoted argument very compelling and have moved from “would give it thought” to “no.”
Thank you for the article Q.E.D., but it still points to a process of multiple gene links and environmental factors (Paragraph 12 in the article) linked to the Schizophrenic Expression of DARRP-32, which is the gene they are then linking to greater intelligence. We are already in Hypothetical Land with the original OP. Maybe one of the environmental factors is our the hormonal factors for our developing baby? If given the opportunity I would select for my Kerouac without the Schizophrenia but would put no other effort into its sex or sexual orientation. I would consider making the child bisexual if it was thrown in for the cost of the removal of the Schizophrenia. What can I say I’m thrifty. I think our exploration of the human genome will give us more answers, we are still learning about the many factors of predisposition.
We can allow people to choose whatever they want. It is not always the best idea. though. You are asking me to decide who draws the line and both state what the line is. As I said in my earlier post, I would leave the choice up to the parents of the baby, with them drawing the line as needed. The law could state “Genetically responsible parties must agree to any pre-conceived (Pre-natal, post-conception?) modification” to cover all gay/straight/alien relationships but IANAL and won’t be codifying.
Especially in this day, that’s a family thing. Society is really loosening up about homosexuality. To most kids today, it’s no longer a big deal. And again, for those for whom it is, it’s a family thing. Frankly, if we were really going to try to do something to remove societally-induced pain from our gay children, our better bet would be to remove children from families in which any homophobic or racist or sexist or xenophobic attitudes have been expressed. But we don’t do that because it violates fundamental rights of parenthood that our society believes in.
I’m hesitant to say that the harm is the same in the gay fetus situation, because I’m leery about ascribing anything approaching civil rights to a potential human. But just as far as the situation prevents the future child from being who they are, I find the hypothetical in the OP to be chilling. I imagine it’s kind of like being a Jew listening to the Wanssee Conference…not identical in intent (I don’t really think ANYONE advocating in this thread is doing so in order to eliminate homosexuals or because of hatred of homosexuals), but identical in effect…it’s like listening to someone plot the extinction of your people.
I think our exploration of the human genome will give us more answers, we are still learning about the many factors of predisposition.