I would have the shot administered under the understanding that it has zero side affects.
Why?
It is irrelevant to me or the future child, at this point, what sexual orientation they are, so I am not changing anything. I am simply ensuring an outcome. They will, barring complications later on, lead a full and rewarding life regardless. Such being the case, my primary consideration is that the child has every possible advantage, of which heteros have one I consider to be of immense importance: They can procreate with their chosen mate. Secondary considerations, of less importance, are the fact that being gay greatly limits your choices of partners, and the obvious fact that there are bigots out there.
I admit that last I am hesitant about… I do not like the idea of placating the bigots, but I am also not keen on the idea of my kid taking one for the team for diversities sake. Decisions must be based off of reality, not what we wish reality would be.
I don’t know about “defect,” but in a couple of respects, as pointed out by other folks in this thread, it seems it could be considered a condition having significant drawbacks. Do you disagree?
This just got me thinking of something. Let’s say I don’t accept the shot, and my child is gay. When my child is confronted with one of the downsides of being gay, ostracized, bullied, attacked, etc. how is he going to feel about being subject to this as a direct result of my choice?
I’m not the one on the firing line, I’m not the one dealing with the problems, he is, and I chose to let him deal with it because of a “greater” purpose.
As I’ve said, the drawbacks have nothing to do with my child. The problem is the bigots who can’t accept gay people. They’re the ones who are wrong, so fix them.
You don’t fix homophobia by eliminating gay people. You fix homophobia by eliminating homophobia. You don’t fix racism by eliminating black people. You fix racism by eliminating racism. You don’t fix anti-semitism by eliminating Jews. You fix anti-semitisim by eliminating anti-semitism.
In fact, I’d be tempted by a shot I could give me child that would guarantee they wouldn’t grow up to be a bigot. That’s a clear defect I wouldn’t want my child to have. But in the end, I’d probably pass on the shot and do it the old-fashioned way - I’d raise my child right just like my parents raised me right.
It has advantages, too. More people with same-sex attraction means fewer lives derailed by unintended and unwanted pregnancies. This is a huge deal at the person AND societal level.
In addition to the (personal) interracial couple example, here’s another comparable situation that parents actually have to make a decision on:
Though times are better, Jews in America still are occasionally victims of bigotry. Jewish parents conceivably have the option of raising their child as non-Jewish, and possibly not even telling them they have Jewish ancestry- including even changing their own religious and cultural practices (it also might require things like changing their last name, or moving to a different town). This might conceivably reduce the chance their child is victimized by anti-semitic bigots- and just as in the OP’s example, the child never needs to know that his/her identity was “changed”.
If putting the child’s interests first requires the “straight” shot (and I don’t think this has been established), then doesn’t putting the child’s interests first require Jewish parents to stop being Jewish, and not tell the child (or anyone else) about the family’s Jewishness?
The argument could be made that this harms the child because he doesn’t get to know extended family, family lore, etc., so I’ll assume for my example that it’s a pregnant Jewish couple that immigrates to the USA and has no living close relatives.
I’d say that if the child is bullied it’s because the bullies are bigoted assholes, and the only “fault” lies with them. I understand that teenagers may have difficulty getting along with their parents and may feel that their parents’ choices are at fault, but this is not rational.
Bullies are bullies, and kids can be bullied for nearly any reason, real or imaged. For being short, for being tall and gangly. For being skinny, or for being overweight. For being shy and timid, or for being obnoxiously outgoing. For not dating and being “frigid”, or for dating a lot and being a “slut”. For being an atheist or for being the “wrong” religion.
Nearly any decision a parent makes regarding their child’s upbringing will affect their personality, character, and life in some way, and if you squint your eyes and try to look hard enough you could claim that some decision the parent made “contributed” to the child later being bullied. But the bullying is not a direct result of the parents choice - it’s a direct result of bullies being assholes.
Good god no. And this is living in Japan where gays are still struggling more to be accepted than in the States.
It’s a matter of human rights. This is not a question if you abort a child who has Downs, or preselect a boy over a girl or the reverse. This is taking an individual and possibly changing them to be someone who they aren’t.
I’m not a big sports person. I don’t know what my young children will be. Would I have given my wife a shot, or even discussed it with her, which would turn the child into someone who would be less likely to play sports? Fuck no.
Will my kids turn out to be gay? Who knows? Do I care? Nope. However, if they do, I’ll be damn sure to make sure they know it makes absolutely no difference to me and also we work on how to navigate high school. Just as I will work with them on how to navigate high school as American-Taiwanese children growing up in Japan.
The best thing you can do as a parent for your kids is to accept them for who they are, love them and help encourage life skills and develop a love for learning.
And, if one or both are, I’ll cut my mother out of their lives unless she finds a way to make exceptions to her view of the world.
For those who would not take the shot, and are making an argument along the lines of “that would be letting the bigots win”, what if you lived in a society with vastly more anti-gay prejudice than we in fact have today? Say, 1930s USA, or present-day Saudi Arabia?
Alternatively, what if, as has been hypothesized several times in this thread, the shot becomes widely available, and a large majority of parents start taking it, so that the proportion of gays in the population drops radically. Would that affect your decision one way or the other?
I’m not trying to tell people they should or shouldn’t get the shot, but I do think the responses a lot of people are giving in this thread are awfully facile.
That may be true. But you chose to volunteer in a hypothetical in which the anti-bigot shot doesn’t exist. So, you’re child is going to be born into a world were bigots exist. The question is, given this scenario, as supported by people like Dan Savage, why would you not choose to spare your child all the problems stemming from bigotry? And in the process give him the opportunity to have a child with the women he falls in love with and carry on his, and your, genes?. For your child, it seems like all upside with no downside.
So, would you say that the problems with growing up gay by people like Dan Savage are overwrought. That’s it’s really no bigger deal then a kid being bullied because he has freckles?
In the hypothetical, you’re child would not be changed form gay to straight. The shot would simply ensure that things develop the way they do 90% of the time.
That’s my impression to. I’m not gay, but I hear about all this bigotry and bullying out there. And it seems like it’s real to me. I’ve also seen pop in pin various threads the notion along the lines of, “no one chooses to be gay…no one would choose to be gay”. SO, it appears to me that some people, even with their answers (not the actual shot), want to feel that they’re "standing up to the bigots. Cheesesteak’s post raised an interesting point. Let’s say you chose to not have the shot and your child is gay, both into today’s bigoted world. And let’s say that your child’s sexuality causes him to be bullied and, possibly, even commit suicide due to the torment. Isn’t that then on you? Or imagine that he is so distraught that he contemplates suicide often and then finds out that you could have spared him all that, what do you say to him? Keep your chin up and fight the good fight?
In a situation like Saudi Arabia, or the USA 100 years ago, then yes, I’d urge my wife to take the pill. There’s not a very good chance at a homosexual having a happy, fulfilling life in those societies.
But now? I don’t think so. I believe most gay teen suicides are in families that are not supportive and accepting (though I haven’t seen stats on this- I’m not sure if such stats could even be gathered), so I think a gay kid in a supportive family has pretty much the same chance of living a happy, fulfilled life that a straight kid does. So I don’t think the pill is worth the cost (not the cost to the kid, but the cost to society- even if I put the kid first, which I would, I still have a duty towards society as a whole).
Here’s something I think is a bit of an interesting parallel.
A study came out a little while ago about people with Down’s Syndrome. The interesting part:
Those are kind of incredible numbers. Way above what you get if you poll non-Down’s Syndrome people about their happiness - particularly when it comes to how people feel about their looks.
Now, we all want our children to be happy, right? We want them to feel good about themselves, and about how they appear to other people. If you could take a shot during pregnancy that gave your child a 99% chance at being happy when they grow up, would you take that opportunity? Would it be selfish to not take that shot?
I’d say the test isn’t the wholly subjective one of “happiness” - otherwise, a child with brain damage that makes him or her incapable of unhappiness would be the ideal.
Rather, it is the more complex one of “best interests”, which contains both subjective and objective components. It is in the best interests of a child not to suffer a severe disability, even if it were proved that the disability would make him or her “happy”.
I am seeing a futre product for homeopathic homosexuality prevention preparations (say that 10 times fast).
(commercial announcer)
OVER 90% effective in preventing homosexual children. Straight children or your money BACK!!!
product is not patent medicine, claims have not been tested or reviewed by FDA, for entertainment purposes only, some exeptions apply, not valid for residents of TX.
