The lobby as a whole? Which groups? True, many pro-choice groups concentrate on securing access to contraception in the city, state, or country where they are based, but it’s not as if selective abortion doesn’t enter the equation. Unless you are under the impression that every mother aborting a female fetus is ready and willing and living in an environment where women have access to proper health care.
Actually I do think it’s a clumsy neologism, both in its choice of prefix and suffix, but it’s an established word now, so…
I understand, but the problem is that we don’t have a good root word for “homosexual.”
True, but I think Alessan is still right. This is a thorny issue regardless of your position on the pro-choice/pro-life spectrum because it pushes much closer to the boundaries of eugenics than abortion does in general. You can see this concern coming from a growing number of places, although it’s still probably small. People with disabilities are starting to wonder if they’ll go extinct. In my very limited experience, this comes mostly from the deaf community - we’ve probably argued about the rights of deaf parents in this regard. Personally, I think that’s crazy. But the difference between that situation and this one can be slim.
What if a couple wanted a gay child. If tests showed the female fetus would likely grow up straight, could a lesbian couple have her treated in the womb to be a lesbian. Or abort her and try again?
The mind boggles.
From the cites in that article, this looks to be the more likely scenario at this point in time. The studies were trying to influence characteristics in those sheep that the researchers are trying to link to same-sex mating behaviors.
They’re trying to turn 'em gay, not make 'em straight.
The bugaboo of “science can make your baby gay” might whip up enough hysteria to get the whole thing banned on its own, well before they ever get around to look at the reverse scenario. But, personally, I think there is no way in Hell of anything like this ever being approved for human studies. People are already gun-shy enough about drugs in pregnancy; going forward meddling with hormones in pregnancy with no clear idea of what it will do to the mother or the fetus just seems to be like asking for an unending series of huge medical malpractice suits.
Can I shift the question slightly? Instead of looking at it from the child’s interest, how about looking at it from the parents’ interest: why should parents spend all that effort raising a child who is significantly less likely to perpetuate their line? In the days of large families, a gay child didn’t matter, but in these days of only 2 children, a gay child is a significant reduction in the future family.
I don’t hear the pro-life lobby talk much about this either. They seem to be more intent on depriving American women of contraceptives. Strange priorities.
Too bad there’s no enormous surplus of children who need homes or a mechanism for uniting them with new families, or any other way for a non-reproducing couple to have kids. Would you also be in favor of aborting fetuses that would probably be sterile?
Although your average gay couple may have fewer children than your average hetero couple, being gay doesn’t necessarily mean remaining childless. Adoption, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate mothers are available options (although gay adoption may still be difficult in many areas and is explicitly illegal in Florida). I’ve known gay people who had children from an earlier, hetero marriage, as well as the children of such marriages. I expect this will become less common as homosexuality becomes more acceptable and people come out of the closet earlier; on the other hand, I also expect that greater acceptance of homosexuality will lead to greater acceptance of gay adoption. The spread of gay marriage will no doubt help as well, since there’s still a general preference to adopt to married couples over singles.
You’ve described perpetuating the line as the parents’ interest when it’s actually just something they’d like. Having a kid is not an investment in continuing your family line and very few people would consider it that way.
Similarly, people used to have a lot of children because most of them wouldn’t live to adulthood, and if the kids didn’t live to adulthood the parents might not be taken care of. That doesn’t happen in the U.S. anymore. A family is likely to be taken care of with one or two kids instead of 11, and a gay child can do that as well as a straight one can.
I imagine it would depend on whether the parents in question deem a lack of genetic grandkids (since adoption’s still in for the kids, or at least is in some places) to be an inadequate reward for raising a son or daughter. I think i’d question the source of such parents’ motivations, but if they indeed feel that they would be unhappy without grandchildren then that’s certainly a valid motivation to have. Assuming such a procedure doesn’t harm the future kid, I say go right ahead with sexuality or any other feature selection.
I can certainly see the harm; being able to change future homosexuals straight will probably result in a worse atmosphere for the remaining ones. But while that’s bad I don’t think it’s enough of a reason to thwart the wishes of parents in this kind of thing.
Would you think it was if the reverse were the case, and they were seeking to select for gayness, RT?
Trickier. I would be all for a law, for example, that prevented in some fashion parents from selecting disadvantagous features; like deaf parents wanting deaf children as in the example posted earlier. But does homosexuality count as a disadvantageous trait enough to ban the selection of? I’m tempted by reasons why for and why not. Arguably the disadvantages of homosexuality are primarily social, and so hopefully transient, letting us look to the longer run. OTOH, that doesn’t stop it being disadvantageous for many people.
To tell you the truth, i’m honestly not sure. And i’m really not sure where bisexuality would fit into all this, though i’m biased towards saying it’s the most advantageous of the lot. 
Well.
There’s always prison.
If people chose not to have gay children, who would decorate our homes and design our clothing?
I’m only partially kidding. I am leery of any attempts to engineer the species - that goes for turtles and it goes for humans. Gay people seem to be part of our cultural and evolutionary mix. I believe they do bring valuable insights and values to the culture. But more to the point, any screwing around with a fundamental characteristic of the species seems to me to be very risky. Just as aborting females seems very risky. There are unintended consequences to this stuff - like what is Chinese culture going to look like as the balance increasingly shifts away from a reasonable gender mix? What happens when 25% of Chinese young men cannot find a mate?
My libertarian impulses are in conflict on this issue. On the one hand, the reason I’m disinclined to think that central planning of society can work is pretty much the same one which makes me think manipulating the ratio of types of humans being born is a dangerous thing. On the other hand, i also don’t beleve in forcing other people to do what I think is right. Complicating the issue is the fact that there’s a third party - an unborn child who will suffer whatever the consequences of the decision may be. So I don’t know what the hell to do about it. Nothing, probably, other than work to educate people about the risks.
I’m having a little brainstorm here…
I disagree: there’s the whole perpetuating the species thing, and then there’s fusoya’s recent thread.
Is that based on their gayness though?
Marc
And lordknows, we certainly need MORE people on this earth?!
Actually, I find the idea of predicting sexual orientation a good thing. Whichever country is the first to start ensuring that more people are born Gay than Straight will be the most fabulous, and least populated country on earth!
I am Gay, and if there is any truth to reincarnation, please, please, please - let me be born a Gay man again!!!