Thursday, June 19, 2008

I'm actually horrified

It takes a lot to actually upset me (clarifying that "anger" is different from "upset") but I just read this article on and I actually feel nauseous.

"Sexual Reorientation: The Gay Culture War is about to Turn Chemical" discusses how the increased understanding of the biological factors that differentiate homosexuals from heterosexuals may actually lead to the scientific "adjustment" of sexual orientation in the womb. With scary endorsements of the possibility from the usual right-wing religious wingnuts (Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics). And hypothetically, parents might endorse it too:
If the idea of chemically suppressing homosexuality in the womb horrifies you, I have bad news: You won't be in the room when it happens. Parents control medical decisions, and surveys indicate that the vast majority of them would be upset to
learn that their child was gay. Already, millions are screening embryos and fetuses to eliminate those of the "wrong" sex. Do you think they won't screen for the "wrong" sexual orientation, too?
One observer on a national gay online forum made the following astute comment:

What's amazing to me is that, for centuries, we were persecuted on the basis that our orientation was a crime against nature, a contravention of natural law.

Now that we find out that homosexuality actually is part of nature, the same people want to use human agency and science to change nature. Precisely the crime they were accusing us of all along.

In a world careening toward overpopulation it's difficult to determine exactly what problems the existence of homosexuality cause. But obviously, millions of people still have a difficult time with it. It's horrifying to think that we as a people are still exploring ways for a majority to suppress a natural minority like this, since, you know, eugenics has worked out so well in the past.


Anonymous said...

I've heard another argument before from one of these Christian, right-wing loons, that once the science is developed to ascertain whether or not fetuses are homosexual, that gays will become the biggest pro-lifers ever. Of course, this was before the option of conditioning sexual preference was even mentioned, so the point may well be moot, seeing as how Mother can soon be able to pop a few pills and make sure that little Billy loves pussy when he's born.

Another fun aspect to consider is this: is it morally objectionable to abort a fetus that is guaranteed to be born with a condition that would mentally impair it, i.e. Downs syndrome, but still allow it to lead a relatively normal life? Because the statistics regarding pregnancies with the condition known beforehand are somewhat horrifying (depending on your opinion) with more than 90% of pregnancies terminated is depressing.

I think the bottom line is this: humans need to stop pretending we're little gods, running around with an ability to control everything. Does the government have a right to tell parents what they can do in during the gestation of their child? If so, why, if not, why not?

And with regards to what the commenter on the forum said about 'natural law' being used against us: wise up. Our opponents will use anything, anytime, anywhere. They don't care about nature, or even the ethics or philosophy the struggle between us. They oppose us because they hate us. If they change, it's because it's expedient for them to do so. -MMF.

Woodwards Friend said...

Is it any different than aborting a fetus because it's likely to be born with Downs Syndrome? Hypocritical though it may be, don't Bible beaters have a right to say "my body my choice" and make that fetus right with Jesus so to speak?

As we learn more and more about genetics and scientists become more able to manipulate genes, its frightening to think most Americans are ill-equipped for a rational, complex discussion about the medical ethics about all things genetic.

You mentioned eugenics which of course raises the specter of Nazism but think about think...modern society has essentially short circuited natural selection. Forget social welfare, civilization itself protects those ill suited for survival from the dangers of the wilderness.

Am I saying we should weed out the week and stupid from society? No even though I'd love to thin out Appalachia I recognize that cure would be far worse than the disease.

My point here is this, its impossible to separate this sub-issues of the genetic engineering question from the larger debate. It would be nice for this debate to rise above simply being a talking point for whatever special interest can work up a lather of outrage at a given point.

I'm not attcking you, SG, or gay political leadership for raising this issue because I essentially agree with your point. What am I saying is that for real rational solutions to these painfully difficult questions, its important that population segments don't stop caring after their particular concern is resolved.

Woodwards Friend said...

p.s. drinking and blogging leads to embarrassing spelling errors. It's w-e-a-k dumbass. And yes I am aware I'm talking to myself on someone else's blog.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...