[MudGrrl]

Courtesy PZ Myers

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, now thinks thaT high-tech, fetal research is OK — if it leads to a cure for homosexuality.
...
The middle part of his article is an expression of horror at the possibility of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (" one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times"), and the dilemma with which conservatives would be confronted: if they could find out their prospective child was going to be gay, would even good Christians be tempted to abort the abomination? What Mohler wants is full-blown genetic manipulation of human embryos to delete undesirable genes, not individuals.

http://albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

...
What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner.

For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.

...

Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.

But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.
...

Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

...

Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

So, if there was a test, how many pregnant conservative women who were tested positive would be running for the Planned Parenthood (or some kind of hush hush doctor?).

How many would opt for the miracle patch?

How many would have the child and beat the ghey outta them with the religious book of their choice?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Wierd. A professor of mine recently brought up something kind of in line with this that Id never thought about before. He was saying "what if this type of research made it possible for you to be able to detect which diseases your child would get before he was born" and not only would that lead you to not only want to abort it, but also, and I think more seriously in the grand scheme of things, would insurance companies given this type of info, not cover a person over his entire lifetime because he was genetically predisposed to having a certain illness. Pretty ****ed up if you ask me. Not sure if that's where you wanted this thread to go, but it reminded me.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

It has nothing to do with being pro-choice so much as being against eugenics.

 

[MudGrrl]

Yeah, it is pretty ****ed up.


There are already related problems in places like India, where female children culturally mean trouble (more money due to dowries)

http://www.indianchild.com/abortion_infanticide_foeticide_india.htm

For a poor family, the birth of a girl child can signal the beginning of financial ruin and extreme hardship.

However this anti-female bias is by no means limited to poor families. Much of the discrimination is to do with cultural beliefs and social norms. These norms themselves must be challenged if this practice is to stop.

Diagnostic teams with ultrasound scanners which detect the sex of a child advertise with catchlines such as spend 600 rupees now and save 50,000 rupees later.

The implication is that by avoiding a girl, a family will avoid paying a large dowry on the marriage of her daughter. According to UNICEF, the problem is getting worse as scientific methods of detecting the sex of a baby and of performing abortions are improving.

I originally posted this thread because I thought the hypocrisy was astounding. Fundamentalists getting into something that they protested (the research bit), and laying out a plan to try to side step the landmines that they've already created (we can't say that being gay is genetic....).

 

[Toshi]

Wierd. A professor of mine recently brought up something kind of in line with this that Id never thought about before. He was saying "what if this type of research made it possible for you to be able to detect which diseases your child would get before he was born" and not only would that lead you to not only want to abort it, but also, and I think more seriously in the grand scheme of things, would insurance companies given this type of info, not cover a person over his entire lifetime because he was genetically predisposed to having a certain illness. Pretty ****ed up if you ask me. Not sure if that's where you wanted this thread to go, but it reminded me.

uh, have you seen Gattaca?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

 

[skinny mike]

uh, have you seen Gattaca?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

that's what popped into my head right when i read the first post.

 

[kidwoo]

Gotta wonder what's in the closet when killing babies becomes okay as long as the bigger picture of stopping teh ghey is addressed.

 

[BurlyShirley]

uh, have you seen Gattaca?

http://imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

No.
I did see 300 though.

 

[MudGrrl]

No.
I did see 300 though.

was it any good? is there a movie review in the lounge?

 

[ohio]

I see this as a win. No mainstream Christians would ever start aborting fetuses like popcorn just because of genes, even if they consider it a defect, but at the same time this would force all of them to acknowledge that sexual preference is genetic (mostly, obviously experiences and upbringing can affect the behavioral expression of a genetic disposition).

 

[BurlyShirley]

I see this as a win. No mainstream Christians would ever start aborting fetuses like popcorn just because of genes, even if they consider it a defect, but at the same time this would force all of them to acknowledge that sexual preference is genetic (mostly, obviously experiences and upbringing can affect the behavioral expression of a genetic disposition).

Except that they actually havent found that to be the case, to my knowledge.

 

[reflux]

that's what popped into my head right when i read the first post.

Werd Cotton.

GATTACA is one of my favorite movies. I highly suggest watching it if you haven't already.

 

[Silver]

We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior.

Totally ****ing crazy. Can't these people rapture themselves with handguns to their heads? Jesus...

 

[BurlyShirley]

We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior.

Totally ****ing crazy. Can't these people rapture themselves with handguns to their heads? Jesus...

Reminds me of an Onion Headline:

"Pope Condemns Five More Glands"

 

[Westy]

Reminds me of an Onion Headline:

"Pope Condemns Five More Glands"

Thank god for the Pope

 

[DRB]

Yeah, it is pretty ****ed up.


There are already related problems in places like India, where female children culturally mean trouble (more money due to dowries)

Its a much worse problem in China. The rate is 120 boys to 100 girls born. There is a severe criminal punishment to health care workers if they reveal the sex of a baby from the any test.

 

[ohio]

Except that they actually havent found that to be the case, to my knowledge.

Like Global Warming? The good psychological science out there says that roughly 50% of our personality results from genetics (keep in mind this is NOT the same thing as heredity). The other half (give or take) results after birth but given that there's quite a range to sexuality (two-dimensional at that... both orientation and drive) there will be people oriented genetically far enough along the spectrum that no amount of beating satan out of them is going to stop them from being attracted to the same sex.

I should point out that this science is contentious to both sides of the political spectrum and is considered highly CONSERVATIVE in academic circles because of it's implications for gender roles. Feminists are not a fan of this.

I'll dig up some citations and references when I have time, but I don't think I'll be able to find anything public access from the American Psychological Association or similar credible journals. My understanding is filtered through my dad who is an academic psychologist specializing in self-consciousness and human sexuality. Despite being politically liberal falls into the "conservative" evolutionary psychology camp described above, which is to say his own findings are at odds with what he would like to be true.

 

[Silver]

I should point out that this science is contentious to both sides of the political spectrum and is considered highly CONSERVATIVE in academic circles because of it's implications for gender roles. Feminists are not a fan of this.

You know, I can't figure out is why more people can't figure out that "in nature" does not logically imply "is good".

Which leaves us in the same funny place. The good liberal wants to believe that natural is good when it comes to homosexuality, but excludes violent power struggles from that criteria, while the good conservative believes whatever his preacher tells him.

 

[ohio]

You know, I can't figure out is why more people can't figure out that "in nature" does not logically imply "is good".

Which leaves us in the same funny place. The good liberal wants to believe that natural is good when it comes to homosexuality, but excludes violent power struggles from that criteria, while the good conservative believes whatever his preacher tells him.

Ah, which brings up the naturalistic fallacy: the belief that if we have evolved to be a certain way that makes it morally right. People often use this fallacy to extrapolate that because we are predisposed to certain gender roles, we should reinforce those gender roles. we often forget that evolution is random and scattered (so not all mutations are an advantage and there is certainly no morality guiding those mutations), so what helped us survive as cavemen is not necessarily what is best for the species in the modern world.

edit their there they're

 

[Silver]

Ah, which brings up the naturalistic fallacy: the belief that if we have evolved to be a certain way that makes it morally right.

Bingo.

Both sides do it. And I'm pretty sure that both sides are more or less clueless when they make the error. With a couple of notable exceptions, I'm fairly hard pressed to come up with fields where this very simple error is even recognized.

 

[binary visions]

Like Global Warming? The good psychological science out there says that roughly 50% of our personality results from genetics (keep in mind this is NOT the same thing as heredity). The other half (give or take) results after birth but given that there's quite a range to sexuality (two-dimensional at that... both orientation and drive) there will be people oriented genetically far enough along the spectrum that no amount of beating satan out of them is going to stop them from being attracted to the same sex.

Ugh, I've been trying to dig up stuff on this since I've recently been interested in it and researching it a bit myself, but it's all pay-for items, or the stuff that's available electronically through my school's researching system is PDF.

Burly, Google "Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart" or other twin studies. Tossed the article into my Photobucket account for the time being:
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Here's the registry just for curiosity's sake:
http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/mtfs/mtrf1.htm

There have been a substantial number of studies done off of the data gathered for that particular study. All interesting stuff (for me anyway).

 

[Secret Squirrel]

People often use this fallacy to extrapolate that because we are predisposed to certain gender roles, we should reinforce those gender roles. we often forget that evolution is random and scattered (so not all mutations are an advantage and there is certainly no morality guiding those mutations)

Which leaves us in the same funny place. The good liberal wants to believe that natural is good when it comes to homosexuality, but excludes violent power struggles from that criteria, while the good conservative believes whatever his preacher tells him.

So this kinda, sorta, on some level explains all the "holy men" who are in closets....??

(I'm not trying to be glib, I do want to make sure I have this close to right....)

 

[Toshi]

that "public" link doesn't work for those of us without ecu/pirate ids.

 

[binary visions]

Sorry, it didn't ask for my login info, must have checked with a cookie somewhere before allowing me in

I tossed the article on Photobucket just for interest's sake.

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 

[ohio]

Ugh, I've been trying to dig up stuff on this since I've recently been interested in it and researching it a bit myself, but it's all pay-for items, or the stuff that's available electronically through my school's researching system is PDF.

Yeah, I can't find anything and don't have the time or inclination to spend more than 20 minutes trying. Thanks for pulling all of the above.