Women's Choice, Designer Babies, and Stopping Homosexuality?

[Untaroicht]

(A new thread based on an Idea proposed in the Nigeria LGBT thread)

Hear me out: if homosexuality starts in the womb due to an excess of certain hormones and other chemicals, then what if parents were given an option by their doctors (only if they wanted their children to be heterosexual) to inject experimental steroids into the womb to counter the effects of the chemicals?

While reading this headline, it seems that it could be possible even by today's standards (but the headline in question had doctors doing it without consent, so yeah...screw them)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... eroid.html

Nevertheless, the question still remains: If a woman has the right to choose whether to give birth to her baby or not like in the case of abortion, then doesn't she also have the right to decide whether she wants her child to be hereto or homo, among other traits? This raises questions of women's rights, eugenics, and all other sorts of controversial gobbly-goop what foments on threads like this like mushrooms in a pile of guano.

In my opinion (and I know this point will be brought up) It wouldn't be eugenics because it's the mother's choice about how she wants her child to be raised and born. Hell, if you make the eugenics argument, you might as well call abortion genocide.

[Geilinor]

Don't quote the Daily Mail, it's not possible today. Also, the idea of injecting "experimental hormones" into a fetus could possibly result in dangerous side effects and fundamentally change the personality of the resulting child.

[Othelos]

Homosexuality is caused by epigenetics, not hormones.

[Anivromia]

If a woman wants to take that risk, then she should be able to. I have doubts that such a hormone treatment wouldn't have other consequences though.

Also, not all homosexuality begins in the womb, many times it occurs due to circumstance in puberty. There are those who are certainly born gay though, so perhaps.

What if a mother wishes the child not be heterosexual instead though? Should one be allowed and the other not?

[San]

Hell, I might go out on a limb here and say, if homosexuality starts in the womb, then what if parents were given an option by their doctors (only if they wanted their children to be heterosexual) to inject experimental steroids into the womb to counter the effects of the chemicals?

snip

If a woman has the right to choose whether to give birth to her baby or not, then doesn't she also have the right to decide whether she wants her child to be hereto or homo?

please don't link to the daily mail

OP please

[Othelos]

If a woman wants to take that risk, then she should be able to. I have doubts that such a hormone treatment wouldn't have other consequences though.

Also, not all homosexuality begins in the womb, many times it occurs due to circumstance in puberty.

Like what?

[Untaroicht]

If a woman wants to take that risk, then she should be able to. I have doubts that such a hormone treatment wouldn't have other consequences though.

Also, not all homosexuality begins in the womb, many times it occurs due to circumstance in puberty. There are those who are certainly born gay though, so perhaps.

What if a mother wishes the child not be heterosexual instead though? Should one be allowed and the other not?

In my opinion, any orientation should be acceptable for the mother to make a decision on.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I would accept the eugenicist elimination of the 7% homosexual and 1% asexual only with a quota that at least 50% - for both sexes - of the resulting procedures end up in bisexual people, and no need for quota to purposefully turn possible homosexual, heterosexual or asexual into bisexuals.

But of course, as a panromantic plus!homoflexible, I'm biased.

[Untaroicht]

I would accept the eugenicist elimination of the 7% homosexual and 1% asexual only with a quota that at least 50% - for both sexes - of the resulting procedures end up in bisexual people, and no need for quota to purposefully turn possible homosexual, heterosexual or asexual into bisexuals.

But of course, as a panromantic plus!homoflexible, I'm biased.

That's really kind of the mother's choice, but from what I can gather are you implying there should be some sort of government regulation in this field?

[Neoconstantius]

In my opinion (and I know this point will be brought up) It wouldn't be eugenics because it's the mother's choice about how she wants her child to be raised and born. Hell, if you make the eugenics argument, you might as well call abortion genocide.

Some already do.

[Geilinor]

"Stopping Homosexuality"? Please change the title. Homosexuality is not a threat that needs to be stopped. The OP isn't for the right to choose, the OP wants to further a discriminatory crusade.

[Untaroicht]

"Stopping Homosexuality"? Please change the title. Homosexuality is not a threat that needs to be stopped. The OP isn't for the right to choose, the OP wants to further a discriminatory crusade.

Now why would I say a thing, or have ever said a thing, like that? "stopping homosexuality" is there because it would be the end result of these kind of procedures if the mother chooses to have them.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

I would accept the eugenicist elimination of the 7% homosexual and 1% asexual only with a quota that at least 50% - for both sexes - of the resulting procedures end up in bisexual people, and no need for quota to purposefully turn possible homosexual, heterosexual or asexual into bisexuals.

But of course, as a panromantic plus!homoflexible, I'm biased.

That's really kind of the mother's choice, but from what I can gather are you implying there should be some sort of government regulation in this field?

Of course.

[The Sotoan Union]

Fun hypothetical, but I honestly don't think that technology will ever exist.

[Nazi Flower Power]

If a woman has the right to choose whether to give birth to her baby or not like in the case of abortion, then doesn't she also have the right to decide whether she wants her child to be hereto or homo, among other traits?

Yes, but with the understanding that it may not be 100% reliable, not everyone is going to agree with the woman's decision, and we still need to accept anyone that does end up being gay or bi.

It wouldn't be eugenics because it's the mother's choice about how she wants her child to be raised and born. Hell, if you make the eugenics argument, you might as well call abortion genocide.

Sorry, but it is eugenics. So are abortions that people decide to get because the kid is found to have a genetic disorder or developmental defect. "Eugenics" is not a synonym for "bad shit that should be illegal."

[Othelos]

"Stopping Homosexuality"? Please change the title. Homosexuality is not a threat that needs to be stopped. The OP isn't for the right to choose, the OP wants to further a discriminatory crusade.

Now why would I say a thing, or have ever said a thing, like that? "stopping homosexuality" is there because it would be the end result of these kind of procedures if the mother chooses to have them.

Considering that homosexuality is not caused by hormones, and is actually caused by epi-genetics, do you really think there is a way to alter it?

[Libertarian California]

Hell, if you make the eugenics argument...

Guilty as charged

Abortion is decidedly eugenic.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

[AiliailiA]

... controversial gobbly-goop what foments on threads like this like mushrooms in a pile of guano.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Yes, I guess I would permit women to change the hormonal balance of "womb conditions" (most likely involving altering her own bloodstream, as that's the main connection the fetus has). It a reasonable presumption that she does that for the future benefit of her child.

She and her doctors lay themselves open to legal liability though. Sixteen or eighteen years later they can be sued by the child if that child is not happy with the results.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Now why would I say a thing, or have ever said a thing, like that? "stopping homosexuality" is there because it would be the end result of these kind of procedures if the mother chooses to have them.

Considering that homosexuality is not caused by hormones, and is actually caused by epi-genetics, do you really think there is a way to alter it?

Is there a way to alter it? I would think so.

Do we currently have the technology to do it effectively? Probably not.

[New Connorstantinople]

Its just... I dislike the idea that a child's fate is decided before its even sentient. If its homosexual or heterosexual, whether it dies naturally or not (with treatment, I don't think they should die without all aviable help.), I think it should just... Happen.

[The Sotoan Union]

Now why would I say a thing, or have ever said a thing, like that? "stopping homosexuality" is there because it would be the end result of these kind of procedures if the mother chooses to have them.

Considering that homosexuality is not caused by hormones, and is actually caused by epi-genetics, do you really think there is a way to alter it?

I mean there is evidence that it exists in animals. It is extremely deep in our DNA and there is no real point in getting rid of it.

Also Homosexuals are like 2% of the population, so you can always ignore it if you want to.

[Othelos]

Considering that homosexuality is not caused by hormones, and is actually caused by epi-genetics, do you really think there is a way to alter it?

I mean there is evidence that it exists in animals. It is extremely deep in our DNA and there is no real point in getting rid of it.

Also Homosexuals are like 2% of the population, so you can always ignore it if you want to.

By the time the technology comes around, I doubt people will care.

[AiliailiA]

Fun hypothetical, but I honestly don't think that technology will ever exist.

To filter certain hormones out of the mother's blood, and perhaps add others, on its way to the fetus? Doesn't seem technically impossible to me.

To alter her entire bloodstream is actually quite simple. The antibodies to testosterone in particular, are big cells and could be separated with a kidney dialysis machine. Or simply overwhelmed with added testosterone.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Its just... I dislike the idea that a child's fate is decided before its even sentient. If its homosexual or heterosexual, whether it dies naturally or not (with treatment, I don't think they should die without all aviable help.), I think it should just... Happen.

This is talking about stuff that is already not the child's choice. Why is making it the mother's choice worse than making it random? Either way, the child has absolutely no control over it.

[The Sotoan Union]

Fun hypothetical, but I honestly don't think that technology will ever exist.

To filter certain hormones out of the mother's blood, and perhaps add others, on its way to the fetus? Doesn't seem technically impossible to me.

To alter her entire bloodstream is actually quite simple. The antibodies to testosterone in particular, are big cells and could be separated with a kidney dialysis machine. Or simply overwhelmed with added testosterone.

Homosexuality is caused by hormones, just like the queen of England is an alien lizard person.