Headline: Science develops treatment therapy to cure and prevent homosexuality!

[lilithu]

Hi s2a,

No, I would not forcibly prevent anyone from taking said "magic pill" to make the "perfect" child, with "perfect" being in the eye of the beholder. Altho it would sadden me to no end.

I still affirm that there is nothing about homosexuality that needs to be "cured," whether physically or mentally. If that's not a "compelling or persuasive argument" to you, so be it.

 

[Mathematician]

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

Certainly some would be persuaded at the prospect of having their kid not grow up gay, but there would be a clash of morals if anti-abortion conservatives did go forward with changing their kid. It has been argued on that side a fetus is a person and deserves full rights. That would mean the mother is putting another person through something they have not consented to. On the flip side, things would be different because pro-choice individuals could split in two groups without breaking against their past logic: one arguing that trait swapping does not affect the mother in the least and thus is not her decision to make, and the other saying it's in her body thus it's her choice.

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

Mandatory? Of course not. There's no physical, emotional, or mental problems with being a homosexual, nor can it be spread to other individuals through contact.

3) If you were a fertile female,

Oh please no. The imagery...

nd you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

No, I don't see it directly affecting their lives in a negative way. They may be picked on later on in life, but that happens to people with acne, red hair, scars, pale skin -- it just happens one popular book talks bad about it and people accept that without any reason or compassion.

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?
Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options? Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

I wouldn't support it, but that's up to the people. There is no evidence homosexuality is like anything on the list, with the exception of "left-handed-ism."

[PS. Any other moral/ethical dilemmas of a similar nature to this OP are invited for discussion/debate.]

While on the topic of designer babies -- wouldn't it be remarkable [and frightening] if we could preprogram thoughts into children from birth on? Want an atheist child? Let's just slip some code into the DNA...

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

For those debating the "Magic Pill" angle, lets say you could decided prior to birth whether a child would be gay or straight, what would you think of people who chose to have gay children?

I've often said that it would be great if my daughter became a lesbian, after all, teenage lesbians don't become pregnant. Well, not by accident they don't. I mostly mention this infront of Baptist friends and family just because it is fun to watch their faces and they spend days trying to decide if I'm serious or not. But what if you could choose?

 

[s2a]

Well, I did answer #4, which I thought I could contribute a perspective to: NO, I would not want to be "cured" of being myself. I'm quite happy as I am.

In general, for the other questions, my opinion is that it's just fine to be gay, and medical science should spend zero energy on a cure for something that is not pathological, I would not opt for any prevention of having a gay child, etc. So, again, for a perspective, here I am, a "victim" of this horrible "disease", and I'm not asking for a cure, would not ask to have been born without it.

I think "it's fine" to be gay too (from any moralistic/ethical consideration).

There are so many serious medical issues, river blindness, malaria, measles, real curable and preventable diseases that are killing millions of children around the world, I think medicine in general should focus on preventing and curing those, and leave us happy gay people alone, thank you any way for thinking of us.

In general...we are agreed.

But, that's not really the prevailing issue at hand in this thread, is it?

Modern medicine--like technology--does not always serve our own higher-minded priorities (I remember as kid, promises of cancer cures, like personal jet packs and flying cars, by the year 2000. No dice. But we have cell phones and personal HAL 9000s on our laps and desktops--right alongside Viagra and Zoloft [not only a fix for male impotence, but treatment for the depression of not getting it up whenever you might like to]).

You're still invited to address the other standing questions in the OP, if you care to do so...

 

[s2a]

While on the topic of designer babies -- wouldn't it be remarkable [and frightening] if we could preprogram thoughts into children from birth on? Want an atheist child? Let's just slip some code into the DNA...

No need for that. Just don't "program" religion into kids right after they're born.

We all enter this world as unassuming nudists and atheists. Only religion teaches that both of those qualities are somehow "wrong".