As I mentioned in GATTACA Comes to Life, we are already using pre-natal genetic screening to select specific embryos during in-vitro fertilization, as well as aborting fetuses based on pre-natal diagnosis. Not only are we now aborting 80-90% of Down’s syndrome kids, but women are now being pressured by doctors to abort such "undesirable" children.
This is part of the debate over abortion that liberals don’t want to have. Is sex-selection abortion, performed widely in the East, ethical? Should we leave that up to the mother? But the king of issues is going to be when and if biological factors involved in homosexuality are discovered. Is it ok for hetero parents to abort potentially gay fetuses because they are "undesirable"? Even more interesting, recent research on sheep shows that heterosexuality can be induced by giving various hormones – is it ok to treat gay children, or one’s self this way?
It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the ‘straightening’ procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.
Conservatives have a simple answer:
- all children have the right to life, regardless of infirmities
- exceptions should be made for extreme deformities or painful, quickly fatal conditions
- treating homosexuality with medicine, like other genetic abnormalities such as aggression, is entirely ethical if done with the care that all medicine should be approached with. However, evidence points to considerable environmental developmental and environmental factors in homosexuality, so there will be no "magic pill"
If a method is found to determine whether a fetus is homosexual, xianity will make abortion a sacrament.
If a method is found to determine whether a fetus is homosexual, xianity will make abortion a sacrament.
You are absolutely incorrect, for two reasons.
First, as I stated above, Christians value life for all fetuses, even those with the "infirmity" of homosexuality. Secondly, if there is a genetic cause, it is also potentially treatable. I think you misunderstand the evangelical position on homosexuality as one that seeks to kill or destroy, rather than transform and release from emotional injury.
What will you say if parents want to abort potentially gay children? Should the mother have that right?
If a method is found to determine whether a fetus is homosexual, xianity will make abortion a sacrament.
In a GATTACA like world where the movie comes to life, Evangelicals would assert choosing sex, and altering for other genetic traits, is unequivocally immoral. Yet, at the same time, they would have the temerity to assert altering the "gay gene" to "cure" children by making them straight would be unequivocally moral (see Seeker's post).
Evangelicals wouldn't recognize the "gay gene" as a simple trait like left or right handedness, which is exactly what the "gay gene" is. Rather, they would perceive the "gay gene" as a genetic defect like Down's Syndrome. For this reason, Evangelical views on the "gay issue" are completely immoral and unethical due to their unbridled hypocrisy.
Also, I thought Louis might be interested in this…
'God Is Not a Moderate'
Best-selling atheist Sam Harris and pro-religion blogger Andrew Sullivan debate God, faith, and fundamentalism.
I don't believe you, seeker. Though my statement was over the top, it was to make a satirical point: xians will exploit science when it serves their ends, and oppose it when it opposes theirs. Thus, as you state above, xians would feel it ethical and moral to alter potentially gay fetuses chemically and living gays with medicine if and other techniques if they could. I think that this is little more than a form of genocide and equivalent to nazi eugenics experimentation.
To what depths will your hatred for gay people descend? And why should I not view xianity as just another form of absolutist evil?
Yes, cineaste, I'm aware of the Sullivan/Harris exchange. However, when I went to Beliefnet, I found that they had stupidly covered up part of Harris' reply to Sullivan (or was it deliberate?), so I gave up. I like reading Sullivan, but cannot fathom his adherence to xianity, particularly the Roman variety. How can a queer man possibly give his allegiance to something which seeks his destruction?
Believing Seeker here is impossible – he'd insist on abortions, as would most pro-life Christians, if it meant their children wouldn't be gay. Because deep down, he knows that anti-gay-therapy is nothing but a foolish joke. And he knows the only way to stamp out the great gay threat is abortion.
No Problem Louis. I took the liberty of copying Sam's entire reply and posting it here on 2or3 :) Check it out bro. His arguments are so persuasive that I really wonder how Sullivan can mount any meaningful counter but we'll see! Seeker, you should check it out also because Sullivan eloquently makes a lot of the same points about the compatibility of faith and reason as you do.
Thus, as you state above, xians would feel it ethical and moral to alter potentially gay fetuses chemically and living gays with medicine if and other techniques if they could.
No one is talking about forced treatment, but based on little or no conclusive evidence, you would DENY people access to such therapies or treatments.
And you still haven't answered the question. Is it my prerogative to abort a potentially gay fetus? What if thousands do it?
Believing Seeker here is impossible – he'd insist on abortions, as would most pro-life Christians, if it meant their children wouldn't be gay.
You see, this is the problem arguing with fools and extremists. You tell them exactly what you would or would not do, but because it doesn't match the negative stereotype they use to justify their hatred, they just say you are lying, rather than taking you at your word.
If you guys are going to continue being so insulting, stooping to ad hominem attacks rather than intelligently addressing the issues (you still haven't answered the question I asked, nor discussed anything intelligently at all – just slinging your epithets about what you believe Christians would do), then I'll bow out.
Oh, boo-hoo!
Yes, I would support their right to get an abortion, although I would deplore it as genocidal.
I would support their right to get an abortion, although I would deplore it as genocidal.
So you think people have the right to genocide? Don't you see how crazy that is?
Well, I support the right to an abortion so I am forced to include it for the reasons above. However, that being said, I find it highly unlikely that we will ever be able to ascertain the baby's sexual orientation by a mere pre-natal test and, therefore, this situation is purely hypothetical.
Still, why do you care? You want gay people to disappear. You should applaud the use of abortion to get rid of gay babies. You should also applaud the use of drugs and shock therapy (used in the past) to "cure" gay people. Since we are merely "sick" and "perverted," wicked people who infect society and harm families, you should support any and all methods to eliminate us. After all, isn't that what your holy book commands? If genocide is committed, you should rejoice: your God will surely reward its perpetrators! There is precedent: the Book of Joshua provides an example of God's commandment to commit genocide against his tribal enemies. Surely, queers are His especial enemies (as he has sentenced us to death and banned us from His Kingdom). Hell, aborting gay fetuses is right up His alley. I guess I'm supporting His holy work.
Too bad we can't develop a pre-natal test to determine the future religion of fetuses.
Still, why do you care? You want gay people to disappear. You should applaud the use of abortion to get rid of gay babies.
That's where you misunderstand me and the evangelical approach to homosexuality.
I understand it all too well.
If you did, you wouldn't be doubting my assertion that christians would in now way want to abort potentially gay fetuses, any more than they want to abort any fetuses at all.
You think Christians hate gays and want to destroy you. I think really what Christians want is to prevent gays from mainstreaming their choice through legislation, and they want to offer a transforming gospel, and that's it.
The only reason there is so much heat over this is because gays are abusing their rights in trying to push for special rights. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. And the hetero union is the foundation for families and society. While you may live in peace with your partner, to demand that your partnership be recognized as marriage not only goes against nature, it goes against history and basic morality. Homosexuality is an illness.
The only illness here lies in your fear and hatred of gay people. You are a bigot and a hatemonger.
Louis, why do you continual insert your opening statement into these debates. That is such a canard that has no basis in fact and I find it offensive. This topic, more than anything else, grabs me.
No one who calls themself pro-life could ever support aborting a baby because of a trait apparent in the genes. If they do that, they leave the pro-life camp. That is an uncrossable line.
I have told my story about my first son on here several times and what the doctors told us and why they told us what they did. You, who claim that Evangelical Christians would support such a horrible thing, have no idea what you are talking about. You are attacking strawmen and stereotypes you have constructed that bear no likeness to me or any other pro-life/evangelical that I know.
I have said over and over here and at other places that I would trade abortion for gay marriage. If you told me, we will make it illegal to kill an unborn child, but we will make gay marriage legal – I would say start making the rings and baking the cakes now.
I do find it oddly refreshing and honest that Louis realizes that he must support such a terrible atrocity because he has painted himself in that corner with his support of abortion. But the fact that you have to support genocide, as you call it, should show you the emptiness of the abortion argument.
Louis, Cineaste and Sam, if it makes you feel better by claiming such absurd statements are true, go for it., but you claims of Christians not understanding anyone else ring more hollow when you hold to such asinine beliefs that shows absolutely no understanding of evangelicals or pro-life individuals.
Louis, Cineaste and Sam, if it makes you feel better by claiming such absurd statements are true, go for it.
Aaron this is what I said…
In a GATTACA like world where the movie comes to life, Evangelicals would assert choosing sex, and altering for other genetic traits, is unequivocally immoral. Yet, at the same time, they would have the temerity to assert altering the "gay gene" to "cure" children by making them straight would be unequivocally moral (see Seeker's post).
Evangelicals wouldn't recognize the "gay gene" as a simple trait like left or right handedness, which is exactly what the "gay gene" is. Rather, they would perceive the "gay gene" as a genetic defect like Down's Syndrome. For this reason, Evangelical views on the "gay issue" are completely immoral and unethical due to their unbridled hypocrisy.
Do I err?
You bring up a different point than what Louis said. He, as well as Sam, was arguing that Christians would support abortion of babies with the "gay gene." If you do not argee with that statement than I apologize for grouping you with them.
From here out I speak just for myself and my own personal opinion, if doctors had a patch that could cure certain diseases (not speaking of homosexuality here) while a baby was in the womb, I would have no problem with that (on the surface).
My contention comes in when we start speaking of abortion as the "cure" to these diseases. Killing the baby doesn't cure anything. That is my point.
I would not treat my child for homosexuality because of my own personal beliefs on the matter.
So now that you somewhat know my positions on the issue, are they now "completely immoral and unethical due to their unbridled hypocrisy"?
I would not treat my child for homosexuality because of my own personal beliefs on the matter.
The real questions are:
– would liberals prevent such therapies, and take that option away?
– if it was available, would it be ethical?
– how much can parents manipulate their future or present progeny?
All tough questions that we need principles for.
So now that you somewhat know my positions on the issue, are they now "completely immoral and unethical due to their unbridled hypocrisy"?
If you would not "cure" your child of homosexuality via gene therapy no, they are not. I think, given the option, the majority of evangelical parents would.
I think, given the option, the majority of evangelical parents would.
Possibly, but as I said, since there is a significant, perhaps majority contribution from the environment, I'd say that such therapies will probably not take hold.
The real issue is going to be, if we ID a genetic sequence that supposedly increases the *possibililty* of being gay, is it ok to abort these? Liberals will be torn between their values, and quite honestly, I think their value system will break down, allowing "genocide" as Louis put it, in order to protect the individual's right to choose (choose death for another human).
With all due respect Aaron:
Continually campaigning to render gays as second class citizens whose love is worthless legally strikes me as evidence of formalized Christian hatred toward gays. If gays are so lowdown that their love is but a joke that should be punished through legal nonrecognition, then I must observe that I see little reason for you to take a pro-life position on gay babies. Or is the issue that gays should be born, and then forced to suffer for being gay?
Seeker can talk about transforming nonsense all he wants, but it doesn't work. The subjects of anti-gay therapy routinely go back to their gay ways. Christian leaders beg God to be free of their homosexuality and receive no assistance. Its as if the issue here is forcing gays to suffer within a society that hates them.
There is no reason for us to believe your claims that you wouldn't want gay babies aborted. Especially since you so obviously want gays to suffer.
…since there is a significant, perhaps majority contribution from the environment…
Isn't this simply the Evangelical view and not the homosexual view? This view is not scientific.
The real issue is going to be, if we ID a genetic sequence that supposedly increases the *possibililty* of being gay, is it ok to abort these?
It depends upon if they are developed enough to have a person's rights. If they are, no. This would fall into the larger debate about designer babies. Would it be alright to abort a female blastocyst, for example? The issue at this point is not one of rights violation but cultural bias warping the natural balance. In cultures who value males, like India, the results could be disastrous. Anyway, if science is at the point where it's possible to select for traits like sexual orientation, gender, intelligence etc. the capability to clone humans from single cells would probably be a reality as well. So, every time the Seeker scratched his nose, the Seeker would be committing a genocidal holocaust of potential Evangelical Seeker clone lives who would never get to know Jesus :)
The subjects of anti-gay therapy routinely go back to their gay ways.
So do those in other recovery programs. Deep psychological problems are not easily solved.
This all brings up something I've always wondered about: why no gays in the Star Trek universe? Have they perfected a "cure," or do they abort all gay babies in the womb?
As to aborting gay fetuses, I think it would be immoral, but it should also be legal as bad as it is. It's a matter of choosing between two evils. I don't particularly like or approve of abortion, but I think it should be a matter of individual conscience. However, I'm more concerned with how society treats living queers and not hypotheticals. It's a fact that xianity continues to harass and persecute gay people, and conspires to deprive us at our rights.
Louis,
I don't even like Star Trek, and I know that Wil Wheaton was pretty damned gay on that show.
ROFL!!!
Sam, you can believe whatever you would like, but that doesn't make it true. As an evangelical, I may disagree with gay marriage, but I don't view any gay person as any less human and deserving of life as me.
I agree with Louis in one thing, this is merely a hypothetical that currently bears no weight, which is why those on the left can throw such horrible motives at evangelicals because we are not faced with that choice currently.
Louis can say all day long and have everyone believe him that evangelicals would rather kill babies with the "gay gene" than have them live and be gay. There is no basis on fact for that statement, but since we are dealing with hypotheticals. All I can do is deny it, give my own opinions and have you tell me that I don't really know what I beleive because surely I would want to give up being pro-life for the chance to ending the "gay gene."
I'm glad that you admit that being an evangelical makes one oppose full gay equality.
Given the possibility of "designer babies," I foresee a future where gay couples can design a gay baby which combines their genes into one. Ha. Ha.
Yes, I agree that Wesley Crusher was probably gay – he was the smartest person on the show.
Michelle,
I totally agree. This conundrum of liberal illogic has always been there, and some of us mentioned it long ago. How can you be "horrified" by the abortion of gays if you are not horrified by it in general? Are you now "pro-choice" in all cases except that one?
But to be more generous, I think that liberals actually look at it differently than we might think ;) For example, they might say that abortion is still my right, but to do it for such "phobic" reasons is bad. They might even agree that the common sex-selection abortions done in countries like China are bad. Bad enough to bring sanctions? Bad enough to condemn them and make them a top priority? Probably not.
But they probably are merely thinking that this type of anti-gay based decision will lead to the abuse of gays post-natal, or at least, it is an expression of gay hatred that already exists post-natal.
I'm sure that some conservatives, esp. those who are not Christian, might consider aborting a potentially gay fetus, and as Christians, we should be against such abortions, as we are with all other killing of the innocent.
But if they are merely concerned for such a pre-natal genocide of gays, why are they not concerned for the current holocaust of hetero, Downs, and female children that goes no daily? I think it is because they really don't value the life of the fetus at all in comparison to their desire to let people have "freedom" to choose.
I agree with you that this perspective is warped and horrific – the right to the life of another trumps my right to "choose" what is easier for me. It is not right to kill a child that might have a tough life, either before or after birth. Of course, along this line, gays also argue that they would not have a tough life if society were not so "homophobic." While that may be true, unless our country goes down the tubes of total moral collapse, gays will always rightly be seen as hurt individuals who need healing and treatment, and who are doing something obviously against nature.
I'll tell you how the gay lobby will approach this potential gay abortion issue, imo. They'll whine and moan about it, but because they want to protect the woman's right to kill, they will do nothing of consequence to end the practice. Of course, it is not happening yet, since no gay gene or biochemical influence has yet been found in humans, though it might. When that day comes, they'll raise a stink, but probably there will be a split among gays – the lesbian feminists will want to protect the right to kill, while some will say this is genocide and we should oppose it. In that day, they may line up with evangelicals, who are against all such killing.
The real tragedy is, today, almost 90% of Down's syndrome children are aborted. Once a gay "gene" is found, gays will be right behind them in that terrible, murderous line. May we abandon such barbarity and adopt some reasonable abortion limits now. I hope one day to morph c-ral into a real entity.
Putting aside the contentious and unresolvable issue of abortion for the moment, a pre-natal test for sexual orientation would raise fascinating problems. I wonder, would evangelicals and fundies (or all strips) consider it a duty to have the test performed, or would they abstain? If the former, and a gay baby is discovered, would the evan/fundie still believe that abortion is always and everywhere wrong, or would they still go ahead with the pregnancy? What, then, would the life of the gay child be like (I mean, the child wouldn't know it was gay but its parents would). Would they try to "cure" it? How? Would they put it up for adoption? Considering how gays are treated by their families now, it might be a mercy to just abort the fetus and avoid a life of misery later.
I also think we should do everything we can to avoid the necessity of abortion. This would imply widespread and thorough sex education from an early age, and widespread, free and easy availability of contraceptives. These would cut down on abortions considerably. Beyond that, I'm not willing to go.
would evangelicals and fundies (or all strips) consider it a duty to have the test performed, or would they abstain? Would they try to "cure" it? How?
Well, my wife and I did not get the advanced genetic screening because we figured that we were not going to abort no matter what. However, I now think that it is probably smarter to get the test so you know how to prepare if there is a difficulty, even if you are NOT going to abort.
I mean, if pre-natal treatment can avoid homosexuality, many would want to start the treatment. At the very least, since studies indicate that homosexuality is probably not more than 40% genetic in origin, parents could be prepared to optimize their environment to prevent a gay outcome – like keeping them away from the "funny" uncle.
If the former, and a gay baby is discovered, would the evan/fundie still believe that abortion is always and everywhere wrong, or would they still go ahead with the pregnancy?
I would say that the vast majority, as stated previously here, would be anti-abortion of such "potentially gay" babies, just as they are currently for other types of "defects."
Would they put it up for adoption?
While some would, most would see it as a child that needs extra love and attention, just like other children with physical disabilities. I mean, who better than a Christian parent to care for a needy child?
Considering how gays are treated by their families now, it might be a mercy to just abort the fetus and avoid a life of misery later.
While pro-choicers would argue such, Christians never do.
I also think we should do everything we can to avoid the necessity of abortion. This would imply widespread and thorough sex education from an early age, and widespread, free and easy availability of contraceptives.
As discussed previously, it also involves widespread teaching of virtue (chastity, abstinence) and waiting until one is mature enough to support a family both emotionally and financially. While contraception can be part of the solution, it's really just a stopgap measure to catch those who forsake virtue. It's treating the symptom, rather than the cause, which is prosmiscuity.
Don't forget, contraception may reduce pregnancy, but there are still risks for the sexually active, including pregnancy, STDs, and emotional trauma.
seeker's diction above reveals exactly what he thinks of gay people: "defects" (quotes don't lessen the sting), "disabilities" etc. How can anyone maintain a rational discourse with someone so prejudiced? I can't.
Christianists have, for the most part, forsaken the language of religious condemnation, knowing, I suppose, that it makes them look like irrational troglodytes. Unfortunately, they have substituted something worse:condescending pseudo-scientific b.s. (pretending hx is a disease or mental disorder). Whatever, the hatred shines out clear for any reasonable person to see. At its base, its still the same old religious superstition and intolerance dressed up to seem more compassionate – a fig leaf to cover the shame of their bigotry.
Actually, one could make a good case that the only defect and disability here is religious belief, a form of mental defect if any ever existed. What else could one call such a devotion to a worldview without a shred of evidence? Those who live and act within a delusion at variance with reality are usually locked up – unless they're religious believers, that is. What untold horrors has this madness unleashed upon the world?