Originally posted by Nellinator
This is not a cure unless they can come off the patch and still be heterosexual. Otherwise it just creates another drug user. Ultimately this could never be used unless the person wanted to change.
You missed the point of the article... In theory, science in the future could scan a fetus for the "gay trace" and then "treatment" could be administered in utero to alter the sexual disposition of the baby.
Originally posted by PVS
...plus if that can be proven then it blows the doors off the 'god warrior' argument that its chosen and thus a sin.
It also invalidates the opinion below.
Originally posted by Nellinator
If a person wants to change, I think it is a viable option for them. If it is having an adverse affect on the person, if it is holding them back from a desire for their own family, etc. I have nothing against it.
Originally posted by PVS
not sureif you feel that alterations in sheep should be allowed, i strongly disagree
i think research is fine, as long as human research is also applied.
once the data is collected, it should be documented. so long as there is
proof that at least some gay people are genetically predisposed to prefer the same sex i think it should be researched. not to 'cure' anything but to better understand ourselves as a species....plus if that can be proven then it blows the doors off the 'god warrior' argument that its chosen and thus a sin.
So we disagree, agree, agree.
Would you like to argue about the one point we disagree?
Actually, it might not be true, I think if a possible cure is found it should be available on the free market. That would make two disagrees.
Originally posted by Robtard
You missed the point of the article... In theory, science in the future could scan a fetus for the "gay trace" and then "treatment" could be administered in utero to alter the sexual disposition of the baby.
the real issue is, as capt said, people are not as easily manipulated as sheep....most anyway. however the implications for something like this revolve around childhood development and basically starting to engineer the gay out of children/babies who may not have even reached the point of self awareness.
Originally posted by Robtard
A question I posed on the first page, why is genetic alteration in fetuses so abhorrent but abortion is not?A woman is allowed kill her fetus, but she couldn't potentially decide it's eye color or sexual disposition?
a dead fetus does not alter the genetic make up of new born humans. call it homocide if you wish, but point is its not a threat at the level of playing god with ourselves.
Originally posted by PVS
the real issue is, as capt said, people are not as easily manipulated as sheep....most anyway. however the implications for something like this revolve around childhood development and basically starting to engineer the gay out of children/babies who may not have even reached the point of self awareness.
But we influence and manipulate all children already.
I don't understand why genetic engineering should be wrong.
Can't a man and a woman decide to do with their cells whatever they want to do?
Originally posted by Robtard
A question I posed on the first page, why is genetic alteration in fetuses so abhorrent but abortion is not?A woman is allowed kill her fetus, but she couldn't potentially decide it's eye color or sexual disposition?
I think that is another strong argument.
Originally posted by PVS
a dead fetus does not alter the genetic make up of new born humans. call it homocide if you wish, but point is its not a threat at the level of playing god with ourselves.
I don't call it homicide as the definition doesn't fit, but killing a fetus that has no say or chance to speak for itself is the epitome of "playing God".
Originally posted by Sanctuary
But we influence and manipulate all children already.I don't understand why genetic engineering should be wrong.
Can't a man and a woman decide to do with their cells whatever they want to do?
a man or woman can do whatever they wish for all i care. im talking about a child/baby/possibly fetus which is incapable of deciding whether or not it would like to be 'cured' of being a homosexual. they are essentially deciding what kind of person the child will be.
in the case of preventing fatal diseases/conditions its another issue entirely. that is just to assure that someone doesnt die in an untimely manner, as opposed to assuring that a child is tall, blond, blue eyes, not gay, etc...superficial nonesense which has already proven to be a great threat under the right supervision.
Originally posted by PVS
a man or woman can do whatever they wish for all i care. im talking about a child/baby/possibly fetus which is incapable of deciding whether or not it would like to be 'cured' of being a homosexual. they are essentially deciding what kind of person the child will be.in the case of preventing fatal diseases/conditions its another issue entirely. that is just to assure that someone doesnt die in an untimely manner, as opposed to assuring that a child is tall, blond, blue eyes, not gay, etc...superficial nonesense which has already proven to be a great threat under the right supervision.
But it will not care for it will be the person. It is not different from what we do now. Just that it is actively chosen. You give coincidence a much higher ranking and right than it needs or deserve. And a fetus is human cells. The parents can take influence already. If the mother smokes it changes the child. If she takes hormones it changes the child.
How has it been proven to be a great threat?
Originally posted by Sanctuary
Can't a man and a woman decide to do with their cells whatever they want to do?
That is exactly why it stands in the way of the religous desire to illegalize abortion. So, the point I made earlier about the religous right not having any issue with this kind of procedure is that they'd do it without realizing they themselves are playing "god". The overly religious think that abortion is taking gods will and tossing it out the window. But they fail to realize that if god existed in the manner they profess he does, then there's nothing they or I could do to pervert his will....him being almighty and all...and male.
So, Nellinator thinks it has potential as long as the adult homosexual in question "wants to change." But, that's because being effected by your biologcally produced hormones were a choice.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
That is exactly why it stands in the way of the religous desire to illegalize abortion. So, the point I made earlier about the religous right not having any issue with this kind of procedure is that they'd do it without realizing they themselves are playing "god". The overly religious think that abortion is taking gods will and tossing it out the window. But they fail to realize that if god existed in the manner they profess he does, then there's nothing they or I could do to pervert his will....him being almighty and all...and male.So, Nellinator thinks it has potential as long as the adult homosexual in question "wants to change." But, that's because being effected by your biologcally produced hormones were a choice.
Okay. I guess religious people might not have a problem with it. But they should if they go through it logically.
Originally posted by Sanctuary
But it will not care for it will be the person. It is not different from what we do now. Just that it is actively chosen. You give coincidence a much higher ranking and right than it needs or deserve. And a fetus is human cells. The parents can take influence already. If the mother smokes it changes the child. If she takes hormones it changes the child.How has it been proven to be a great threat?
superficial and non-beneficial genetic altercations through selective breeding has been attempted throughout history from slavery up to nazi germany. its not the act itslelf, but the motive behind the act. the question is not "are they harming the child" but "how could anyone have the right to determine someone else's sexuality"
being gay poses no health risk. to interrupt and alter a childs developement because they are genetically predisposed to be a homosexual is a clear abomination.
Originally posted by Sanctuary
Okay. I guess religious people might not have a problem with it. But they should if they go through it logically.
Religious people couldn't consciously agree with the detecting/curing homosexuality before birth as it would invalidate what they believe in. How could a fetus be gay and cured if homosexuality is a choice/sin...
But, religious people could agree with a "cure" for homosexual adults as it being a form of "redemption".
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, Nellinator thinks it has potential as long as the adult homosexual in question "wants to change." But, that's because being effected by your biologcally produced hormones were a choice.
Originally posted by Robtard
Religious people couldn't consciously agree with the detecting/curing homosexuality before birth as it would invalidate what they believe in. How could a fetus be gay and cured if homosexuality is a choice/sin...But, religious people could agree with a "cure" for homosexual adults as it being a form of "redemption".
right.
Originally posted by PVS
superficial and non-beneficial genetic altercations through selective breeding has been attempted throughout history from slavery up to nazi germany. its not the act itslelf, but the motive behind the act. the question is not "are they harming the child" but "how could anyone have the right to determine someone else's sexuality"being gay poses no health risk. to interrupt and alter a childs developement because they are genetically predisposed to be a homosexual is a clear abomination.
But the someone else doesn't exist if it is a fetus. It is just cell in a mother's body.
And it should not be done for a specific cause. It should just be available to everyone. Much like Gattaca. I mean you could purposely make gay babies as well then. Though that all is Science Fiction.
Originally posted by Sanctuary
But the someone else doesn't exist if it is a fetus. It is just cell in a mother's body.
well, lets be non-scifi for a moment here. the likely beginner would be manipulation of a childs hormones through developement. that is a very real and very close possibility.
but for the sake of discussion fine:
it is just a cell in the mother's body. however imho so long as it will become a human being with a will of its own then it is up to that human being alone what sexuality it will be...and basically who it will be. a parents role is to guide their child, not force it to be something it might not want to be on the level of their own psyche... and on the level of altering their very being in essense. i think thats abuse, isnt it?
you cant use the logic of 'my body my choice' here since there will be another human being produced which will be directly effected by your decision. like, what if someone genetically enhanced their daughter to grow huge **** because they felt it would just be easier for them to adjust to society. would that be right?
shut up backfire
Originally posted by Sanctuary
And it should not be done for a specific cause. It should just be available to everyone. Much like Gattaca. I mean you could purposely make gay babies as well then. Though that all is Science Fiction.
to purposely make gay babies is also human engineering