Imagine scientists discover that most homosexual orientation is the result of a fetus being exposed to specific hormones in the womb and a technique is developed to block those hormones, essentially creating a vaccine to prevent homosexuality. Would it be ethical to offer this vaccine to expectant mothers? Would it be ethical to make such vaccinations mandatory?
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"Imagine scientists discover that most homosexual orientation is the result of a fetus being exposed to specific hormones in the womb and a technique is developed to block those hormones, essentially creating a vaccine to prevent homosexuality. Would it be ethical to offer this vaccine to expectant mothers? Would it be ethical to make such vaccinations mandatory?
Nope, not at all. Nature has seen fit to provide homosexuals and who are we to defy nature. The best thing to do is not discriminate people just because they are gay.
It would be unethical to even make a vaccine that supports bigotry much less make it mandatory. Homo sexuality is not a disease or mental illness, but bigotry is a mental illness. Solitary
While hypothetical, this is an interesting question.
I suspect that fundamentally the ethics of this question boil down to whether or not it is ethical to choose anything about your unborn baby, which may potentially be possible in the future.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"While hypothetical, this is an interesting question.
I suspect that fundamentally the ethics of this question boil down to whether or not it is ethical to choose anything about your unborn baby, which may potentially be possible in the future.
Interesting hypothetical for sure. If as mykcob4 says, don't interfere because nature made them that way, would it follow that we shouldn't attempt to change any physical characteristics in the womb? Addressing genetic diseases would be (I would think) fairly easy to think about but what about say Down's syndrome? Then issues like hair color, (future) baldness, straight teeth, and many other traits. If a mother can decide her baby should be a tall male with brown hair, how do we stipulate she can't decide on sexual orientation?
It seems it might come down to a debate on which characteristics are good, neutral, or bad. In vitro genetic engineering is coming. No telling if homosexuality will be something that can be altered but what can and can't-should and shouldn't be altered is certainly something that will have to be hashed out.
Genetic modification in the womb has been thought about or years, and it will always have controversy, whether from bible thumpers or naturalists.
There are many benefits to it if it can be implemented correctly, however this could be countered by someone claiming that it would be the first step in a new supremacist regime, as new generations would be "perfect"
It reminds me of a book called post mortal (I think) where they literally found a cure for shining, no or aged so they lived forever, in theory. In the books storyline this led to mass genocide as the poor and other "undesirables" were wiped out systematically.
Could humanity handle defeating one of its permanent problems?
I would be concerned with the side effects, which may include extraneous nipples, erections lasting more than three hours, suicidal thought or actions, sudden drop in blood pressure, anal bleeding (rather ironic), rejection of reason, and urgent need to consume male bovine feces.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "SilentFutility"While hypothetical, this is an interesting question.
I suspect that fundamentally the ethics of this question boil down to whether or not it is ethical to choose anything about your unborn baby, which may potentially be possible in the future.
Interesting hypothetical for sure. If as mykcob4 says, don't interfere because nature made them that way, would it follow that we shouldn't attempt to change any physical characteristics in the womb? Addressing genetic diseases would be (I would think) fairly easy to think about but what about say Down's syndrome? Then issues like hair color, (future) baldness, straight teeth, and many other traits. If a mother can decide her baby should be a tall male with brown hair, how do we stipulate she can't decide on sexual orientation?
It seems it might come down to a debate on which characteristics are good, neutral, or bad. In vitro genetic engineering is coming. No telling if homosexuality will be something that can be altered but what can and can't-should and shouldn't be altered is certainly something that will have to be hashed out.
That's what I was trying to get at but you discussed it in far better detail.
To what extent is interfering with the baby's characteristics acceptable or allowable? Decide what your view is on that before arriving at a conclusion for the question in the OP.
I would argue that making the vaccination mandatory is unethical, as I believe that laws should allow for as much personal freedom as possible and only intervene to prevent harm to others & for the greater good. As homosexuality harms nobody and stopping it from existing entirely (arguably impossible as sexuality is not necessarily black & white) wouldn't really serve any kind of purpose, it is unethical to force such a vaccination on people purely on the basis that forcibly making anything mandatory without a good reason to is unethical.
IF indeed, a "vaccine" is available and the technology as well to determine if a child could be in the "throes" of the dreaded infection, it is rather irrelevant if it should be used, it will be. No parent wants a child who is to be born with a "stigma" attached. C'mon.
Homosexuality is a natural occurring percentile of not just humanity but for many animals stemming back to the days a asexuality. But lets be real, if you can change things to your liking, or to enhance the childs life? Oy yeah. We all know that better looking people get better opportunities based on looks alone, so if you could change that many would.
Better looking, smarter people tend to do better financially but I've read that homosexuals do too (don't ask me for a cite, can't remember where I read it). If that's true, we'd be left with the reproductive issue (although plenty of homosexuals reproduce) so that leaves us with the ick factor and the gawd don't like it deal.
I might opt to insure smart, nice looking kids who are free of genetic diseases but I don't think sexual orientation would be much of a concern. Maybe tell the doctor you'd like that part to be a surprise like some do now with gender?
Edit- Oh yeah, if there was an option to have them be able to shoot lasers out of their eyes, I might go for that too.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"While hypothetical, this is an interesting question.
I suspect that fundamentally the ethics of this question boil down to whether or not it is ethical to choose anything about your unborn baby, which may potentially be possible in the future.
I agree. A very interesting hypothetical question. I also agree with your assessment. In the case of homosexuality, no, I do not think it's ethical.
The world is over-populated as it is. Homosexuals generally do not have children themselves (I suppose some lesbians probably do get [inseminated?] to have their own child, or a gay guy could donate his sperm to have someone else carry his child) so that cuts down on the population as well as they adopt kids who would have other wise shitty lives.
Gays are a blessing to the world, so I see no reason to keep them from being born.
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"Imagine scientists discover that most homosexual orientation is the result of a fetus being exposed to specific hormones in the womb and a technique is developed to block those hormones, essentially creating a vaccine to prevent homosexuality. Would it be ethical to offer this vaccine to expectant mothers? Would it be ethical to make such vaccinations mandatory?
Which hormones are these? Do they affect other development factors? Could the same effect be achieved with lasers? You might as well ask if it's ethical to reprogram someones brain to make them law abiding.
And what about the damned bisexuals? Sexual orientation isn't either homosexual or heterosexual. Bisexuality and asexuality are orientations too. Yet nothing seems to rile people like the thought of two men doing it.
Quote from: "Jason78"Which hormones are these? Do they affect other development factors? Could the same effect be achieved with lasers? You might as well ask if it's ethical to reprogram someones brain to make them law abiding.
And what about the damned bisexuals? Sexual orientation isn't either homosexual or heterosexual. Bisexuality and asexuality are orientations too. Yet nothing seems to rile people like the thought of two men doing it.
[/quote]
I chose homosexuality for this hypothetical thought experiment precisely because human sexuality is varied and emotionally charged. Some people believe homosexuality is an illness or a sin and some believe it is natural part of a spectrum of human sexual expression. The question becomes who decides what human attributes are desirable or undesirable and what are the consequences of altering people before they are even born. Should we try to make left handed people right handed so they conform? When is a man's height too short and if we can make all males at least 6 feet tall should we? If there were no more gay men and lesbians born would humanity lose something? How about if there were no more black people born?
My thought is that the difference between vaccinating against homosexuality and vaccinating against disease, e.g. polio, is that characteristics such as homosexuality, baldness, height, left-handedness, red hair, introversion or skin color do not inherently cause suffering to the individuals with those characteristics. If homosexuals suffer it is due to social disapproval and nothing intrinsic in their sexual orientation. When science is used to breed fashionable characteristics in humans as opposed to correcting conditions that cause suffering the results can be problematic.
There is no problem with homosexuality, save that some people don't like them. Some people don't like sexy little mikos either, but that's hardly a reason to outlaw them.
In my view eliminating sexuality and gender from humanity would solve a lot of problems - except, of course, procreation and reproduction. If that issue were to be solved and I had the power to eliminate gender and sexuality I would do it.
I don't see any reason why it would ever be used. Ignoring the horrific moral implications, think about what would happen if that child, when grown to adult, found out that their sexuality had been changed before they were born. Who knows what mental crises would result.
I'm only for curing things that are intrinsically harmful to the individual or society, a person's sexuality is not intrinsically harmful - it is society's bigotry that is harmful.
I would be for other things though. Like if one could find out gender identity in the womb (there is evidence that gender identity has biological origins), then you could ensure that the body matches up with the kid's gender identity. Obviously curing any physical deformities in the womb would be great.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"I'm only for curing things that are intrinsically harmful to the individual or society, a person's sexuality is not intrinsically harmful - it is society's bigotry that is harmful.
Bingo. I would be in favor of knocking out life-threatening or quality-of-life threatening stuff, like birth defects and severe mental retardation. Seems like a given. But more intervention than that is ill-advised. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of "designer" babies simply because of the fact that it's a pretty damn big choice and human nature being what it is, would almost certainly be abused outright or mishandled through incorrect ideas of the superiority of certain traits over others.
Quote from: "frosty"In my view eliminating sexuality and gender from humanity would solve a lot of problems - except, of course, procreation and reproduction. If that issue were to be solved and I had the power to eliminate gender and sexuality I would do it.
(//http://theclassicsciencefiction.com/images/blog/borg.jpg)
Perhaps a more benevolent version?
I would hope that people would come to accept homosexuals before they figure out how to cure them..
But alas, science grows much faster than tolerance.
Quote from: "frosty"In my view eliminating sexuality and gender from humanity would solve a lot of problems - except, of course, procreation and reproduction. If that issue were to be solved and I had the power to eliminate gender and sexuality I would do it.
You bastard! Sometimes sex is one of the few pleasures I get! It also has the advantage of being a free, easily available form of recreation.
Changing one's sexual orientation? Wouldn't that be an offense against God or something?
Imagine going to a comedy theater to watch some gay guy act like a straight guy, complete with straight clothes and straight make up. Everyone would marvel, "Geeze, I thought that was a straight guy singing up there, but it was actually a gay guy. How does he do that?
The next thing you know, you have a whole bunch of gays acting like straight guys, dressing up in straight clothes. Some people would think it funny, others would be offended. Now I'm losing my train of thought. Where was I going with my argument? I have no idea. I'm totally lost now.
It depends on which comes first, the vaccine or the eradication of bigotry.
If you were about to have a child that would be discriminated against, find itself the victim of hate and discrimination, and had a greatly increased likelihood of suicide, would you take an injection to protect your offspring from that? Most would. Would that be unethical? Absolutely not.
Frank
Quote from: "FrankDK"It depends on which comes first, the vaccine or the eradication of bigotry.
If you were about to have a child that would be discriminated against, find itself the victim of hate and discrimination, and had a greatly increased likelihood of suicide, would you take an injection to protect your offspring from that? Most would. Would that be unethical? Absolutely not.
Frank
In some cultures women are severely discriminated against or considered property. In those cultures would it be acceptable to abort female fetuses or use other methods to prevent female children to protect them from discrimination? How about producing more female children so they could be sold for profit?
I think the problem is the discrimination not the inherent characteristic.
> In some cultures women are severely discriminated against or considered property. In those cultures would it be acceptable to abort female fetuses or use other methods to prevent female children to protect them from discrimination?
If you eliminate females, it ends the human race. Not a sterling idea. Yes, prevent females from being born in cultures in which they are discriminated against by 1. Working to eliminate bigotry, and 2. Move someplace more civilized.
> How about producing more female children so they could be sold for profit?
Selling people is evil. I never recommended selling people.
> I think the problem is the discrimination not the inherent characteristic.
I never said otherwise. What I said was, if you had the choice of having a child that would be discriminated against, or a child who would not be discriminated against, which would you choose?
As means of curing deafness advance, there is a growing movement to prohibit their use, that is, to make sure there are deaf people, depriving children of the ability to hear. This movement consists entirely of deaf people. People who are discriminated against want to ensure that there are more people who will be discriminated against. I wonder if this has something to do with your inability to see my point.
Frank
Eugenics.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Eugenics.
Gattaca is a good movie on the topic.
[youtube:3f48gcnz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZppWok6SX88[/youtube:3f48gcnz]
Can we make a vaccine that turns everyone bisexual?
I would not support use of such a vaccination, but I don't buy the "nature" rationale. When people use nature as a rationale, it conjures up images of nature such as grand beautiful woods, majestic oceans, beautiful sunsets, etc.
Nature also supplies us with mosquitoes that kill hundreds of thousands of people each year by spreading malaria. Nature also provides us severe birth defects, polio, etc. There are LOTS of things nature gives us that suck, and we humans can do better than nature on these things.
The reason I wouldn't support such a vaccine is that I don't consider it an improvement. If we can vaccinate to prevent birth defects, I'd support that improvement. It's not an improvement having a straight vs. a gay person in adulthood. In fact, (this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek) I'd support a vaccination to make more babies gay. The world is way too overpopulated, and any way people can get sexual satisfaction without reproducing is a-okay with me.
But then where would we find interior designers or couples to go on House Hunters International?
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Can we make a vaccine that turns everyone bisexual?
an excellent idea. :)
Quote from: "SGOS"Changing one's sexual orientation? Wouldn't that be an offense against God or something?
Well...if it's natural and it's something we like, then changing it would be playing God and the height of hubris. But if it's natural and it's something we don't like, then God wants us to change it. /fundie logic
QuoteImagine going to a comedy theater to watch some gay guy act like a straight guy, complete with straight clothes and straight make up. Everyone would marvel, "Geeze, I thought that was a straight guy singing up there, but it was actually a gay guy. How does he do that?
(//http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/78486/2299409-harris-as-dr-horrible.jpg)
Quote from: "FrankDK"It depends on which comes first, the vaccine or the eradication of bigotry.
If you were about to have a child that would be discriminated against, find itself the victim of hate and discrimination, and had a greatly increased likelihood of suicide, would you take an injection to protect your offspring from that? Most would. Would that be unethical? Absolutely not.
Frank
I would rather spend that money on a vaccine that eradicated bigotry instead. The problem with discrimination is that the problem is other people being assholes, and they
will find someone else to discriminate instead. And it'll probably still be some other random quality your kid still has and so the whole ordeal wouldn't even help.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "FrankDK"It depends on which comes first, the vaccine or the eradication of bigotry.
If you were about to have a child that would be discriminated against, find itself the victim of hate and discrimination, and had a greatly increased likelihood of suicide, would you take an injection to protect your offspring from that? Most would. Would that be unethical? Absolutely not.
Frank
I would rather spend that money on a vaccine that eradicated bigotry instead. The problem with discrimination is that the problem is other people being assholes, and they will find someone else to discriminate instead. And it'll probably still be some other random quality your kid still has and so the whole ordeal wouldn't even help.
Exactly. Why attack homosexuality. Why not find the gene that makes people believe bullshit like a god and erracticate it?!!!! This crap is just another method of segregating gays and foisting prejudices aganist them. If science was so capable to isolate and alter the "homo" gene then they could actually just manufacture kids that are blond haired, blue eyed and obeyed the fuhrer.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "frosty"In my view eliminating sexuality and gender from humanity would solve a lot of problems - except, of course, procreation and reproduction. If that issue were to be solved and I had the power to eliminate gender and sexuality I would do it.
[ Image (//http://theclassicsciencefiction.com/images/blog/borg.jpg) ]
Perhaps a more benevolent version?
Lol I picture something like that in my head. To be honest I think it would be great. Solve the idea of making babies and humans would propel themselves to new levels currently unimaginable. Sex may be for pleasure and reproduction, but it is also a lower form of animal behavior that seems to dilute our ways of thinking.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Can we make a vaccine that turns everyone bisexual?
I support this message and it's poster :D
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "frosty"In my view eliminating sexuality and gender from humanity would solve a lot of problems - except, of course, procreation and reproduction. If that issue were to be solved and I had the power to eliminate gender and sexuality I would do it.
[ Image (//http://theclassicsciencefiction.com/images/blog/borg.jpg) ]
Perhaps a more benevolent version?
Lol I picture something like that in my head. To be honest I think it would be great. Solve the idea of making babies and humans would propel themselves to new levels currently unimaginable. Sex may be for pleasure and reproduction, but it is also a lower form of animal behavior that seems to dilute our ways of thinking.
What about sex is "lower"? Because it is a base, instinctive function hardwired into us? Well, so are many other things like social needs etc. but that doesn't make them low behaviour. We are animals. Sure, we'd be more productive and there'd be less friction between us if we eliminated other intrinsic human wants and needs like self-esteem, self-actualisation, social acceptance etc. but at some point if you eliminate it all what is left of us?
I personally enjoy sex a great deal without it negatively impacting my life just as I'm sure many others on this forum do. I also like cars and very much enjoy indian food and sports, none of which make me unhappy nor harm anyone else. Where exactly is the problem with doing things because they are enjoyable? Is the pursuit of enjoyment somehow "low"?
Quote from: "SilentFutility"What about sex is "lower"? Because it is a base, instinctive function hardwired into us? Well, so are many other things like social needs etc. but that doesn't make them low behaviour. We are animals. Sure, we'd be more productive and there'd be less friction between us if we eliminated other intrinsic human wants and needs like self-esteem, self-actualisation, social acceptance etc. but at some point if you eliminate it all what is left of us?
I personally enjoy sex a great deal without it negatively impacting my life just as I'm sure many others on this forum do. I also like cars and very much enjoy indian food and sports, none of which make me unhappy nor harm anyone else. Where exactly is the problem with doing things because they are enjoyable? Is the pursuit of enjoyment somehow "low"?
I think the idea of sex as a "lower" behavior is a holdover of post-Christian thinking. Just because you lose the religion doesn't mean you lose the attitude. Feel free to prove me wrong if anyone has a better explanation or a defense of the idea, though.
Quote from: "aitm"IF indeed, a "vaccine" is available and the technology as well to determine if a child could be in the "throes" of the dreaded infection, it is rather irrelevant if it should be used, it will be. No parent wants a child who is to be born with a "stigma" attached. C'mon.
Homosexuality is a natural occurring percentile of not just humanity but for many animals stemming back to the days a asexuality. But lets be real, if you can change things to your liking, or to enhance the childs life? Oy yeah. We all know that better looking people get better opportunities based on looks alone, so if you could change that many would.
Right. I don't see the difference between a baby being operated for something like Spina Biffida while still in the womb to being able to correct another condition the parents might think of as abnormal. A baby in the womb doesn't have the "right" to be born gay, mongoloid, minus an arm or a leg or anything else. If the parents have the ability to alter the outcome at birth, I do not see a moral problem there.
> I would rather spend that money on a vaccine that eradicated bigotry instead. The problem with discrimination is that the problem is other people being assholes, and they will find someone else to discriminate instead. And it'll probably still be some other random quality your kid still has and so the whole ordeal wouldn't even help.
I agree. The problem is, we are much closer to finding out why some people are homosexual than we are to finding out why some people are bigots.
We are making some progress in reducing bigotry (witness the number of states that now allow same-sex marriage), but it's a long road. Eventually, one hopes, characteristics like sexual orientation, skin color, mobility, etc., will be irrelevant in measuring the contributions individuals make.
Frank
I think a cure for baldness would be better.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"What about sex is "lower"? Because it is a base, instinctive function hardwired into us? Well, so are many other things like social needs etc. but that doesn't make them low behaviour. We are animals. Sure, we'd be more productive and there'd be less friction between us if we eliminated other intrinsic human wants and needs like self-esteem, self-actualisation, social acceptance etc. but at some point if you eliminate it all what is left of us?
I personally enjoy sex a great deal without it negatively impacting my life just as I'm sure many others on this forum do. I also like cars and very much enjoy indian food and sports, none of which make me unhappy nor harm anyone else. Where exactly is the problem with doing things because they are enjoyable? Is the pursuit of enjoyment somehow "low"?
Sex, despite how many choose to perceive it, is itself a hold-over of human's most earliest and primitive days of origin. That's what I meant by that. We live in a society that chooses to glitterize and glorify an act which in itself is an ancient and modern relic. The idea that me saying that because of faded Christian influence is ridiculous. I never said it was a sin, or implied any negative (moral) connotations besides attaching and implying the idea that when we are heavily involved in such activity
in that moment we are not as intellectually, mentally, psychologically, etc. sharpened as we normally would be. I've seen how sex distorts the thinking of everybody, including myself, and it may be worse for some than others but it is a trait shared by almost the entirety of the animal kingdom and we enjoy it just as much as they do which is kinda funny in a way I guess. Even when people, including me, are not in the act we are distracted by the very base urges of such a thing!!!
Of course, the pursuit of fulfillment is not "low", because that is what makes people get up in the morning. But there is a thing called moderation, and self restraint, and what I am saying is simply not a Christian or religious tenet, it is a fact of life. Just as much as people crave and enjoy sex, people also, some more than others, strive to control their lower nature and strive to live their lives in control of themselves. It's funny because not only do people of all faiths, including Atheists themselves, agree with me about this, Atheists seem to be the best ones at controlling themselves.
Quotebut at some point if you eliminate it all what is left of us?
That is truly the golden question. That, in my opinion, will be the prime, defining debate in future societies regarding genetic engineering, steam cell research, anything involving this topic. The main theme will be something like 'When do we stop', or 'What is the true meaning of human?'
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "SilentFutility"but at some point if you eliminate it all what is left of us?
That is truly the golden question. That, in my opinion, will be the prime, defining debate in future societies regarding genetic engineering, steam cell research, anything involving this topic. The main theme will be something like 'When do we stop', or 'What is the true meaning of human?'
Advances in both mechanical augmentation and genetic engineering will certainly push the limits of what we consider human identity. Ultimately, we'll probably have to come up with a much broader definition or coin a new term.
.
Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "aitm"IF indeed, a "vaccine" is available and the technology as well to determine if a child could be in the "throes" of the dreaded infection, it is rather irrelevant if it should be used, it will be. No parent wants a child who is to be born with a "stigma" attached. C'mon.
Homosexuality is a natural occurring percentile of not just humanity but for many animals stemming back to the days a asexuality. But lets be real, if you can change things to your liking, or to enhance the childs life? Oy yeah. We all know that better looking people get better opportunities based on looks alone, so if you could change that many would.
Right. I don't see the difference between a baby being operated for something like Spina Biffida while still in the womb to being able to correct another condition the parents might think of as abnormal. A baby in the womb doesn't have the "right" to be born gay, mongoloid, minus an arm or a leg or anything else. If the parents have the ability to alter the outcome at birth, I do not see a moral problem there.
Um. Spina bifida and Down's Syndrome are both disabilities. Homosexuality is not.
"Curing" homosexuality in utero would be akin to changing the baby's race or eye color or physical beauty to please other people.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Um. Spina bifida and Down's Syndrome are both disabilities. Homosexuality is not.
"Curing" homosexuality in utero would be akin to changing the baby's race or eye color or physical beauty to please other people.
I don't think you can convince most people of that. I also don't think "we" are going to make the transition from gay to "normal" anytime soon. With that, I believe most parents would opt to have children who are straight so if such a procedure were available, I am sure it would get the 6-8% use that it would demand.
Quote from: "frosty"Of course, the pursuit of fulfillment is not "low", because that is what makes people get up in the morning. But there is a thing called moderation, and self restraint
Yeah, so why is partaking in the enjoyment of sex when it is appropriate to do so, thus exercising restraint, and not allowing it to consume your life so much that it negatively affects you, thus enjoying it in moderation committing a "lower" act?
I agree, sex is far too overhyped, glamourised and exploited in mainstream society but going the other way and viewing it as inherently bad is no better.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "frosty"Of course, the pursuit of fulfillment is not "low", because that is what makes people get up in the morning. But there is a thing called moderation, and self restraint
Yeah, so why is partaking in the enjoyment of sex when it is appropriate to do so, thus exercising restraint, and not allowing it to consume your life so much that it negatively affects you, thus enjoying it in moderation committing a "lower" act?
I agree, sex is far too overhyped, glamourised and exploited in mainstream society but going the other way and viewing it as inherently bad is no better.
I was merely, along with the entire rest of the post you did not quote, stating that sex in itself was a hold-over of ancient humans, an act that clouds our thinking and changes us for the time being. I do not see what else there is for me to say, sex is a lower form of behavior and living compared to what else we have been proven to be capable of. I meant lower in a mental way, that's the best way I could put it, but I did not mean lower in a moral way and I don't think I ever said "inherently bad", especially in the context you are claiming I did.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Quote from: "stromboli"Quote from: "aitm"IF indeed, a "vaccine" is available and the technology as well to determine if a child could be in the "throes" of the dreaded infection, it is rather irrelevant if it should be used, it will be. No parent wants a child who is to be born with a "stigma" attached. C'mon.
Homosexuality is a natural occurring percentile of not just humanity but for many animals stemming back to the days a asexuality. But lets be real, if you can change things to your liking, or to enhance the childs life? Oy yeah. We all know that better looking people get better opportunities based on looks alone, so if you could change that many would.
Right. I don't see the difference between a baby being operated for something like Spina Biffida while still in the womb to being able to correct another condition the parents might think of as abnormal. A baby in the womb doesn't have the "right" to be born gay, mongoloid, minus an arm or a leg or anything else. If the parents have the ability to alter the outcome at birth, I do not see a moral problem there.
Um. Spina bifida and Down's Syndrome are both disabilities. Homosexuality is not.
"Curing" homosexuality in utero would be akin to changing the baby's race or eye color or physical beauty to please other people.
We still don't know the specific causes of homosexuality, so to classify it as a "condition" doesn't necessarily apply. And if our parents want you to have blue eyes and can do so in utero, what would stop them?
I'm always interested in hearing how Christians make the distinction, in actual practical terms, between a sinner and the sin? I always hear them saying "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that's a distinction without a difference.
A vaccine tends to indicate that it is a sickness and disease. Since it is not a disease it would be like gentically manipulating your baby to look a certain way. Doesnt seem appropriate.
Even though treatment of gays is becoming better, little by little, I am pretty sure if the docs told me the kid had a 90% chance of being gay unless we did "x", I would do "x". Why add to the burden of an already burdensome world to a young person?
Quote from: "dgirl1986"A vaccine tends to indicate that it is a sickness and disease. Since it is not a disease it would be like gentically manipulating your baby to look a certain way. Doesnt seem appropriate.
Oh, but don't you know? Homosexuality is a disease, and it gives you AIDS! Curing homosexuality prevents AIDS! :Hangman:
Quote from: "aitm"Even though treatment of gays is becoming better, little by little, I am pretty sure if the docs told me the kid had a 90% chance of being gay unless we did "x", I would do "x". Why add to the burden of an already burdensome world to a young person?
All that does is add credibility to the people who would make it a burden.
You could just as easily say female, black, etc. is burdensome, so why not make sure they are male, white, etc. ? People shouldn't have to change, or be changed, because a certain group of people will harass them. Society is the problem, not them.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "aitm"Even though treatment of gays is becoming better, little by little, I am pretty sure if the docs told me the kid had a 90% chance of being gay unless we did "x", I would do "x". Why add to the burden of an already burdensome world to a young person?
All that does is add credibility to the people who would make it a burden.
You could just as easily say female, black, etc. is burdensome, so why not make sure they are male, white, etc. ? People shouldn't have to change, or be changed, because a certain group of people will harass them. Society is the problem, not them.
You can make a moral argument, but I think aitm is right. People will always choose whats most practical for their own interests and those of their offspring.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Society is the problem, not them.
Yes Shir, that is indeed the problem, now which is the most easily fixed?
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Shiranu"Society is the problem, not them.
Yes Shir, that is indeed the problem, now which is the most easily fixed?
I just don't see being treated differently by society as something being wrong with you, so there is nothing there to fix.
Bigotry won't change if everyone else changes to accommodate bigotry.
A cure for homosexuality made in utero is the choice of the parents. I can see even a gay partner in such a situation not wishing the societal issues of homosexuality on their child. In any case, if the choice is offered, it will be their choice to make. And I don't think any "right or wrong" applies, because ultimately the problem is a societal one, not a biological or medical one.
If it were 20 years ago and the choice was offered (and I was an adult, ect. It's a hypothetical dammit) I would make my child straight without a blink of an eye.
Today I wouldn't do it. I've seen society become more and more tolerate and accepting in just the last few years than I could've even imagined as a closeted teenager. So yeah, I wouldn't change a child's orientation today.
That being said what if a parent wanted to make their child gay?
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"If it were 20 years ago and the choice was offered (and I was an adult, ect. It's a hypothetical dammit) I would make my child straight without a blink of an eye.
Today I wouldn't do it. I've seen society become more and more tolerate and accepting in just the last few years than I could've even imagined as a closeted teenager. So yeah, I wouldn't change a child's orientation today.
That being said what if a parent wanted to make their child gay?
That would be just as wrong. Changing anyone's sexuality for them at all is morally wrong, and is essentially mind control. And honestly, with all the medical problems we humans face, gender orientation vaccines seem fairly useless and arbitrary.
Of course I didn't mean to imply it's morally right. I'm just wondering how those who'd make their kid straight out of bigotry would react if someone made their kid gay.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Shiranu"Society is the problem, not them.
Yes Shir, that is indeed the problem, now which is the most easily fixed?
Making your kid straight isn't fixing anything, it's coddling your kid and avoiding the problem. I don't really see a big difference between this and parents who don't let their kid play outside because he might get hurt. Society will still find a way to fuck your kid over, and trying to coddle and protect them from everything in the end will only make them more vulnerable most of the time. Life sucks, might as well prepare them for it.
And nothing has ever been "fixed" by letting the majority get away with their bigotry. All that does is validate them that if they bully people enough, eventually they will give up, roll over, and let themselves be fucked with.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Shiranu"Society is the problem, not them.
Yes Shir, that is indeed the problem, now which is the most easily fixed?
I just don't see being treated differently by society as something being wrong with you, so there is nothing there to fix.
Bigotry won't change if everyone else changes to accommodate bigotry.
Agree with that, but I would not be so willing to bet that society would change that much. If the issue was mine I would make the change because I can control that. You, unlike me, may actually have that choice in the near future, then you can examine it first hand.
Quote from: "Plu"[Making your kid straight isn't fixing anything, it's coddling your kid and avoiding the problem. .
ah, maybe you missed that part of it being "fixed" during pregnancy. That kinda would eliminate the whole coddling thingy..dontcha think?
Quote from: "aitm"Agree with that, but I would not be so willing to bet that society would change that much.
I think you'd be surprised. When I was a teen ager some 30 years ago now, I had several classmates who were gay. But none were open about it because they would not have been accepted by many in the class.
Go into that same school today and ask the students if they know of any openly gay classmates and they would likely tell you they do. Ask most of those students if having openly gay classmates bothers them and most would likely tell you they couldn't care less.
Far more kids today just don't give a fuck if someone is gay than would have been the case just 30 years ago. Those kids are going to grow up and have their own kids who also won't give a fuck if someone is gay. I believe we have reached the point where just about anyone who is currently middle aged or younger will very likely live to see the day when those who choose to be openly bigoted toward gay people end up being far more ostracized by society as a whole than openly gay people.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Plu"[Making your kid straight isn't fixing anything, it's coddling your kid and avoiding the problem. .
ah, maybe you missed that part of it being "fixed" during pregnancy. That kinda would eliminate the whole coddling thingy..dontcha think?
Nah, I see it as the same thing. You're protecting your child from life and society by trying to keep him away from the shitty bits. But in the end life and society will still be shitty and he'll just bump into something else instead and with less experience.
Quote from: "Plu"Nah, I see it as the same thing. You're protecting your child from life and society by trying to keep him away from the shitty bits. But in the end life and society will still be shitty and he'll just bump into something else instead and with less experience.
What are you talking about? How can changing a unborn to a hetero- during pregnancy have anything to do with "less experience"? Do you think any child born hetero today has "less-experience" in lifes shitty bits? Every human gets to "enjoy" lifes shitty bits, I would choose to eliminate a certainty that would almost guarantee more shitty. Simple. Just like I would correct anything, anything that would draw undo attention to a child and/or make the child more susceptible to ridicule and torment. I think any parent that would could but wouldn't would be a piece of work.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "aitm"Far more kids today just don't give a fuck if someone is gay than would have been the case just 30 years ago. Those kids are going to grow up and have their own kids who also won't give a fuck if someone is gay.
I agree its getting better. But I still see and read plenty of cases were gay kids are tormented, some to suicide. Dan Savages program is extremely active not because bullying gays is going away, but because its is still going on.
I am pleased that you and others are so optimistic about todays society that you would not change your childs "gayness" if you could during the pregnancy. I however, do not share your optimistic beliefs for at least another 20 years. Until then I would still opt for the procedure and would urge others as well, were such a thing available.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Plu"Nah, I see it as the same thing. You're protecting your child from life and society by trying to keep him away from the shitty bits. But in the end life and society will still be shitty and he'll just bump into something else instead and with less experience.
What are you talking about? How can changing a unborn to a hetero- during pregnancy have anything to do with "less experience"? Do you think any child born hetero today has "less-experience" in lifes shitty bits? Every human gets to "enjoy" lifes shitty bits, I would choose to eliminate a certainty that would almost guarantee more shitty. Simple. Just like I would correct anything, anything that would draw undo attention to a child and/or make the child more susceptible to ridicule and torment. I think any parent that would could but wouldn't would be a piece of work.
Meh. I wouldn't do any of that. I don't want my child to be a clone-copy of all socially acceptable traits. That sounds boring as fuck. Just let the kid be born as is and experience life like that.
Since you're in the mood for correcting child traits to prevent undo attention, how would you feel about being given the option to "correct" your child so they'd be born inclined towards strong feelings of religion as well? Considering they'd likely get more shit for being atheist than being homosexual, if you could choose between "highly rational" and "highly religious", do you really think you'd pick the latter for your kid?
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "aitm"Far more kids today just don't give a fuck if someone is gay than would have been the case just 30 years ago. Those kids are going to grow up and have their own kids who also won't give a fuck if someone is gay.
I agree its getting better. But I still see and read plenty of cases were gay kids are tormented, some to suicide. Dan Savages program is extremely active not because bullying gays is going away, but because its is still going on.
I am pleased that you and others are so optimistic about todays society that you would not change your childs "gayness" if you could during the pregnancy. I however, do not share your optimistic beliefs for at least another 20 years. Until then I would still opt for the procedure and would urge others as well, were such a thing available.
Fair enough. But of course any such hypothetical procedure would carry a risk of unknowable side effects which could take as long as 30 years or more to manifest. So taking this injection guarantees your unborn child will turn out completely hetero. But then 30 years later we find that the rate of muscular dystrophy is 50 times the national average for people who received the no homo treatment before birth. Or perhaps we find that 30 years later, the rate of infertility is 30 times the national average for adults who received the treatment before birth.
Those risks would be unknowable until after the fact. So in light of that, would taking that chance still be the better option to you? I mean I know we're talking hypotheticals here but reality is still reality. And the reality is until a large number of individuals received this treatment, grew up, reproduced, grew old and died, and had their children grow up and reproduce without observable side effects, there would simply be no way to know for sure what the long term side effects could turn out to be.
This is the reason I do not every go through the nudie scanners at airports. I always opt out every time. The magnetometers have been in use since before I was born with no known observable ill effects to those who use them. The nudie scanners have been in use for only a few short years. It is impossible to know what long term effects could occur and I refuse to be the TSA's guinea pig.
Quote from: "Plu"Just let the kid be born as is and experience life like that.
well we disagree. I am a lousy parent. I know that kids will get stung by bees and maybe a broken bone in their life, but I am just the kind of guy that will try to stop a bee if I see it, and will try to keep the kid from getting a broken bone. It's just me, I kinda think it's my role to protect my kid as best as I can, and sure I know she will get picked on and maybe bullied in her child hood, but damn if I would do my best to stop it. And if the doc said the kid is going to have both sex organs I would opt to have that stopped as well, its just me. I really have no interest in making a childs' life tougher if I have the chance to prevent it.
What about my last question?
QuoteSince you're in the mood for correcting child traits to prevent undo attention, how would you feel about being given the option to "correct" your child so they'd be born inclined towards strong feelings of religion as well? Considering they'd likely get more shit for being atheist than being homosexual, if you could choose between "highly rational" and "highly religious", do you really think you'd pick the latter for your kid?
I'm curious now if you see this the same way.
Quote from: "Johan"Fair enough. But of course any such hypothetical procedure would carry a risk of unknowable side effects which could take as long as 30 years or more to manifest.
Those risks would be unknowable until after the fact. So in light of that, would taking that chance still be the better option to you?
Now thats a good point, except it was not part of the OP so......er..........I ain't gonn play. :Hangman:
Quote from: "Plu"What about my last question?
QuoteSince you're in the mood for correcting child traits to prevent undo attention, how would you feel about being given the option to "correct" your child so they'd be born inclined towards strong feelings of religion as well? Considering they'd likely get more shit for being atheist than being homosexual, if you could choose between "highly rational" and "highly religious", do you really think you'd pick the latter for your kid?
I'm curious now if you see this the same way.
I do not see this as similar at all, and frankly I could actually see a day in which the former could be possible whereas the latter could never be proven to work.
Why are they not similar? There is more stigma attached to being an atheist then there is to be homosexual. If you would fix homosexuality if given the choice in order to prevent stigma, why not prevent atheism as well? It'll change your kid, they'll never know, and they'll catch less flak from society.
Quote from: "Plu"Why are they not similar? There is more stigma attached to being an atheist then there is to be homosexual. If you would fix homosexuality if given the choice in order to prevent stigma, why not prevent atheism as well? It'll change your kid, they'll never know, and they'll catch less flak from society.
Firstly I disagree with your premise that atheist have more stigma than homosexuals. Secondly, I don't see your scenario as possible as you would have to be able to interfere with future nuture, which can direct and change what you are proposing, so I don't think a guarantee would be possible. You are suggesting by implication that homosexuality can be taught and learned? Interesting.
QuoteFirstly I disagree with your premise that atheist have more stigma than homosexuals.
I'm just going on what I've heard from polls and the like. It might be wrong, though. But many polls seem to indicate that atheists are among the most hated groups of people in the US.
QuoteSecondly, I don't see your scenario as possible as you would have to be able to interfere with future nuture, which can direct and change what you are proposing, so I don't think a guarantee would be possible.
Regardless of how possible it is, both questions are hypotheticals. Also, all you need to do in order to make sure kids will grow up firm believers in god is to cut down on their rationality, which isn't all that hard since most people don't have much of it anyway.
QuoteYou are suggesting by implication that homosexuality can be taught and learned? Interesting.
No I'm not. If anything, I'm saying rationality possesses a large element of nature just like homosexuality does. Even then; it's just a hypothetical question in the end. I just want to know why you think the option to make someone not gay is one worth taking to prevent stigma, but the option to make someone not atheist is not worth taking to prevent the same kind of stigma.
Quote from: "Plu"I just want to know why you think the option to make someone not gay is one worth taking to prevent stigma, but the option to make someone not atheist is not worth taking to prevent the same kind of stigma.
To me, one may be possible, the other is not. I don't think you can make someone atheist in-utero. And I don't see atheist anywhere near the same "stigma" that homosexuality is in todays world. I cannot see your argument at all similar. To me your argument is the same as saying make someone like philosophy, or pig latin vs being homosexual, I see no correlation to the OP. But present your argument in a different thread and lets see what happens.
QuoteI'm just going on what I've heard from polls and the like. It might be wrong, though. But many polls seem to indicate that atheists are among the most hated groups of people in the US.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigo ... sHated.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm)
QuoteUniversity of Minnesota Study on American Attitudes Towards Atheists & Atheism
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...
Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%
I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%
So there atheists beat homosexuals in dislike by a good 17%.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-distrust (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust)
QuoteAtheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to.
According to multiple studies, atheists are both one of the least liked and least trusted groups in the United States, so I think its safe to say they face stigma at least as bad as homosexuals do, if not worse. You can come out on national T.V. as gay and you will be applauded for your bravery. If you did the same as an atheist, you would risk losing your job.
That certainly is interesting. However, not only have I never heard of, nor read of any atheist youth committing suicide due to this stigma I cannot even find a web site presenting evidence that it is enough to BE evidence. Gay, unfortunately, we have plenty of evidence. So while the evidence of stigma may be more as in more people find disfavor in atheism not to vote for one, it seems that the fewer who find homosexuality a stigma try to DO something to the wayward person. In other words, come out as atheist, you may lose your job, come out as gay and you could get your ass kicked. I'll stay with my belief that there is not the same type of stigma associated.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"Fair enough. But of course any such hypothetical procedure would carry a risk of unknowable side effects which could take as long as 30 years or more to manifest.
Those risks would be unknowable until after the fact. So in light of that, would taking that chance still be the better option to you?
Now thats a good point, except it was not part of the OP so......er..........I ain't gonn play. :Hangman:
Well you got me there. You're right that my premise wasn't at all part of the original scenario. So I don't blame you a bit for opting out given the additional twists I've presented. :wink:
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"Fair enough. But of course any such hypothetical procedure would carry a risk of unknowable side effects which could take as long as 30 years or more to manifest.
Those risks would be unknowable until after the fact. So in light of that, would taking that chance still be the better option to you?
Now thats a good point, except it was not part of the OP so......er..........I ain't gonn play. :Hangman:
Well you got me there. You're right that my premise wasn't at all part of the original scenario. So I don't blame you a bit for opting out given the additional twists I've presented. :wink:
thanks for letting me off the hook. 8-)
Quote from: "aitm"That certainly is interesting. However, not only have I never heard of, nor read of any atheist youth committing suicide due to this stigma I cannot even find a web site presenting evidence that it is enough to BE evidence. Gay, unfortunately, we have plenty of evidence. So while the evidence of stigma may be more as in more people find disfavor in atheism not to vote for one, it seems that the fewer who find homosexuality a stigma try to DO something to the wayward person. In other words, come out as atheist, you may lose your job, come out as gay and you could get your ass kicked. I'll stay with my belief that there is not the same type of stigma associated.
Atheist suicide rates are really high. I would assume that it is because, again, atheism is socially stigmatized and gays aren't. When a gay kills himself because of bullying, its national news. When an atheist kills himself because of bullying, then it was just some teen who killed him self.
It's like pitbulls; if a pitbull kills someone, headline, "Pitbull kills child!". If a German Shepard or Rot kills someone, "Dog kills person!". Just because the media doesn't cover it doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just shows that if anything atheists ARE more stigmatized because they do get bullied and commit suicide but no one cares enough to talk about it.
American Psycho.
QuoteRESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members.
Interesting, post the link, I'd like to look at it.
Interestingly, the actual studie itself I cant get to work, it seems to have been removed from the American Psychological w/e site. However many sites still link and quote from it.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html (http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html)
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/05 ... the-world/ (http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/suicide-rates-of-the-world/)
Amongst the highest countries with suicides, they are almost all atheist majority. Which then leads to the question if bullying is an issue since I would wager they aren't bullied as much in those countries.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Interestingly, the actual studie itself I cant get to work, it seems to have been removed from the American Psychological w/e site. However many sites still link and quote from it.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html (http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html)
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/05 ... the-world/ (http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/suicide-rates-of-the-world/)
Amongst the highest countries with suicides, they are almost all atheist majority. Which then leads to the question if bullying is an issue since I would wager they aren't bullied as much in those countries.
I saw the adherents website earlier but as it is a christian based web I cannot give to much credibility to its findings and as to the wordpress, I see nothing that would suggest any connection to religion or lack there of.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Shiranu"Interestingly, the actual studie itself I cant get to work, it seems to have been removed from the American Psychological w/e site. However many sites still link and quote from it.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html (http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html)
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/05 ... the-world/ (http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/suicide-rates-of-the-world/)
Amongst the highest countries with suicides, they are almost all atheist majority. Which then leads to the question if bullying is an issue since I would wager they aren't bullied as much in those countries.
I saw the adherents website earlier but as it is a christian based web I cannot give to much credibility to its findings and as to the wordpress, I see nothing that would suggest any connection to religion or lack there of.
The article it linked to was from American Psychology and to be fair I have seen multiple sites link to the study, but the thing is the study is no longer on the site... so maybe another study showed the results inaccurate or something.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteI would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%
So there atheists beat homosexuals in dislike by a good 17%.
I'm surprised that homosexuals didn't make the marriage list! :D
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Plu"I just want to know why you think the option to make someone not gay is one worth taking to prevent stigma, but the option to make someone not atheist is not worth taking to prevent the same kind of stigma.
To me, one may be possible, the other is not. I don't think you can make someone atheist in-utero. And I don't see atheist anywhere near the same "stigma" that homosexuality is in todays world. I cannot see your argument at all similar. To me your argument is the same as saying make someone like philosophy, or pig latin vs being homosexual, I see no correlation to the OP. But present your argument in a different thread and lets see what happens.
Ok if that's what you think. I would think it's way easier to make someone religious than it would be to make some straight. (Making someone atheist in-utero isn't even part of the question; the question is if you can make someone irrational enough to be religious. I would agree that it would be very hard to make someone atheist in-utero.)
Quote from: "Plu"I would think it's way easier to make someone religious than it would be to make some straight.
My understanding that sexuality is most likely hard-wired genetically and therefore would be possible to tweak a strand or 30, but rationality I would think would be more nuture than nature and as with intelligence is subject to exterior influences. Do you think they could influence rational thinking at that stage?
QuoteMaking someone atheist in-utero isn't even part of the question;
I thought the entire OP was about doing this entirely in-utero which is why my responses were such. I would not opt for "fixes" to kids already born. Perhaps I misunderstood the premise.
The premise of the OP is to do things in utero, but my question was about making kids religious in the uterus. Again; you keep talking about making kids more rational, but what you want is the opposite. People are hardwired to be irrational; just like they are generally hardwired to be straight. It is the highly rational people who are out of the ordinary. That's why most of the world is religious and will never change from that. All you're doing is bringing your child more in line with the norm.
Quote from: "Plu"The premise of the OP is to do things in utero, but my question was about making kids religious in the uterus.
Again, I don't see how that could be done as I have never heard of a premise that religiosity could be genetic
QuoteAgain; you keep talking about making kids more rational, but what you want is the opposite.
again, I don't think I have said anything about making anyone rational.
QuotePeople are hardwired to be irrational;
I have never heard of such a premise, perhaps you have some backup?
Quotejust like they are generally hardwired to be straight.
If in "general" you mean a larger percentage then yes, I am under the belief that humanity has always had homosexuality as a certain percentage although with mild variations in points, but I have no proof of that.
QuoteIt is the highly rational people who are out of the ordinary. That's why most of the world is religious and will never change from that.
again, not only have I never heard of such a premise but how can it be tested when children are indoctrinated at such a young age? I have a real hard time believing this.
QuoteAll you're doing is bringing your child more in line with the norm.
I agree that is what I would be doing by removing a "stigma" in utero. I have no problems with that.
[youtube:38l3e0yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAzsZLvfPw[/youtube:38l3e0yt]
//http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/82332/dan-ariely-why-humans-hard-wired-make-irrational-decisions-around-money
//http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.nl/2005/10/why-are-so-many-people-irrational.html
//http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/04/religion.uk
//http://foundation.moneylife.in/?th_galleries=when-it-comes-to-money-we-are-hardwired-to-be-irrational
All of them are based on the same premise: the brain is hardwired to jump to conclusions, not to think rationally about things. People are naturally irrational about things. Rationality has to be taught, and teaching people is hard.
Edit I also did a quick search for the opposite position, but I couldn't find anything. If you look for "people are hardwired to be rational" you mostly get the same articles about why they're not.
Quote from: "Plu"Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAzsZLvfPw)
//http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/82332/dan-ariely-why-humans-hard-wired-make-irrational-decisions-around-money
//http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.nl/2005/10/why-are-so-many-people-irrational.html
//http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/04/religion.uk
//http://foundation.moneylife.in/?th_galleries=when-it-comes-to-money-we-are-hardwired-to-be-irrational
All of them are based on the same premise: the brain is hardwired to jump to conclusions, not to think rationally about things. People are naturally irrational about things. Rationality has to be taught, and teaching people is hard.
Edit I also did a quick search for the opposite position, but I couldn't find anything. If you look for "people are hardwired to be rational" you mostly get the same articles about why they're not.
Good stuff Plu. I would counter that religiosity is a mere one of many irrationalities that could easily be interchangeable. We see in children their growth and irrationality in, like many of us still do, attaching living essence to inanimate objects. I would say that, as one article pointed out that irrationality was perhaps evolutionary in that it may have been beneficial to act suddenly on a whim/hunch based on no rational belief but on past events. It may be irrational to run when the wind blows and a leaf rustles, but in the past when leaf rustles a predator was causing it.
Religion perhaps is merely the one of many devices that supplanted this irrational behavior. Those who have never been involved in religion probably have the same irrational behavior only attributed to a different action, perhaps more of a lean towards animism, or superstitions. I wonder if that could be modified and even if that would be a good idea.