Will Science Lead to Gay Genocide?
That’s the question I subtly suggested in a post a few days ago about the Gay Sheep Experiments. Some of you picked up on it… some of you didn’t bother to read the post at all and instead had a knee-jerk reaction as usual. But I digress.
It seems pretty clear that any scientific path which even suggests the ability to genetically change any homo animal to a straight animal will eventually lead to genetic testing capabilities for humans. If you don’t see that potential path, frankly, you are blind.
I actually wrote the Gay Sheep posting after watching a TV news report about how all expectant mothers are now being pushed to have a “fetus test” for the possibility of their unborn child having Down’s Syndrome. Thereby raising the potential that in a generation or less, no more Down’s Syndrome babies will be born at all due to selective abortions.
Yesterday, I found a column by Andrew Sullivan on the potential real implications of the gay sheep…
Experimenting on other human beings crosses a bright moral line — even when that other human being is in your own womb. There is no medical reason for meddling with anyone’s sexual orientation, let alone in the crucial first months of a human being’s life. And the potential for all sorts of unintended consequences is huge. Most ethical doctors would abhor such practices. And rightly so. Laws could even be passed, and enforced, to ban them.
But what of the darker scenario in which we merely discover scientific clues to the origins of homosexuality in human embryos and allow the potentially gay ones to be selectively aborted? That, it seems to me, is by far the likelier scenario. In fact, we’d be naive not to expect something like it.
That’s what I said last week, remember? So why aren’t gay groups flocking to become anti-abortion? Hmmmm…
And in a posting yesterday, one of Andrew’s readers made the connection between these two scientific developments and the path toward “modifying” or eliminating gay people.
Why should we assume that it would be any different with gay fetuses? After all, where nobody really gives much thought to Down syndrome children, there is widespread antipathy towards homosexuals. Even heterosexuals who support gay rights feel something between mild unease and outright revulsion at the thought of two men having sex (just ask Mickey Kaus).
In short, we really do live in interesting times. On the one hand, we are the first generation of gay men who has had a shot at living something like a normal life; on the other, we may be the last generation of gay men to have a shot at living.
Not so subtle, eh?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
35 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
#0 – Bruce, it won’t lead to that, because the very same science will enable people who want to have gay babies, to have gay babies.
It may lead to a stratification effect where gay people have mostly gay babies and straight people have mostly straight babies.
But I agree it will be interesting (if sad in other ways) to see the GayLeftBorgTypes suddenly realize they were wrong to ally the gay cause with the abortion lobby.
Comment by Calarato — January 9, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - January 9, 2007
And what’s wrong with reducing the number of children born with Down’s Syndrome? To conflate Down’s Syndrome with the possibility that a child might grow-up as a gay individual is vile. Just as it is to leap to the assumption that all parents would abort fetuses with a “gay” gene-marker if given the choice.
As long as the parents have “choices”, I applaud therapeutic pre-natal genetic testing. Having seen both the joys and the havoc done to families by genetically- and developmentally-challenged children, it’s foolish not to take advantages of science’s capabilities. Where I draw the line is either compulsory testing even if the family would otherwise have chosen to opt-out; or where the state mandated a set-response to the test results.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 9, 2007 @ 1:07 pm - January 9, 2007
The problem is not reducing the number of children born with Down’s Syndrome. The problem is deciding that certain children are not worth being born. One of my best friends has cerebral palsy and I’d hate to imagine what could have happened to her if the doctors had seen her disability prior to her birth. All children are worth life, regardless of disability or sexual orientation.
Comment by Kelsey — January 9, 2007 @ 2:02 pm - January 9, 2007
I agree 100% with the false gay rights = abortion rights alignment.
What’s funny is that the right has long been challenging the left on this, asking if the left would go pro-life if gay abortions were possible. The equally interesting question is how many fundamentalists will start to abort if they know their kid will be gay.
Comment by torrentprime — January 9, 2007 @ 2:18 pm - January 9, 2007
There are risks, but nothing can be done. If you think it’s unlikely that many people would abort a gay fetus, you’re being naive. But at the same time, there’s nothing that can be done to stop this. It’s a case of parental choice, and many parents, if they have a choice, would choose for their kids NOT to be gay.
I agree it puts the pro-abortion people in a funny place, but making that the main focus of this seems silly to me.
Comment by Novaseeker — January 9, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - January 9, 2007
Welcome to the Brave New World, circa 2007. Aldous Huxley would have been proud. (Sarcasm)
The sticking point in this argument is also the nature vs. nurture debate. Are you born gay? Is it genetic? If so, does that make the law regarding “sexual orientation” as impermeable as, say, race, sex or color? Will the law recognize that it is immutable to be gay and therefore it falls under discrimination? Or is this a “learned” behavior and not protected under the law?
This will be a twice-divisive argument for the gay population. If being gay is an inherent trait, should it be devolved via abortion? If it is a learned trait, would it lead to fewer abortions and more “primal therapy” techniques to “train” someone not to be gay?
One can only wonder…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 9, 2007 @ 2:40 pm - January 9, 2007
#3 – TP: None. That is: none with the approval and support of their churches. Backdoor / illicit actions – known to them as “sin” – could be another matter.
Comment by Calarato — January 9, 2007 @ 2:44 pm - January 9, 2007
Scientific and medical ethics are a touchy area, we are heading down a path where much is possible, and we need to decide whether something should be done, just because it can be done.
As for the issue of Down’s Syndrome-while it is an imperfect comparison, I think the patht o push abortion in order to prevent kids with Down’s from being born is ethically awful. When humans get into the business of deciding that one class of humans isn’t human enough, the darker sides of our nature come out, and I personally want no part of that.
With regard to a genetic or other identifiable prenatal component to homosexuality-it is a tough place to be in for the pro choice gay, because if a baby doesn’t have a right to live, you can’t really argue it has a right to be gay.
At least I can say explicitely that I am against abortion, and I don’t think babies should be killed because they are gay, disabled or inconvienient.
Comment by just me — January 9, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - January 9, 2007
I’ll say the same things I said before:
#1 The London Times misrepresented the science of the sheep study, barely talked to the scientists involved, and made a lot of assumptions. Look at the Next Hurrah blog if you want to know more.
#2 I still haven’t seen any of those here who are focusing on the left talk about whether or not conservatives and Republicans will allow gay babies to be aborted or allow babies to have hormones put into them and possibly mutate or damage them just to prevent them from being gay. Are any of you worried about that? You can’t just focus on the left. This country has more than one ideology. Since many of you associate with the GOP, shouldn’t you be worried about how the right may feel about this?
Comment by Carl — January 9, 2007 @ 5:25 pm - January 9, 2007
I also wanted to say that changing hormones in animals does not mean the same will work with humans. They’ve done this type of experimenting on humans in the past. Remember that British mathemetician (Arthur Touring?) who helped win WW2, but he was gay, so the government forced him to choose between jail and hormone treatments, or something like that.
Anyway, GP, I think you should keep in mind that this may lead to people using patches on babies, not necessarily aborting them. Personally I think that using pathces or putting hormones into fetuses, doing who knows what to them, is very dangerous, but I haven’t seen you comment much on that.
I don’t know why Andrew Sullivan thinks he’s the last generation of gay men. He’s around 45 or 50, isn’t he? There’s another generation here already.
Comment by Carl — January 9, 2007 @ 5:32 pm - January 9, 2007
Another issue is whether the fundamentalists will even BELIEVE that their kid will be gay from this future test, since they presently don’t want to admit it is pre-determined. So if they abort based on a genetic or fetal test showing, “your kid is teh gay!” doesn’t that mean they will have to accept that orientation is not a choice? So much cognitive dissonance, and I think it will mostly be in the minds of the far right on this one.
Comment by torrentprime — January 9, 2007 @ 5:52 pm - January 9, 2007
“The equally interesting question is how many fundamentalists will start to abort if they know their kid will be gay.”
I can only speak about Ultra- Orthodox Jews – they won’t be facing that problem, because they don’t do prenatal genetic testing. Which is probably why there are many mentally challenged children in that population. They have many babies – and they don’t abort. My guess is that most fundemental religious people accept the babies born to them. They won’t be rushing to suddenly condone abortion.
The opposite will happen, all those ‘open minded’ liberal parents will be the first to abort the baby – for it’s own sake. Why bring a child into this world that has to face those problems. Liberals are always quick to tell others how to behave- but not if it inconvenience them.
My guess is that homosexuality is much more than just one genome. And fooling around with hormones may make gay sheep inclined towards the ewes. Humans are much more complex – homosexuality is much more than simple sexual drive. There is the whole emotional attraction. If anyone does come up with a cure – I fear the consequences will be much worse.
Comment by Leah — January 9, 2007 @ 7:27 pm - January 9, 2007
Interesting that you don’t bring up the fact that the number of female fetuses aborted is 9 out of 10 because in many cultures (including parts of the US), males are more desirable than females.
However, like your original post, this comes from false logic. The original article discussed accepting/proving the the theory that being gay was something genetic. it further discussed introducing hormones to to supposedly stop the fetus from becoming gay, not terminating the pregnancy. Love how you skew things to fit your agenda.
Comment by Kevin — January 9, 2007 @ 7:34 pm - January 9, 2007
Jim Newman here from the university that is actually conducting the research.
while this is an intereting debate – the Sunday Times article – which is the source of all these wild conspiracy theories, it was filled with errors and false statements. In some cases the paper even reported the exact opposite of what actually occurred. In reality – the research was conducted five years ago. When announced in 2002, several gay and lesbian groups appreciated the findings as the data supports the belief that homosexuality has biological roots and is not merely a matter of choice.
I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article basically a piece of science fiction made up by PETA, yes the animal rights people.
His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which again comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.
Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:
A wolf in gay sheep’s clothing: Corruption at the London Times
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/4/134158/4348
Also the press is beginning to print stories on how this science research was hijacked by PETA, the left and the right for political gain.
Here’s one story:
If only British press would say, ‘My baa-d’
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=116829766709316800
Comment by newmanj — January 9, 2007 @ 8:06 pm - January 9, 2007
Carl (#10) – I think messing around with fetuses in any way is dangerous.
To me, there isn’t a lot of difference between switching fetal hormones before birth, or sucking the whole unborn baby out with a vacuum.
Comment by GayPatriot — January 9, 2007 @ 8:07 pm - January 9, 2007
I also wanted to say that changing hormones in animals does not mean the same will work with humans. They’ve done this type of experimenting on humans in the past.
I think you miss the point. This post isn’t so much about hormone treatments in gay sheep, and in future children, but more about where the “mom has the right to kill baby in the womb for any reason” arguments we hear from the likes of NARAL-who gay groups are often in bed with.
If the argument is mom has the right to kill baby for any reason, because it is her body and her right to decide, then pretty much you can’t make a “it is wrong for a mother to treat her infant in the womb to prevent homosexuality or have an abortion, because said baby is predicted to be homosexual” argument.
If a baby has no right to life, it can’t have a right to be gay.
As for fundamentalists and prenatal testing for various birth defects, in general they take a pass on this, and while I won’t swear to it, I am pretty sure Catholic hospitals and doctors associated directly with them do not offer or do the prenatal testing involved.
To me, there isn’t a lot of difference between switching fetal hormones before birth, or sucking the whole unborn baby out with a vacuum.
I have to agree with this.
#12 I agree with you with regard to what causes homosexuality. I suspect if involves far more than anyone would like to think. I figure if they still haven’t figured out what causes autism, it is going to take a while to figure out why people are gay.
Comment by just me — January 9, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - January 9, 2007
[...] I like conservative Gay folk: Gay Patriot has written an interesting post about the gay sheep. I won’t bother commenting over there, because I would only be saying what a few of them have said already. [...]
Pingback by I like conservative Gay folk: « …the word on the road… — January 9, 2007 @ 9:26 pm - January 9, 2007
So do I, GP. I oppose doing this type of thing to fetuses. I’m relieved to hear you feel the same way, because some other gay conservatives have said they support these hormones being used.
-I think you miss the point. -
No, I got that point. The problem is that this is a serious issue and choosing not to move beyond the equivalent of, “ha ha on gay liberals who work with abortion groups” is a mistake.
Comment by Carl — January 9, 2007 @ 10:05 pm - January 9, 2007
If this were 50 years ago, then I might be concerned. Today not so much, and in a generation, when such research might bear fruit so to speak, not at all. Gay is rapidly becoming mainstream and won’t matter much at all after the next generation – apart from a few antichoice wingnut homohaters who really will be faced with a Hobbesian Choice. In any event, it doesn’t sway me one bit regarding my pro-choice beliefs. Indeed, I don’t know any pro-choice gays who have suddenly become anti-choice over this issue.
Comment by Ian — January 9, 2007 @ 11:01 pm - January 9, 2007
apart from a few antichoice wingnut homohaters who really will be faced with a Hobbesian Choice.
That from the Master Race kid.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 10, 2007 @ 1:46 am - January 10, 2007
TGC, I don’t know if it’s Ian as Master Race kid or Ian as GayLeftBorgType when he writes: “I don’t know any pro-choice gays who have suddenly become anti-choice over this issue”.
Of course he doesn’t.
That’s the beauty of the Borg… march in step, follow the orders of our Brave New Leaders, don’t think for yourself, and carry the Democrat Party’s water pail when ordered.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 10, 2007 @ 7:15 am - January 10, 2007
#20:
Not sure where that came from. Perhaps just a classic case of projection.
Comment by Ian — January 10, 2007 @ 8:57 am - January 10, 2007
#21:
My position on abortion is libertarian and it entirely consistent with my belief that government should not be in the business of regulating who my sex partners are nor should it discriminate against me based on the gender of the person I might wish to marry.
Comment by Ian — January 10, 2007 @ 9:05 am - January 10, 2007
BTW, #20, as Dan will attest, I’m hardly a “kid”.
Comment by Ian — January 10, 2007 @ 9:09 am - January 10, 2007
Wait. So it’s just fine to murder your child because you’re a whore and you don’t want to deal with the consequences of your actions, but it’s suddenly awful to murder your child if you find out he’s going to be gay?
Pardon me, but I fail to see the distinction, nor do I see why so-called “eugenics” are any more morally deplorable than abortion.
Comment by rightwingprof — January 10, 2007 @ 11:04 am - January 10, 2007
Ian, slapping on the Libertarian “SuperMan” cape doesn’t cover the Borg affinity. Nice try, tho.
The GayLeft has carried the water for the radical Democrat feminists because most of those slags are lesbians… and the ones that aren’t, are fag hags. Get real. The GayLeft “trades” politically with radical feminists because they are a similarly oppressed minority political interest that the GayLeft can identify with as fellow victims of mainstream persecution.
Govt, as representing broad societal interests, has every right to regulate your sexual practices in dozens of ways. Just because you don’t like that, doesn’t vitiate society’s interests. Libertarian, my ass.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 10, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - January 10, 2007
#26:
Well, it’s always been pretty clear that you and many others who comment here not to mention the vast majority of today’s “conservatives” are of the authoritarian variety. I’m reading John Dean’s book that details just what it is that makes people like you tick. It’s quite interesting. Thankfully, the American people have wakened up to the threat authoritarian conservatism represents. The gains by the Dems in 2006 are just the start of the rollback of all the crooks, warmongers, neocons, and others of that ilk who have infested our government.
Comment by Ian — January 10, 2007 @ 5:39 pm - January 10, 2007
The Mickey Kaus comment struck a nerve with me. I have a very liberal family member who is a major proponent of gay rights. However, he refuses to see “Brokeback Mountain” because he does not want to see two men making love. It opened my eyes to appreciate that, despite his liberalism and acceptance of my homosexuality, the thought of the full ramifications of my orientation creeps him out. We may have made strides over the past thirty years, but we still have a long way to go and even our “friends” harbor hang-ups that are disturbing. I could see this leading to selective termination of gay children if ever a genetic marker determining sexual orientation is discovered.
Comment by Gus — January 10, 2007 @ 9:04 pm - January 10, 2007
Thankfully, the American people have wakened up to the threat authoritarian conservatism represents. The gains by the Dems in 2006 are just the start of the rollback of all the crooks, warmongers, neocons, and others of that ilk who have infested our government.
Mhm. That’s why leftist Democrats and gays illegally tried to prevent the Massachusetts Legislature from voting on a constitutional amendment raised by the voters through a perfectly-legal process.
If conservatives were that authoritarian, it would have been impossible to remove them from office. But as the Democrats of Massachusetts prove, they have no qualms whatsoever about disenfranchising the public and refusing to answer to their will — and they insist that the Constitution gives them the power to strip voters of rights and to ignore any petition or request by said voters.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 10, 2007 @ 11:29 pm - January 10, 2007
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you are gay and seeking moral authority on abortions, you are completely misguided.
Please tell me how a gay man can father a child he does not want. Also, please show me how two lesbians who undergo costly in-vitro fertilization will decide that all that money they spent to get one (or both) of them pregnant was a waste, so they jointly decide to abort.
The day we are able to procreate is the day we can dictate whether or not we support abortions.
Prove me wrong.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 11, 2007 @ 12:29 am - January 11, 2007
Gus, people may still support the right of gays to exist, to not be experimented on at birth, even if they don’t want to see gay men having sex. I know a few gay men who won’t watch anything with straight sex in it, but they have many straight friends.
-That’s why leftist Democrats and gays illegally-
So were any of them charged, or put in jail? Otherwise it must not have been all that illegal.
Comment by Carl — January 11, 2007 @ 3:30 am - January 11, 2007
This whole discussion reeks of eugenics and experimentation by the Nazis prior to and during the war. What’s next – the talking point of “life unworthy of life?”
Some viruses never die.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 11, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - January 11, 2007
#30:
Who’s supporting abortions? If I were a woman, I wouldn’t have one. But I have every right to support someone’s right to control their own body.
Comment by Ian — January 11, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - January 11, 2007
Who’s supporting abortions? If I were a woman, I wouldn’t have one. But I have every right to support someone’s right to control their own body.
Unfortunately, Ian, abortions are the result of NOT controlling one’s own body — of having sex in the first place, or of having unprotected sex.
What I find incredibly ironic is that leftist gays will roundly condemn those gay men who choose to have unprotected sex, call them irresponsible, and blast anyone who points out that, in reality, it IS their choice — but, when it comes to WOMEN choosing to have unprotected sex, sit back and babble about how no one should interfere, no one should complain, they have the right to “control their own body”.
There is a reason that the group most likely to have an abortion — black females 18 – 23 — is a major component of the group for which HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death — blacks older than age 23.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2007 @ 2:25 am - January 12, 2007
Ian writes: “Who’s supporting abortions? If I were a woman, I wouldn’t have one. But I have every right to support someone’s right to control their own body.”
Their own body? That’s right Ian, whether it’s a female or male child, they should have the right to life and protection of their life when the birthmother’s life is not in danger from the birth. You should support the right of the child to control the future of its own body… and since the birthfather contributes at least 1/2 of the gene pool to the future newborn, maybe we Dads should have at least veto power over the self-interest of abortionists.
Since the future newborn can’t speak, the state can act in loco parentis for him/her and stop abortions except in the case of endangerment. At the very least, no abortion until the birthfather has a chance to weigh in on his half of creation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 12, 2007 @ 10:11 am - January 12, 2007