December 31, 2006
-
Gay Sheep
Scientist may have found a cure for gay sheep. They believe they can actually change the sexual orientation of the gay sheep. The problem was they had male sheep (rams) that were not breeding with the female sheep (ewes). The rams were “mounting” the other rams. Apparently it happens in 10% of rams. They will go after other rams instead of the ewes.
The research was conducted to increase the productivity of herds. The rams “mounting” other rams was reducing their value to the farmers. Scientists were able to figure out how to change the orientation of the rams by cutting open their skulls and placing electronic sensors to their brains.
By injecting hormones into the brain, they were able to change the rams’ sexual orientation. Some of the rams changed and became attracted to ewes.
Tennis legend, Martina Navratilova, has spoken against the project defending “the ‘right’ of sheep to be gay.” This research has raised the chances that human women may eventually be able to take hormone supplements to impact the sexual orientation of their baby. Here is the link: Link
Would it be unethical for a woman to take hormone supplements to impact the sexual orientation of her child?
Comments (166)
Yes.
You bet it would. People should accept their children for what they are. Not try to change or manipulate things from the get go.
There are gay sheep?
It would be morally wrong. I hope in the next ten years, people will become more liberal rather than more conservative, but at this point it can go either way.
OMFG! FIRST!!!! Its pretty funny (and sick) to do this to anyone, human or animal. If a ram wants to ram a ram, let him. Its his perrogative. Same goes for people.
yes
why would you want to be liberal… anyway. People have a problem with a woman taking homone supplements, but what about abortion. Better a strait baby than a dead one.
Yes, being gay is a choice, not something you’re born with.
So what if sheep do that? Dogs do it too, but it won’t produce babies. And hello, they’re animals, not human beings.
thats kinda weird with sheep. and it would definetly be weird in humans.
YES! That’s like changing the race or personality of your baby in the womb. I believe that the baby will be who it is. God intended it to be that way, and even though sometimes we doubt it, He doesn’t make mistakes.
COMPLETELY unethical.
“There are gay sheep?”
Honey, there are gay everything’s. Many years ago, scientists have determined that the temperature of the mother’s womb is a factor of its child’s sexual orientation. This is true for reptiles, and scientists believe it holds true for all creatures.
Just as we may wish to predetermine our children’s gender or traits, just because you have the ability to give birth to a girl over a boy, or a straight child over one who is gay, does not mean you’ve got the right mix.
Absolutely. Besides, what if (s)he was already uber-straight? Would you give them a hyper sex drive and have grandchildren when your kids are 12?
BebstersBlog2, if being gay is a choice, made by rational humans, then how can rams (no rational thought process) choose to be gay?
I suppose so. The whole ideas of animals and humans is a little corny
Oh. Being gay is a choice?
I must’ve missed that. Please, tell me how I accomplish this, because being gay all my life has been more struggle than triumph, and I wouldn’t mind giving it a little willpower-switcheroo.
That’s too weird.
That must have cost a lot of money to give whole bunch of gay rams brain surgery just to implant an electronic sensor to de-gay-ify the ram.
I don’t think it’s right, but my main concern is that we’re spending thousands upon thousands of dollars just to de-gay people and animals.
Is that really what the USA should be spending its money and resources on? De-gaying people?
I’d rather see our resources and money go to something like population control, AIDS and other STDs, and/or cancer.
I think it is a bit unethical, although there are many different sides to this issue I would potentially agree with.
YES. Jesus.
Not really. It’s her child. I’d take plenty to make my child gay.
Yes.
It’s no more unethical than people aborting babies because it will have Downs Syndrome or no more unethical for a parent to choose the sex of their child. If you’re not paying for the kid, then you should have no say in it’s life unless it will TRULY be life-threatning. I highly doubt being gay is life threatning…to a degree. It’s homophobia and heterosexiam that is life-threatning, not homosexuality.
Not really. Think of all the women who try to pre-determine the sex of their baby.
Yes, that’s just wrong. You love who you love.
Yes. And the availability of something like that would only make discrimination worse.
Anyone ever watched Gattaca? Becomes more and more relevant all the time.
I would be afraid of the medical complications of the hormones. If they are safe. I don’t see the problem. In an ideal world, parents should accept them as they are (which we don’t live in). For the most part, people should be able to do to their body what they choose.
Dan your site is great and I’ll always come by and visit and comment. But never again will I give my opinions on politics or religion here or anywhere else. People get far too emotional and their reasoning flies right out the door. Politics and religion do nothing but divide and get people het up. Sometimes i wonder what these things really do for mankind besides tear us apart.
I am on Xanga to journal, have a bit of community, to uplift myself, and to write about things that matter to me. Discussion about religion or politics usually only lead to fighting or nasty comments, which is definitely not welcome by me. I don’t want people coming over because of what I say here or anywhere else and trying to pick fights and start arguments. That’s not what I’m here for. I’m not a “hot button” site. So I’m afraid I won’t be answering this kind of question (in a serious manner, at least) any more.
Yes it would be unethical. Just like killing a baby prior to birth simply because it has downs syndrom or some other birth defect or killing a baby prior to birth because of the baby’s sex.
I don’t see what the problem is at all. I have nothing against gay people at all. I’m bisexual myself. I would never wish homosexuality on someone though– it’s a source of incredible discrimination, and a lot of basic human rights are denied to them. If I could prevent my child from having to experience that I would for sure.
YES IT WOULD! What if it screwed up the baby? Gosh, why do people care so much about who you like to fuck? It’s such a trivial thing.
people amaze me, and not in a good way. God made you the way you are for a reason, and changing it with hormone supplements is just morally wrong and unethical. and for the people who say being gay is a choice, think before you speak.
No shit.
Pregnant women take vitamin supplements to improve the health of their unborn babies all the time. It is even encouraged. If being gay is a result of a hormonal imbalance during their Mothers’ pregnancies, I would think that the imbalance should be corrected since it is correctable. If being gay is a result of a genetic imprint, then the child is gay. I do not even think that this should be an issue. My concern would be what would happen if a hormonal patch was worn when the fetus had no hormonal imbalances to begin with.
Injecting hormones into a sheep’s brain is one thing. Pregnant women taking those same hormones in order to affect their baby’s development is completely another. Who knows what the hormones would do to the developing infant? What sorts of side effects are there? What would they do to the mom? Is there a reverse effect, where those sme hormones could turn a “straight” person into a “gay” one? Is it a parents’ right to try to determine their kid’s sexual preference? (this isn’t even getting into the whole ordeal about how this assumes that homosexuality is practically equivalent to a mental illness that one must take “medication” to “get rid of.”)
At this point in time, any sort of discussion on these hormones being used on embryos and fetuses seems ridiculous. There’s so much more research that needs to take place before it can be any sort of a serious discussion.
yes it would be…
Animals can be gay too.
It’s kinda sad.
I understand that this is use for farmer’s end because he’s gotta make money too. But if humans start using this for their children, I’m gonna go against it. =/ so not cool.
yes. what does that chip overcoem?? the decision maker???? what the heck else will it effect in humans??!?!?!
WOW. absolutely. the homophobia is disgusting.
Yes…where would the world be without gay people! Two words. Mom jeans.
(I also think it’s somewhat ridiculous that people are comparing being gay to having down’s syndrome. You may be trying to defend gay people, but you’re only making them seem like they have a desease or disability that makes them not be able to function properly in the world)
That is SO strange. I hope they’re not allowed to take them. It sounds wrong to me.
Yes.
Very much so
I think the important thing about this whole ” experment” is it shows a biological link to being gay. As far as messing around with hormones while pregnant? I think I would rather take my chances, but I am not sure I think it’s unethical to do it.
I would be more inclined to freak out over a gay man having brain surgery to ungay himself. I wonder if that’s next.
I agree with forever_llamas. You love who you love. You don’t always get a choice.
Do you have a thing for gay sheep?? wtf???
I think it is ok, more so than killing the unborn which is not only apparently A-OK, but encouraged…………
absolutely
Eww – yes.
can we start giving people pills to change their race?
of course not.
its the same thing..
YES. If you aren’t going to love your child for whoever they grow up to be, then you obviously don’t want a child that badly.
Yeah, it would be wrong! I a child should be born naturally, the way God intended the birth of a child to be.
I’m sorry, I really can’t answer this without some form of sarcasm since the question is about ethics.
If it’s a woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy (since it’s HER body, HER choice) then it should be her choice whether or not she takes the horomones to influence the sexual orientation of said fetus. Therefore, it would not be unethical at all. After all, it’s not a baby, right? Not a person. It’s just a fetus… something people akin to a parasite with no rights. And in-utero, it’s HER body, HER choice, right?
But I suppose if a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy, THEN it becomes a child with rights? THEN it would be unethical to decide what her child’s sexual orientation would be?
that’s extremely wrong…
Yes it would! Ever watch the movie Gattaca….makes you wonder where things are headed….besides being gay isn’t like a disease and it’s a shame that people would be so homophobic that they would have to do that
very much so.
yup
Weird!
Where in the world do you get this stuff???
so what would these hormones do to a fetus that wasnt going to be gay?? Dont we have enough oversexed people walking around now??
Poor sheep let them get their mounting on in peace!
Hell yeah, and I doubt they’ll ever really be able to do that anyway.
Scientists should do studies on gay dogs. Then we can figure out why my bulldog likes legs…
No, a woman should not ingest hormones to affect her child’s orientation. Doesn’t a fetus get the right to become gay or not???
That’s just asking for even more confusion…
“What?! I’m supposed to be gay? Ma, I’m SUPPOSED to be gay?!”
I wonder if Martina Navratilova ever eats lamb chops…
~My 2 cents
Yes. Pretty much a no brainer question I would think.
Well the ethics would depend on whether or not one is born gay. I realize that pseudoscience and civil rights activists depend on that fact, but it’s not actually true. People are born predisposed to be more likely to become gay, but no one is born gay. And since being gay is a sin, mothers determining a straight orientation would be doing their children a favor, however I don’t think I agree with anything that involves tampering with the natural course of a pregnancy unless it means saving the child’s life. So yes it would be unethical, but keep in mind it’s the predisposition to a sinful practice that would be influenced, not an actual orientation.
-Jared
Definatly. Also, what if gay parents want their kids to be gay and change their orientation from strait. You know wierd stuff like that’ll come from it.
Ew. Honestly, that’s sick. That’s definitely bizzare in sheep (although I can kind of see why the farmers would want to do that, they need more babies) but in a human that’s even worse. Your baby is what your baby is. We need to accept things the way they are.
And this:
Absolutely. Besides, what if (s)he was already uber-straight? Would you give them a hyper sex drive and have grandchildren when your kids are 12?
Posted 12/31/2006 2:10 PM by la_faerie_joyeuse
Exactly. There’s not a huuuge chance for a baby to be homosexual in the first place. If your kid was straight already, would the hormones have the opposite effect? Or just really screw the kid up and make him/her hypersexual?
Evidently, being gay is not a choice- unless of course you’re saying that these animals can reason. Wait, isn’t that what separates us human beings to animals such as sheep? Not only that, but many other things. You just can’t look at humans and animals on the same page. We’re different.
Some rams were born that way and are more inclined to mate with other rams, instead of ewes. They’re animals, they’re going to follow their instincts? Yeah, but then again, I don’t talk to animals, nor do I observe them.
Now, your question. Of coures it’s unethical. It’s not 100% chance that you’re gonna get the sexual orientation for your baby. What if you got a different result? You’re not gonna like that child as much as you would if you had it the other way? Messed up. Science is turning the human race into a bunch of spoiled brats. Making everything convenient, not having to accept things the way they are- that’s what life is: not everything is convenient, nor is everything going to turn out the way you think they ought to be. That’s why you see more people nowadays stressed out, and unhappy.
“Those of you who say that it is wrong for man to lay with man, or woman to lay with woman, I say to you: God’s love knows no gender.”
yes. the child is what he is.
…That was unexpected. I’m uh, staying out of this one.
Oh dear…all this kind of stuff nowadays.
I think a person should just be natural. Everyone should just have to accept who a person is. I don`t think it’s a smart idea to mess with these kind of issues.
Why do people waste time cutting open a sheep’s brain to make it ungay? Who cares. Why do people just want to change everything. Just let things be.
It’s the individual’s decision….so yes.
As unethical as changing your baby at all. Not changing them will give the illusion of evolution to the Human Gene pool, despite the fact that that will never happen. We have left the cradle of the Gods, and it’s either die out or live on and defy the Gods.
I’m not sure how being gay really destroys society. Will someone enlighten me?
It’s a sad day in tennis when a player defends Rams Rights. I mourn for the loss in our sport (Or at least mine)
No. If being gay is just a lack of hormones, doesn’t that make it a disease? Theoretically speaking, of course. So who in their right mine would make preventing your child from becomming deseased illegal?! That’s like telling a pregnant woman she can’t take vitamins because they might take away the child’s choice of becomming mentally retarded. Which in, actually, an extremly RETARDED thing to do.
Well the ethics would depend on whether or not one is born gay. I realize that pseudoscience and civil rights activists depend on that fact, but it’s not actually true. People are born predisposed to be more likely to become gay, but no one is born gay. And since being gay is a sin, mothers determining a straight orientation would be doing their children a favor, however I don’t think I agree with anything that involves tampering with the natural course of a pregnancy unless it means saving the child’s life. So yes it would be unethical, but keep in mind it’s the predisposition to a sinful practice that would be influenced, not an actual orientation.
-Jared
Posted 12/31/2006 3:35 PM by Misguided_Overlord
Tampering with “God’s Plans”, now are we?
yes, i think so.
No. If being gay is just a lack of hormones, doesn’t that make it a disease? Theoretically speaking, of course. So who in their right mine would make preventing your child from becomming deseased illegal?! That’s like telling a pregnant woman she can’t take vitamins because they might take away the child’s choice of becomming mentally retarded. Which in, actually, an extremly RETARDED thing to do.
Posted 12/31/2006 4:06 PM by All_Stars_Make_Shadows
That’s not a disease. A disease is contracted. It’s genetic mutation. Like down syndrome. Which is obviously not the same. Have respect?
Wouldn’t that completely refute the “being gay is a choice” theory that so many rightwingers seem to cling to?
LMAO, I love reading the “being gay is a sin” comments. ALL THOSE SHEEP ARE GOING TO HELL
YES! Go gay rights!!! Go gay sheep! It is horrible to want to change the sexual orientation of your child! You should love and accept him/her no matter what!!!
*stares for a second*
Anyway,
To answer the question: I don’t think that’s right, for her to take hormones to …. help the chances of the eventual sexual preference of her child, to be either one or the other.
Now, if she has a hormone deficiency.. sure, pop in the hormones she’s deficiet in.
No. Sheep are property and it is necessary for the rams to mate with the ewes because of profitability. It is not necessary for a human being to mate.
That, to me, is very very scary. It reminds me of the newest X-men, where they find a way to change mutants into normal people, and things come up like the government requiring mutants to take the cure.
Reminds me of Gattaca, too.
maybe it’s just ignorance on my part, but i know for dogs, when a male mounts another male, it’s to show dominance, not sexual feelings.
And how do sheep relate to the question?
But in answer….all I have to say is that’s a disgusting waste of science.
Meh. But I imagine that the risk of taking the hormones would probably outweigh the “benefit” of having a straight child. Y’know right now people can (for the right price) choose what gender their baby will be. How do you feel about that?
As if it would actually work in humans. Taking hormones is more likely to cause birth defects than affect sexual orientation.
what the fuck?
I don’t know about unethical, but definitely pointless. Homosexuality is a choice, not genetically transmitted. Duh.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a gay sheep, or gay any other animal for that matter.
YES! =O
That is unbelievable…
it wouldn’t be unethical; it would be ridiculous. homosexuality isn’t something you’re born with. it’s a lifestyle you grow into and,ultimately,it’s a choice people make. I have nothing against anyone of any religion,race,or orientation,only against the orientation itself. it is indeed a sin,but God says(and most “Christians” don’t follow this part) to love one another. and so I do.
gina
Yes! If you care that much about the sexual orientation of your kids, get sterilized.
Tennis legend, Martina Navratilova, has spoken against the project defending “the ‘right’ of sheep to be gay.”
Martina is wrong. Sheep have no “rights”. I doubt very seriously if the ram knows the difference between ram and ewe, he just wants to hump something, anything!
Sheep have a right to be gay? What an idiot.
Anyway, parents should have the power.
i didnt realize that sheep could be gay.
annnnd on top of that i wanna know how christians are gonna react to this as a whole … they are usually so against homosexuality and now they are given the chance to change that , but at the cost of their morals and beliefs that you shouldnt tamper with “gods creation” . unless ya know it affects the child’s health…
but again … i had no clue that sheep could be gay lol
oh yes and LMAO For the term ” DE-GAYING” wow round of applause for that one
YES.
YES.
I wouldn’t do anything to try and affect the sexuality of any of my kids. They are what they are.
I’m loving all the people who say that sexuality is a choice. If you honestly thought that gay people could choose to be straight, then by the same logic you, as a straight person, can choose to be gay. Go on then …..
Hmmm. Thought not.
PETA’s big lie:
Just so you know. The false suggestion that the research is aimed at curing homosexuality was made by PETA. Yes, the animal rights group.
Of course PETA has their own motives for receiving press on this story. In fact, PETA heavily edited quotes by the researchers and even fabricated information to generate press coverage. Many weeks ago, a writer in the states looked into PETA false claims. Here’s what he found:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/peta_crosses_th.html
Absolutely.
they should just kill the gay rams.
they’re just animals.
extremely.
that is a horrific thought.
I don’t know. On one hand, I don’t think it is a bad idea, because it’s the same as taking a hormonal supplement to ensure that your child will not be blind; but then, I don’t like messing with nature. You are who you are. Yeah, life is tough! But people have lived even though it has been hard.
So I probably wouldn’t do that.
YES!
SO not right.
i think it’s funny how all the gay people say that their sexual orientation isn’t a choice, and the straight people are trying to tell them it is. how fucked is that?
How come there are only gay rams…not gay lady sheeps? That seems fishy to me. I wonder if they are gay or just so horny they’ll do anything that walks by.
It is rididculously unethical. And this “scientist” was incredible unethical about it as well.
Maybe that scientist can work on AIDS or Cancer or something else that hurts people and ruins lifes. Instead of dumb sexuality. 10% of America is gay, so if you know 10 people you probably know one gay person. It’s not like autism, it’s just sexuality. Leave it alone. I wouldn’t want to be straight.
It’s… just plain gross. Whatever Mom would stoop so low because she a homofrickenphob, as to try to change her baby’s sexual orientation, is someone who I have no respect for. I’m sure, somewhere in the distant future, the procedure would be useful or beneficial…. But I can’t speak for gays anywhere. I’m not personally gay. Possibly, what I’m saying seems presumptuous or stereotyping, this is just my opinion. Though I would like to see some other points of view with good supporting details…
Oh, and as an added edit to my post, kind of like abortion, 99.9% of the time it is just stupid. The whole “somewhere in the distant future, the procedure would be useful or beneficial” was aimed for the affect of maybe one or two circumstance.
they should just kill the gay rams.
they’re just animals.
Posted 12/31/2006 6:30 PM by RagamuffinKing
They should just kill the gay people. They are only sinners
It doesn’t seem right to me. Besides, the majority of women so paranoid about having a gay child that they would take such an extreme precaution are also the women who think that the child will choose his own sexuality (that biological changes in the womb won’t affect the outcome). So it seems a little pointless.
Gay sheep ! !
What next? Bisexual telegraph poles?
Yes and I hope the government won’t require it some day. It really doesn’t matter what people. It’s who they are that counts.
yea
yes- being gay is something that naturally occurs, and no one has the right to change it. If they are happy that way, why does it need to be changed???
yes.
Are they sure that those sheep are actually ‘gay’ and not just acting dominant? I raised rabbits for years, and my male rabbits would ‘mount’ other males just to show who was boss. Dogs do it too.
But to answer your question, yes. It would be unethical.
Yes!!
I’m trying to just answer the question and not get involved in all the other issues. No. I don’t think taking any kind of supplement is a good thing for any baby. Vitamins, yes. Hormone, or whatever, no. Don’t we have enough problems from women in the 50′s and 60′s taking some kind pills and now problems are showing up in their kids??? I know…I should have checked with one of the women I know who did take the pills, before I start spouting off.
Yes!
I don’t know that it would be unethical, but I don’t think nature should be messed with. If someone is gay, let them be gay. Whatever makes them happy. Don’t force anyone to be something they’re not.
Perhaps the gay sheep and the gay penguins can get together and start a revolution.
“mounting”, huh?
I don’t think homosexuality is “bad” or “wrong” in any way, and thus I agree with the sentiments of the many people who are saying it would definitely be unethical to change the sexual orientation of an unborn child.
However, I also agree with Twist2daRav3n. Gay people get a lot of crap from society and it seems that many of them live very difficult lives because of their sexual orientation, over which they have no control. If I had the power to spare my child that pain, I think I would.
So I think it depends on the mother’s motivation for doing it. If it is done based on the presumption that homosexuality is bad, wrong, gross or whatever, then yes, it’s completely unethical. However, I do see how it could be done for good, loving reasons.
Though of course, that’s assuming there are no possible weird side effects from the hormones, which would be a whole different story.
Oh my word those sheep aren’t GAY! They are just expressing their dominance. Sort of like how our female dogs hump people…the cat…everything. That is stupid.
Hmmmmm – Maybe the sheep just need glasses or their smellers aren’t working.
That is the most arrogant thing I have ever read.
No. We should NOT be injecting hormones to keep babies straight.
Not to mention the hormone boost the baby would recieve as a teenager, making it even harder to grow up than usual.
Dipshit farmers…
-Jacob
NATURAL SELECTION
The weak shall not reproduce.
i just read the comment that said gay was a choice. they can go die.
why would anyone choose to be this different?
just because the magical old book says that we’re gonna go to hell or whatever.
and doing that to babies is wrong.
unless us homos are that painful to society.
“NATURAL SELECTION
The weak shall not reproduce.”
and this one.
i’m so shocked that people are this narrow-minded.
No. Why would it be unethical? She is able to choose whether or not the baby is even born in the first place. If a woman is allowed to choose whether her baby lives or dies, so why shouldn’t she have the “right to choose” the sexual orientation? It all makes my head hurt….
>> Yes, being gay is a choice, not something you’re born with. <<
In all genuine curiosity, was that a serious comment? How can people choose the *criteria* for sexual and romantic attraction?
>> So what if sheep do that? Dogs do it too, but it won’t produce babies. <<
What’s the significance of pointing that out? Sterile sex between straights won’t produce babies either. Is there a moral significance?
Sarcasm isn’t becoming, is it?
why would you want to be liberal… anyway. People have a problem with a woman taking homone supplements, but what about abortion. Better a strait baby than a dead one.
Posted 12/31/2006 2:04 PM by Jesus_Freak_58
<TABLE class=blogbody cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=”100%” border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=”5%”>
<TD vAlign=top>
Yes, being gay is a choice, not something you’re born with.
So what if sheep do that? Dogs do it too, but it won’t produce babies. And hello, they’re animals, not human beings.
Posted 12/31/2006 2:05 PM by BebstersBlog2
Look at that. two assholes, right in a row. Way to completely avoid the actual question jesus_freak_58. It wasn’t about abortion. Not even remotely.
And BebstersBlog2, what the fuck would you know about being gay? I’m assuming that you’re heterosexual, have always thought of yourself as such, and you find the idea of being with someone of the same gender repulsive, right? Well guess what. I’m gay. I’ve always thought of myself as gay (even before I knew the word for it. I’ve just always known, before I was even in school, that I like girls the way most girls like boys). And I find the idea of being with someone of the opposite gender repulsive. It’s not a choice. I would never choose this life. In fact there are days that I just wish so hard that I could be straight because it would make my life so much easier. But I can’t. Just like you can’t be gay. Also, how can you say it’s a choice when animals do it? The difference between animals and people is thought beyond the Id. All animals can act out is their most base instincts. Clearly, homosexuality is a base instinct for them, not a choice. And didn’t god create the animals too? And don’t Christians claim that god never makes mistakes? So how could he possibly disapprove of homosexuality?
As for the question that dan asked: yes it’s wrong. I think that taking any measures to customize your children is wrong. I think parents should let their children be who they are, whether it’s what the parents have planned or not. Plus, I can imagine a procedure like that would cause some hefty problems later in life. Whether physical or psychological.
I’m a little skeptical about this, as most commercial breeding is done artificially, and many male animals are merely castrated anyhow.
Also do the animals have any emotional connection to their activity, doubtful.
IF this has anything do to with animal breeding, that is all that would be relevant to this “study”
yikes. the paragraph breaks got all screwed up when that posted. it looked right when i typed it. But it all got weird and smashed to gether when it showed up.
I think not. If family could affect how their child was perceived in the world I think then it could be justified. As gays most often have a negative connotation in the US, why not remedy that by changing his orientation?
Then if a family doesn’t care either way, let them leave their child’s orientation alone. Interesting how an animal can be gay thought, I’ve never heard of that.
I’m not sure that ethics plays a part in this as far as the situation has been stated. However, I think it’s best to let nature takes its course. To do otherwise risks many potential population distribution problems some years down the road. Should that happen, then perhaps those future researchers might look at the situation as being one of an ethical nature, because it might then affect the very existence of the human race. We have only to look at the girl-child killing tradition in China to see what the problems might be down stream.
Yes. In my opinion, it will be unethical for a woman to take hormone supplements to make sure their child is “straight”. It’s the same as trying to change a child’s sex in vitro.
That would be a horrible thing to do. It is an abomination to go against nature to the extent that people, led by the drug companies and medical “profession”, do.
You’re born, you are who you are. Science should stay in the right places without playing the gods TOO much.
’nuff said..
Holy freaking crap yes. Thats completly wrong.
Derek
It would be EXTREMELY unethical for a woman to do that.
yes. but will the majority of society care? probably not.
well, maybe not the majority, but not enough people will care once it is available to the public to make it illegal.
Um, if women have the right to kill a baby when it’s still part of their body, they DEFINITELY have the right to change something like the baby’s sexual orientation. And let’s face it, whether it’s right or not, the kid will have an easier time if he’s straight.
Of course, I don’t think abortion’s right…it just is. I don’t really think a woman should tamper with anything God has made…so whatever.
I agree with the Gattaca comment. It’s scary that the type of technology used in the movie is actually becoming available today. And yes, it would be completly unethical to choose the orientation of your baby. By doing that, you’re basically taking away you’re kid’s freedom before it’s even born.
It seems unlikely that injecting hormones in a pregnant woman would have no effects on the viability of the pregnancy, but if it was possible for pregnant women to do something that did nothing but change the future sexual (or gender!) orientation of their children, then sure. How would it be possible to test and see if there would be other effects?
I wouldn’t try to change a baby during pregnancy.
To do so would put a value judgement on a quality that is completely unrelated to personality.
It makes more sense to me to wait until the child is born to see if s/he is one of the tiny number of people who actually are born with hormonal imbalances that skew their sexual orientation in a direction contrary to human Design. If the problem exists at birth, then you can treat him/her accordingly and do something sensible about it just as you would with any other abnormality.
yikes!
Yes!
man, people act as if homosexuality was some kind of disease. parents are supposed to love, support and accept their children wether their homosexual or not.
It is unethical, because you simply don’t mess with nature, especially when it comes to hormones, and the human mind. You are born a certain way for a reason, being gay is not a defect. Besides something could wrong like the child’s hormones kicking in earlier then they should, or be asexual and never finding any kind of companionship.
Yes! It’s quite sad that today’s society still can’t accept homosexuality.
-KrIsTiN-
yeah. If you have a baby, be proud that you have a childto raise, it’s your own flesh and blood, you shouldn’t want to change it. You should be able to except it as it is because it’s a part of you, that’s just horrible.
um okay i dont care
I’m still trying to lose the image of gay sheep……but I think if it doesn’t hurt the baby it would be OK. I wouldn’t do it though.
But wait, doesn’t this prove the theory that people are *born* gay/straight? There’s another discussion for ya….
~m/
no it wouldn’t. or she could breast feed avoiding the overabundance of estrogen introduced by the soy.
sorry, nevermind.
What a tease! you start with one direction, then decide on the lady and the baby! Oh well. FIRST you are assuming a lot from a preliminary study; but then SECOND if it is so, then the implications of gestational choice is an odd jump.
Ethics? Legality? When we are more in tune with nature, we learn acceptance of lots of what “happens.” But then, farmers improve on nature – it is important, too. I would pray that we can develop a culture of heart where we take care of one another, and can become happy with the basics of “what happens.”
I have three friends (and me) who either did get test results or would have gotten them about severe deformities of the unborn child; advice to abort. In all four cases, the kids are wonderful. Mine is exceptionally intelligent. Thanks to God I listened to MY conscience; MY still small voice!
hell yes.
my god. They’re coming up with just about everything nowa days.
And like, if you gave the baby the hormone and it was all ready straight, couldn’t the hormone have an opposite effect and make it like the same sex?
I think its funny that they felt compelled to change fewer than 10% of rams. And who knew: gay rams o_0
But seriously, altering your child’s genetics is sticky. Altering them so they dont have a life-impacting disease like childhood cancer – pretty clearly good. Altering them so they have the particular eye color you wish you had – pretty clearly silly wasteful. I guess this depends on how you look at being gay, and most of the homosexuals I’ve met were pretty cool people – I liked them the way they were.
Scientists should not play God.
If God made everything perfect, then homosexuality shouldn’t be messed with.
If it’s a choice that doesn’t have to do with God’s creations at all, then it’s just that, a choice. Yes, it may be a sin, but everyone sins. Should people have lying medically removed?
It’s the sins that make us human. We WILL sin. As long as homosexuality doesn’t hurt someone else, it can’t be controlled, at least not by anyone less than God.
I dunno, why don’t we ask Aldous Huxley about that one?
Jim Newman here again from the university actually conducting the research.
In regards to the Sunday Times article which is he source of all these wild conspiracy theories, I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article is filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which 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