Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (712)	8/8/2006 6:46:54 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

You shouldn't take my what if post too seriously. I'm not at all sure that type of genetic identification and manipulation will be possible. But in response ... First, what are the chances that enough of those supporting and willing to pay for parental genetic manipulation are those opposed to homosexuality? Since we're dealing with a what if scenario, I'd assume genetic manipulation is cheap and easy so everyone takes advantage of it. Strikes me that few fundi Xtians would be keen. Why not? I happen to know some of the barbarians in question and they go to doctors, take vitamins, get ultrasounds, and all that high-falutin' fancy science stuff. Well, actually, I can't think of many parents who'd be happy to undergo massive modification of their sperm or eggs on the chance (since that's all it is) that any surviving seed might be both healthy and not homosexual... Would you volunteer? [I would not!] It's a made up what if scenario - so we don't know how it would work or how well. I'll pretend its easy and works great - why not? You can pretend its really difficult, chancy, and even painful. And, of course, I assume they're fine with throwing away all the embryos in which this doesn't work? Ooops, I forgot - this is now murder, as defined by Bush. Again you're making assumptions about a what if situation - I'll just make a counter assumption that it doesn't kill any babies. There. Next, bear in mind it would take perhaps 15 years to determine, if the resultant embryo survived, so what then? It's a tad late to abort. And if you then discover it's both brain-damaged and gay... Hmm. More assumptions. I'll counter-assume that brain-damage is totally preventable - hey, that would be the one of the first goals of genetic manipulation, I hope. And finally, of course, let's look at the Darwinian points to your argument: Suppose homosexuality can be prevented medically. Then it will tend to die out as most parents choose not to have homosexual kids. Homosexuality has survived at least 3000 years, and probably though not provably is as old as humanity. This argues for some compelling genetic advantages, somewhere, or it would have been bred out. So, it's likely that any society culling these would be weakened, perhaps critically if reproduction is at such a low point that the minor numbers of homosexuals are significant compared to the breeding population... and die out. I think its very very doubtful that homosexuality serves any "Darwinian" purpose at all. The major argument that it does is that we know Darwinism is the cause of everything that exists so every thing that exists, like homosexuality, must have a Darwinian purpose. I realize that isn't really an argument, but .... * But their predominantly gay children will not reproduce. Equally false, I fear. Nothing says that someone homosexual is unwilling to parent. Since we have already established reproduction independent of gender, I thought your assumption was that genetic manipulation involved working with sperm and eggs and fetuses. *BTW there are lots and lots of things about people that doesn't have any apparent or even plausible "Darwinian" purpose. The propensity to argue about what if scenarios, for example.