Controlling Your Children's Sexuality

[SithDoughnut]

Stumbleupon just threw this at me, and while I'm far from convinced about whether it is actually true, I thought it would pose an interesting question.

Let's assume that we are capable of determining and controlling the sexuality of a developing foetus. What are the moral and ethical implications of such a practice? If you were told your child would be born homosexual, would you do anything about it? Would it be more ethical to leave your child as they are, or to change their genes to make them heterosexual?

 

[Supernaut]

Stumbleupon just threw this at me, and while I'm far from convinced about whether it is actually true, I thought it would pose an interesting question.

Let's assume that we are capable of determining and controlling the sexuality of a developing foetus. What are the moral and ethical implications of such a practice? If you were told your child would be born homosexual, would you do anything about it? Would it be more ethical to leave your child 'as God intended', or to change their genes to make them heterosexual?

I would be inclined to leave it as God intended. Everything seems to happen for a reason.....to change it would seem to usurp it's intended purpose.

 

[MoonLancer]

If that's the case then all medical science usurps gods will. If a child is born with a weak heart and a replacement heart could save him, wouldn't giving him this heart go against gods will?

That said I think changing a future child's sexuality is wrong, but not because it might be against gods will.

 

[No Swansong]

Stumbleupon just threw this at me, and while I'm far from convinced about whether it is actually true, I thought it would pose an interesting question.

Let's assume that we are capable of determining and controlling the sexuality of a developing foetus. What are the moral and ethical implications of such a practice? If you were told your child would be born homosexual, would you do anything about it? Would it be more ethical to leave your child 'as God intended', or to change their genes to make them heterosexual?

Can you support your premise that children are born as
God intends in the first place?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Can you support your premise that children are born as
God intends in the first place?

Possibly. I put it in quotation marks because I didn't want it to be taken literally, I just intended to use it as a saying, not an actual description.

Off of the top of my head I can only think of Jeremiah 1:5 as a verse that hints towards this possibility. I'll change the OP anyway to avoid any more confusion.

 

[yasic]

If the procedure to change my child's sexuality has very little to no side effects, then I would change their sexuality, in much the same way I would change my child's limb count if it were found it that he/she would be born 1 arm short.

If I can safely prevent my child from having any deficiency, be it homosexuality, amputation, or other disease, then I will certainly do so.

 

[Supernaut]

If that's the case then all medical science usurps gods will. If a child is born with a weak heart and a replacement heart could save him, wouldn't giving him this heart go against gods will?

That said I think changing a future child's sexuality is wrong, but not because it might be against gods will.

Darn you! That negates my whole post! Thanks a lot smarty pants!

 

[Supernaut]

If the procedure to change my child's sexuality has very little to no side effects, then I would change their sexuality, in much the same way I would change my child's limb count if it were found it that he/she would be born 1 arm short.

If I can safely prevent my child from having any deficiency, be it homosexuality, amputation, or other disease, then I will certainly do so.

Why do you consider homosexuality a deficiency?

 

[visionary]

Anything that is does not meet God's mark of normal is deficient.

 

[No Swansong]

Possibly. I put it in quotation marks because I didn't want it to be taken literally, I just intended to use it as a saying, not an actual description.

Off of the top of my head I can only think of Jeremiah 1:5 as a verse that hints towards this possibility. I'll change the OP anyway to avoid any more confusion.

Assuming for a moment that God does create within certain individuals homosexuality it is an interesting question. One that makes one think anyway.

 

[yasic]

Why do you consider homosexuality a deficiency?

2 reasons:

First is that our current society has a strong bias against homosexuals. This bias is irrational and immoral, however it does exist, and as such it makes the lives of homosexuals much more difficult and leads to psychological issues and a host off other problems. This puts homosexuals slightly behind heterosexuals, and if I were to have children, I would want them to at least be on par in as many areas as I can manage.

Second second, and greater, reason is that I believe that the ability to raise a family is a basic human need that all should be able to access. Homosexuals have the issue where they cannot simply make children with the partner they love and enjoy sexual encounters with for obvious reasons. There are ways around it, but they usually include either a huge financial burden or can lead to serious emotional issues. I consider this to be a huge deficiency, one that I never want my children to experience.

Now, I am in no way saying that being a homosexual is evil or wrong or that they should be shunned, anymore than I am saying that it is wrong or evil to be born missing a limb. Just that, given all else, the default normal position is desired for better or worse reasons. Were one of my future children come out as being homosexual, I would support them no less than if they were heterosexual, this is not an issue with me at all.

 

[yasic]

I would be inclined to leave it as God intended. Everything seems to happen for a reason.....to change it would seem to usurp it's intended purpose.

Another answer to this: If everything happens for a reason, then would your changing of your child's sexuality also happen for a reason. Would that not be as much part of the plan as you having sex with your SO?

 

[wanderingone]

Stumbleupon just threw this at me, and while I'm far from convinced about whether it is actually true, I thought it would pose an interesting question.

Let's assume that we are capable of determining and controlling the sexuality of a developing foetus. What are the moral and ethical implications of such a practice? If you were told your child would be born homosexual, would you do anything about it? Would it be more ethical to leave your child as they are, or to change their genes to make them heterosexual?

How would one know that the medication actually works? There would have to be a fairly large sample of people who manage to (in spite of taking medicine to avoid having daughters who were lesbians) would be open enough to having a child who was a lesbian living in a community that was welcoming enough that their kid wouldn't be closeted if she were gay and you'd have to have that sample for several decades...

Meh.. anyway I'll take what I get. I have no issue with taking action to limit the chances of life threatening conditions but medication just in case... nah... life with a lesbian daughter just isn't that upsetting, and while I don't generally speak for others my daughter doesn't seem particularly stressed out by her orientation.

 

[Penumbra]

Stumbleupon just threw this at me, and while I'm far from convinced about whether it is actually true, I thought it would pose an interesting question.

Let's assume that we are capable of determining and controlling the sexuality of a developing foetus. What are the moral and ethical implications of such a practice? If you were told your child would be born homosexual, would you do anything about it? Would it be more ethical to leave your child as they are, or to change their genes to make them heterosexual?

That's a tough question, and this is the sort of situation where I'd be really indecisive. On one hand sexuality isn't a big handicap like physically disabled body (that I would definitely fix if possible), but on the other hand, homosexuals face more issues than heterosexuals when it comes to being accepted in a primarily heterosexual society, being able marry who they want to marry, and being able to have children.

I'm not sure what I'd do. I think most likely I'd just leave everything as it is because it's not a guaranteed problem and I certainly wouldn't love them any less.

-Lyn

 

[sbvera13]

Anything that is does not meet God's mark of normal is deficient.

So you're a believer in the Curse of Ham then?

 

[sbvera13]

but on the other hand, homosexuals face more issues than heterosexuals when it comes to being accepted in a primarily heterosexual society, being able marry who they want to marry, and being able to have children.

Technically, women face more issues on many of those counts then men. (gratefully, this is declining steadily and is spades better then it was 30 years ago, but it's still there).

I think there should be a line drawn at treating physical deformities (or clearly physically derived mental issues), and social issues. In the former case, it's clearly medical. In the latter, it's more likely society that is at fault. We should not have to alter ourselves because our peers are fools.

 

[Penumbra]

Technically, women face more issues on many of those counts then men. (gratefully, this is declining steadily and is spades better then it was 30 years ago, but it's still there).

And when the Chinese were faced with the possibility of only having one child in order to control the population, many female children were discarded.

I think there should be a line drawn at treating physical deformities (or clearly physically derived mental issues), and social issues. In the former case, it's clearly medical. In the latter, it's more likely society that is at fault. We should not have to alter ourselves because our peers are fools.

I agree for the most part, and I did say that most likely I wouldn't change the genes.

-Lyn

 

[lawtonfogle]

Why do you consider homosexuality a deficiency?

It is a difference from the norm that is not measured as positive. Any deviant sexual attractions are going to cause problems. There isn't anything bad about the person much like there isn't anything bad about someone with no thumbs, but it places more hardship on the person, and removing that hardship is normally seen as a good thing.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Technically, women face more issues on many of those counts then men. (gratefully, this is declining steadily and is spades better then it was 30 years ago, but it's still there).

I think there should be a line drawn at treating physical deformities (or clearly physically derived mental issues), and social issues. In the former case, it's clearly medical. In the latter, it's more likely society that is at fault. We should not have to alter ourselves because our peers are fools.

Ok, so there is a drug out there that ensures your child will not become a pedophile (not child molester, pedophile, if you can't get the difference then just ignore this question, and, it is neither a physical deformity or a clearly physically derived mental issue). Would you (or your pregnant significant other) take it?

 

[dinonum]

I whole-heartedly believe it would be unethical to alter the state my child was born in. Homosexuality is sin, like any other sin. My child will choose to follow the desire or not.