Preventing Homosexuality In Utero

Assuming such a treatment were to be discovered and proven effective (highly dubious), I think it's purely up to the child's parents.. and is their moral judgement call to make, not mine, not yours, not the government's, or anyone else's.

Once you start engineering people's futures, what's to say the government won't step in and start engineering other aspects of a person, such as their thought processes or political inclinations. I think we should leave well enough alone. I believe this would be opening a can of worms and lead to all sorts of nastiness. I disagree with homosexuality but I don't believe anyone has the right to step in and engineer babies' futures.

As a matter of principle, I agree with you, DeoDuce. In practice, though, more realism is required.. and that means there will be the meddling going on that we reject, so, a determination must be made. In the situation where such engineering is possible, I'd default to the parents and no one else.

An interesting twist on this, though, is the implications it would have (if true) for the discourse of our time on the nature (or nurture, if you prefer) of homosexuality. If it is something that happens naturally and isn't a conscious choice, how does that change or affect various beliefs and opinions? Surely, those who are against homosexuality will retreat to the "it's the act, not the person" mentality.. that would be made a bit more silly if all of this is true.

Well, yeah, nothing is idealistic in today's world. I agree that the babies' parents should be the sole decision-makers in this instance if engineering is to occur.

I have a huge problem with engineering humans(apart from disease prevention). A lot of Christians will probably disagree with me, but I think if we start eliminating various aspects of society through engineering, we will see a decline in the fabric of our society (i.e., Third Reich opinions, blond hair and blue eyes, etc). That's not to say that I don't think there are certain aspects of society that do more harm than good.

Typical slippery slope argument, I guess.

Mark: The source of the behavior is pretty immaterial... the innate sinfulness of every human is a cornerstone of Christian belief.

DD: I think I'd leave it up to the parents, but I'd agree with you that I wouldn't let parents make every decision... for instance, I think gender selection would open a huge can of worms.

It's basically playing God. One step closer to engineering the "perfect human". We're made the way we are for a reason.

MW said: "The source of the behavior is pretty immaterial"

Is it? That's hardly the tone of the discourse regarding homosexuality that I've seen and heard, sometimes here.. but mostly everywhere else.

When I saw this article, my first reaction was that "the moonbats will be swarming presently." Nor have I been disappointed.

The existence of a technique for preventing homosexuality in utero embeds the presupposition that it's possible to detect homosexuality-inducing conditions there in time either to head them off or to countervail them. Let's hypothesize the weakest version of this: we can detect those conditions but cannot head them off or countervail them: the baby, when born, will be predestined to be homosexual.

Has anyone here forgotten that abortion for contraceptive purposes is still legal in these United States? No? Good. Because the notion that a mother might prenatally predispose her child to be heterosexual is a lot less disturbing -- to me, at least -- than the notion that she might dispose of him before he can become a rights-bearing poof.

A large number of mothers-to-be would be sufficiently disturbed by the news that the bun in their ovens is homosexual to order up a dilation and curettage. As Joseph Sobran has written, no parent has ever been overjoyed to learn that his child is homosexual. Nothing whatsoever could be done about abortions performed for that purpose; Roe v. Wade does not say "except when the little monster is foredoomed to be a screaming queen." Thus, the existence of a prenatal test for determining future sexual orientation would put a mighty squeeze on the population of Mincing-Americans. Over the three or four subsequent generations, homosexuality might well be extinguished.

Reality is independent of our opinions and desires. Ponder the reality above. The morality of "engineering human beings" is only relevant to the subject if:

1. It's shared by an overwhelming majority -- roughly 98% of all mothers-to-be;
2. Those mothers-to-be can be convinced that homosexuality is a morally and practically neutral condition, rather than a disorder with severe life consequences for the afflicted person.

In short, you'd better hope that, if we really can detect homosexuality-inducing conditions in the womb, we can do something about it other than aborting the unfortunate fetus subjected to them.

I'm not against in utero surgery or treatment for problems which are sufficiently serious. Some people argue against it for things like cleft palette or deafness. I wouldn't go that far, but it's hard to count this "treatment" as being essential. And, it's difficult to see how it could be safely developed while experimental: how useful would animal studies be?
In short, imo it's not important enough to justify the risks of developing it. The unknowns are too great -- who knows what effect playing with hormones in utero would have later in the child's development? It's like cloning: we'd be responsible for every deformed person that results.

I reject the notion that "a large number" of mothers would have an abortion if their son/daughter were destined to be homosexual. The thought of that action being carried out is disturbing, indeed, but it doesn't strike me as terribly likely or even common. There's a world of difference between not being "overjoyed" to have a homosexual son or daughter and choosing to have an abortion for that reason.

If the choice is between having a homosexual child and having an abortion, I'd say a vast majority would have the child. If the choice is between having a homosexual child and "treating" the condition pre-birth, I'd say more people would opt for the treatment than would opt for an abortion, but it would still be far from a majority.. or even half.

A "disorder with severe life consequences" is not homosexuality. Homosexuals are not, by default, the cognitively or physically disabled among us, the autistic, the severely deformed, or the otherwise handicapped. Homosexuality is not a "morally and practically neutral condition", either. It has its own nuances and particulars, to be sure. None of these conclusions are unique to me or ones of which I was the first to come to. They are, generally, the conclusion of a majority of Americans. And as time goes on, I can only imagine that majority getting bigger, not smaller.

FWP: Your point is that there had better be a way to cure homosexuality in utero or else there will be a bunch of abortions once we can identify gay fetuses?

jez: All your concerns are real, but let's assume our way past them. Someone, somewhere in the world will discover a cure, no matter how many unethical experiments it takes. Once the cure exists, what would you do with it? Make it available or ban it?

Mark: I don't know what you meant in your comment after mine. Christianity doesn't really make distinctions of the kind you're implying. If a person is biologically sociopathic, say, that doesn't absolve him of his responsibility not to kill people. There are lots of behavioral disorders with biological bases, but Christianity teaches that we're all moral agents with free will that can supersede our mere biology.

MW: Christianity itself may not, but many of its purported followers do.. and that was what I meant.

Though it upsets my broadly liberal ideals, i think probably ban it.
If it's available but expensive, homosexuals will become predominantly born into poor families, leading to further social exclusion. If it's subsidised or provided for free, you have gay tax payers paying for the irradication of homosexuality. I'm not gay myself, but I imagine there'd be objections.

I disagree with the general "let the parents decide" flavour going on here. Who are parents, what qualifies them? Around half of all people are below average intelligence / more than averagely evil or whatever. Grant them general freedom, yes, but don't give them total carte blanche just cos their parents. Some parents have their daughters killed if they marry into the 'wrong' religion. Some things, like an education and immunisation jabs, are not and should not be optional.

jez: The bottom line is that someone is going to have to decide on whether or not to use this "treatment", assuming it ever comes to be. I'd much rather have the parents make that decision than have a mandate, either way, by the government. "The man" shouldn't have that kind of power, one way or the other.

well then mark, should it be paid for (partially) by taxes or (solely) by the individual?

btw, i'm strongly in favour of the government enforcing eg. immunisation jabs in children, even when (stupid/ignorant) parents think that it's going to cause harm. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5118166.stm
I understand the fears and emotion, but I also understand why it's important to have smart people make some decisions for us.

jez: Solely by the individual, is my belief.

jez: "I also understand why it's important to have smart people make some decisions for us."

That's scary. I'd rather make my own "wrong" decision than have my liberty taken away by "smart people" who think they know better. Your perspective is hardly "liberal" in the literal sense.

mark: Gays will generally get poorer and more marginalised over generations as only rich parents will have the option of guaranteeing a straight brood. Could get pretty nasty for them in three generations' time or so.

michael: it's not scary. We agree that we need some laws, this is just another way of saying that. You're not allowed to make the wrong decision to kill Mark. That liberty has been taken away by smart people who think they know better. I'm liberal to a first approximation. Now, as with personal freedom, the standard of parental power is not ultimate, is all I'm saying.

jez: I don't see how that is a guaranteed consequence. Accessibility to this "treatment" would be determined by market forces, and the end result is anybody's guess.. because there's no reliable measure of who would opt for the treatment and who wouldn't. If there's few, the price will likely be high; high enough where it's beyond the reach of even most middle-class parents, and that wouldn't change anyone's socioeconomic status significantly. If there's many people who would opt for the treatment, the price will likely drop because the market will be bigger, competition will enter into the picture, economies of scale, etc., putting it in the affordable column for more parents than just the rich.

The social and moral/ethical consequences of having a big market for this treatment, assuming there would be such a market, are certainly disturbing, but from an economic perspective, I don't see how this treatment, paid for exclusively by those who choose it, would necessarily have an adverse affect on the professional and economic potential of homosexuals.

mark: it's a cumulative effect. The poorer homosexuals are, the less desirable it appears. and so on.
And I know how market forces work: do you? Are you sure you want to say that high demand => lower prices?? Although an expanding market tends to cause a right shift in supply, in general demand fuels price escalation.
Anyway, at first minimum price is dictated by technology, not market forces; let's say it starts off very costly. Leading to fewer gay children from very wealthy families. You say that makes no difference, but I disagree, because fewer gay investors makes a big difference in the private sector, and fewer gay or gay-financed politicians makes a big difference in the public sector.

A trend among the most wealthy in a population has a disproportionate effect on that whole society.

High demand leads to a competitive market which leads to lower prices.

At first, the minimum price would be dictated by an approximation of what it would take to recover the money spend in developing the treatment, mitigated by the results of market research that gauges initial demand.

Sometimes the tail wags the dog, and the presence of this "treatment" would precede any latent demand for it, but it's also very likely that there would be hardly any market for this treatment. The notion of eliminating from society an attribute that has become as integrated and, dare I say, integral as homosexuality may turn off a grand amount more than it turns on, in which case the "treatment" may not be developed to begin with.

Your estimate of what fewer gay politicians and investors would do strikes me as extreme. Gay investors are not the sole champions of gay interests in investment circles, nor are gay politicians the sole champions of gay interests in political and public sector circles. The broad socioeconomic and political center of this country, the largest of groups so categorized, is sympathetic to, if not fully supportive of, gay interests. The consequences of having marginally fewer gay investors and politicians at the top of those power pyramids doesn't look like the gloom-and-doom you're presenting.

This would not be a competitive market. Drugs and/or therapy are not good examples of open markets. Prices at the point of use tend to be controlled for these things.

I don't think that can be determined definitively at this point.

Mark: Maybe this is a given, but I wouldn't have assumed so: do you have a vested interested in the continuation of homosexuality? Why would you care if 100% of parents decide to use this hypothetical treatment and homosexuality is virtually eliminated? How would it possibly affect you, given that the generation without gays would be far younger than you?

jez: Uh, it doesn't take "smart people" to decide that murder is wrong. It does take "smart people" to decide how much carbon I'm allowed to generate, how I should raise my kids, how many miles my car has to get per gallon, etc etc. We elect representatives to enact laws that would win a majority in a pure, informed, democracy, not to make decisions we're too "unenlightened" to make for ourselves.

MW: There is no practical or even personal reason for me to care, I suppose, but those are not the only roots of why people care about things. I care about not so much the continuation of homosexuality, per se, but about the continuation of adaptation, of change, of the "remainder" left over at the end of the human equation; the things that force us to learn and to grow, the things that by their outsider status can reveal aspects of ourselves we would otherwise suppress or ignore (to our own peril, most of the time).

A society that eliminates minorities of any kind will grow stagnant and ultimately die, and if it can be justified to eliminate one particular minority it can be justified, eventually, to eliminate them all. That, to me, would be the ultimate consequence of 100% of parents opting for this hypothetical "treatment" and that's why I care about this.

MW: The murder question is obvious to most. The theft question is fairly obvious but less so. The abortion question seems obvious to you but is an example of you wanting to apply your "smartness" to others who are "less enlightened".

Mark: I agree that differences in thought are important for the advance of civilization, but it's not clear to me that that requires "minorities" defined by their biology. Plus, I'm not sure what homosexuality has contributed to civilization (though homosexuals as individuals certainly make myriads of contributions).

jez: The murder question and the abortion question are identical.

It's kind of my point that we would disagree about the obviousness of that last one. Your idea the legislation is all obvious and requires no expertise beyond the abilities or interests of most civilians is not fair. All you've done is transfer the difficulties to "what questions are obvious".

I want domain experts to have more than a say than me. I'm not a lawyer. As far as that stuff is concerned, I'm pretty dumb. My opinion isn't worth as much as someone who knows what they're doing. Becoming a father doesn't suddenly make me an expert on immunology or the social consequences of engineering sexuality. That doesn't mean that no-one's an expert though.

MW: Homosexuality's contributions to civilization center around some broad and general things, one of which is sexual awareness. Few people are as aware of the concept of sex and its relationship with the human condition than homosexuals and, by the sharing of those experiences in books, movies, music, art, plays, etc. homosexuality has made many people more connected with their own sexuality, whatever it may be.

Homosexuality is also a part of any society as large and complex as our human society. It's contributions to that society are probably impossible to quantify because they're blended in with nearly everything and everyone.

As far as minorities defined by their biology, well, that's a matter of genetic diversity. Who is to say we don't need biologically categorized minorities?

My own thoughts on this are on the side of the preventers. If, as Mark has said, homosexuality's contributions to society are impossible to quantify then you can't really say that it has made *any* significant contribution at all. (I'm not counting college majors in "queer theory" as a contribution; nothing useful ever comes out of them unless you count employment for radical lawyers.)

Gay individuals have made immense contributions, but so have straight individuals. So it strikes me that the particular contributions someone makes have nothing to do with what blows their skirts up and everything to do with their individual talents and skills. Alan Turing might have been the same ace codebreaker if he was completely straight; Martina Navratilova would have been a tennis legend if she had been straight (cf Chris Evert). David Bowie would have been the same odd duck singer if he were actually gay or bisexual (which he has lately said he never was). Leonardo da Vinci would have been the same genius if he had been a ladies' man instead of a lad's man.

As I see it, the argument for banning such a treatment boils down to gays and lesbians not wanting to give parents hope that they can keep their sons and daughters from winding up the same way. If you've ever been to a PFLAG meeting or read their literature, it's pretty obvious that the whole process is one long grind of learning to accept something you can't change. I don't think they'll admit it, but most of those parents would dump PFLAG in a New York second if it was possible to prevent (or even change) a homosexual orientation in their kids. And all those political gains they've made lately? Gone in a heartbeat, because (a) if it's inborn you've just undercut the ones who say you should be able to choose your own sexual orientation and (b) if it can be prevented, it will be and the GLB population will shrink over time until it's bred out of existence. (b) is actually more important, because political acceptance only comes with significant numbers and visibility. So you can see why the gay community hates this idea, and you can read their posts and find that this is their underlying fear. (a) is a problem too, because if it can be changed _in utero_ then that is de facto proof that it's inborn, which means that a great whacking hunk of the anti-gay evangelical movement will evaporate; no big scary monster on the right means it's much harder to drive fundraising, which means that a number of activists who make a living off their activism will have to go find other jobs and split their concentration.

I don't really care much about them; I don't like activists very much. Parents are on the hook for making sure their kids are raised right, so they ought to have all the tools they need to do what they think is right. If same-sex orientation can be changed _in utero_, parents ought to have that option.

MJ: I don't think you can say that "impossible to quantify" translates into "no significant contribution". A martini consists of gin (or vodka, if you prefer) and a small amount of vermouth. It's not just one part or the other. Mix them together and you get something greater than either one separately. So, too, is it with homosexuality.

(homosexuality as a component of society, I mean)

how far do you support a parent's right to raise their children racist? Drawing swastikas in the sand? Forbidding them to play with, be friends with, date etc. other races? Would you say that any attempt to expose an alternative to that child's racist upbringing is an unwarranted intrusion by the PC police into private affairs?

jez: I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of "experts". You appear to consider them as some sort of readily recognizable class, whereas I see "experts" as mere social constructs. See this article by Clay Shirky who discusses the expert problem. Also read <i>The Black Swan</i> by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who discusses the expert problem in great depth.

Mark: Considering that civilization is built on the situational suppression of our animalistic sexual desires, it's hard to see how homosexuality as you characterized it is a useful contributor. Any other potential benefits?

MJ: I basically agree, except that I have had a lot of exposure to what you call the "anti-gay evangelical movement" and I can assure you that your characterization is false. Homosexuality being inborn or not is pretty immaterial to the moral argument.

jez again: Baseless racial discrimination has failed as an ideology due to economic factors, particularly due to ever-increasing competition in our capitalist marketplace. The civil rights movement and the modern race-baiting are really just window dressing surrounding and supporting this structural change. If people want to raise their kids to be racist, or communists, or hippies, or whatever, that's up to them. They're setting their kids up for failure, but those kids will be confronted with reality soon enough and be able to make their own choices.

I don't see the connection between your question and the one at hand, however. Kids raised racist can always renounce it later, but kids who do or don't receive the "cure" for homosexuality may not be able to reverse that choice later.

mw: interesting article, though I don't think Shirky is advocating a removal of experts from decision-making processes: we obviously need experts like judges, doctors, lawyers, priests and architects, and we need to grant them the authority to perform their duties. The fact that they are granted expert status by social contract is not important. Within something like wikipedia, his ideas are solid and worth noting; but in the context of society it's worth the time and effort to manage and recognise experts' credentials.

Racial discrimination has been desperately unfashionable since WW2. Prior to then, it was economically extremely viable. Even so, is it fair on the kids raised that way? Is it OK to have them 'fail' as long as it's not our fault, it's the parents'? Might that failure involve criminal or antisocial activity, yet more cost to society?
The question is related because the consensus is that parents should be able to choose, and I'm looking for edge cases to where parental rights start to loose out to other concerns. The best case I've put forth for that so far is the "right" for parents to opt their children out of immunisation programs. Obviously there are more extreme things that parents can't do, but things like physical abuse are criminal anyway.

MW: Many civilizations that were built around suppression, situational or otherwise, of "animalistic sexual desires" have failed miserably throughout history. Suppression is never better than adaptation and understanding. We're complex lifeforms, often with conflicting wants and desires. The success of our civilization depends more on us understanding our desires and adapting to them than suppressing them.

jez: Baseless racial discrimination has always been economically harmful. Rejecting qualified employees who will work for less or customers is bad business, always has been and always will be. As capitalism thrives, competition intensifies and those sorts of inefficiencies become unmaintainable in the marketplace.

Immunization has huge externalities. There are three ways to deal with externalities.

1. I have the right to take action X, and the externality imposed on you is irrelevant.

2. I have the right to take action X, but you have a right not to have the externality imposed on you without adequate compensation.

3. I have the right to take action X, but because of the externality that would be imposed on you you are morally justified in using force to prevent me from doing X.

As a society we put different actions X into different categories. Pollution is normally dealt with as a category 2 item, for instance. Free speech is normally dealt with as a category 1 item (except libel, lying under oath, etc.). Refusing childhood immunization tends to be viewed as a category 3 item.

However, deciding to "cure" a baby of homosexuality imposes no externalities on any identifiable person whatsoever, so it falls into none of these categories. "Society" does not have rights and does not suffer from externalities, individual people do.

Mark: Do you really believe that civilizations that have suppressed animalistic desires have suffered? My study of history leads me to the exact opposite conclusion. It appears to me that the civilizations that have suppressed human animal instincts the most have flourished to the greatest degree in every way.

MW: Yes, I do.. because suppression of sexual desires is mainly a Western religion and Western civilization thing, with the *huge* exception of Muslims and the Muslim world, and yes.. I'd say their civilization *is* suffering. Asian religions do not so suppress sexual desire, and the civilizations with which they are associated have been thriving for a *long* time.

From my own considerable experience with sex, I've come to conclude that the exploration of sexual desires leads a person to discover what they truly want and what their own unique manifestation of sexual desire consists of. The more sex you have, the more you know what you do and do not like. Sex shouldn't be a chore or a duty that you suffer through for the sake of satisfying a marital commitment or purely for the purpose of having a child. It should be something enjoyable, something that connects.

I've had my share of sex in the relatively recent past. Do I get turned on by as much or feel the need to have sex as much as I did even just a year or two ago? No, not at all. I know what my sexual desires are (and what they're not) and who can (and who cannot) fulfill them.

"Know thyself" is more than just a phrase popularized in recent years by "The Matrix" movies. It's among the most axiomatic things I have ever heard.

On the other hand, systematically restricting the educational opportunities of a given race or caste ensures a ready supply of people willing to take the mundane jobs at low pay -- this has worked well for millenia.
I'm not arguing that racial discrimination in recruiting is not bad economically today, in America, but you go too far when you say it "always has been." And I very much doubt that open market economics alone would have ended segregation in America. Why didn't that happen for the Arabs (a very merchant-centric tradition)?

Category 3 is identical to not having the right to do X. And there is a category 4, where the government undertakes to use force to ensure the unwilling individual complies. Eg taxation. Would you say that I have the right to withhold my tax, but that the government has a simultaneous right to coerce me into paying through the courts? I say that's word play. Externalities result in my rights being restricted, by any other name.

Note that removing or reducing gay population is a complicated social experiment, and neither of us is (well, certainly I am not) well placed to speculate on the existence of or severity of its externalities. This is where I would vote strongly in favour of deferring to an "expert".

But there is not only the right to aquire this treatment to consider: also there is the right to sell it. There are clear externalities there, I think. While a couple of prospective parents can't have much of a demographic effect by themselves, a vendor is acting to substantially reduce the gay population of the next generation, which for reasons I've mentioned already, may affect the existing gay population.

And don't forget that we're all the while ignoring potential harm to the baby, which I can imagine could be intrinsic to this type of treatment. (Imagine you had a sex change when you were a baby, obviously not your choice. Are you cool with that? This is perhaps comparable type of operation, minus the obvious surgical element.)

Your point about suppression is interesting. Civilisation is, by definition, a modification of instinctual activity, but that modification need not be a suppression: I notice you're a fan of capitalism, and I think that where it is effective, it is because it works in harmony with the human (animalistic) tendency for self-interest. We don't have to be idealogically programmed to succeed in a capitalist world, all we need is the instinctual profit motive.

I'm not sure how to measure a civilisation's level of repression: I tend to think of western civilisation's birth being the Roman empire, or maybe the Greeks -- both famous for their orgies and violence. But, violence has been the motivation for western technology and culture all along. I'd say we're the most successful so far, and I'm sure we're not so very suppressed -- but I can't make any judgement about the relative suppression of other cultures.

jez: Arab economies are incredibly closed, actually. Mercantilism is basically the opposite of an open market.

Category 3 isn't the same as not having the right to do X. Are you assuming that two legitimate moral rights will never be conflict?

Your category 4 is just a duplicate of my 2 or 3.

As for deferring to an expect, when it comes to "soft sciences" like social science, there's simply no such thing. There's no experimentation and verification of hypothesis possible... so "experts" are just people with loud opinions. Again, read NNT's "The Black Swan" for an excellent discussion.

As for capitalism vs. animalistic tendencies, capitalism suppresses our natural inclination to just kill or enslave our competitors.

Civilization is a balancing game of suppressing our animal desires enough to thrive, but not so much that life gets boring :)

you're quite right, i think we're basically in agreement about most of this stuff modulo language (I instinctively want to apply nuance to the extent of peoples' rights rather than keep them simple and let conflicts fight it out among themselves -- it adds up to the same thing either way): overall, I think I'm being the conservative on this occasion, being cautious in the face of the unknown dangers.

I'm not so keen to dismiss expertise in all areas outside science though. While there is not proof or experiment, there *are* people with opinions in those areas that are better than my adhoc and ill-informed reckonings.