Ethicists Charge Doctor With Trying to Prevent Homosexuality in the Womb

so somebodys trying to mess with the creation of life without knowing what they are doing...

i never buy this ambiguous genital lot... the " all that come with it " bit is pretty obvious what they are trying to accomplish.

its so sad that in a time where we should be working to cure cancer and aids and to stop ageing and prevent earth itself that humans spend their lives on petty things trying to curb diversity in society.

determining someones sexuality before they are born is beyond their right, to do so, to rob that person of all they might experience in this life is monstrous and i call it a form of murder.

humans may learn some day.

 

can i just point something out?

"be interested in traditionally "masculine" careers and hobbies."

that sentence is stupid. masculinity in relation to careers and hobbies is nothing more than a social construct. careers and hobbies are not natural things, but social creations. To say that because a girl likes building model airplanes, and boys like gardening means thay are breaking some tradition is stupid. It is invalidated by its stupidity.

 

I don't buy this at all . I didn't have time to read the rest of the article, but what I skimmed mentioned that the main accusation against her was that she was recommending this drug to people without telling them that it was approved. That doesn't have anything to do with preventing lesbianism. There's also the fact that if only 1 in every 10,000 (at best estimate) children are born with CAH, then trying to prevent lesbianism by preventing that disorder is an extremely inefficient way to do it.

 

This falls directly under the whole idea of changing your child to have certain characteristics before it's born. Like making sure they have blue eyes or blonde hair. To me the only thing you should be using your pediatric skills at is trying to perhaps prevent a child from being born with diabetes or cancer or other diseases OR preventing a child from having the gene that could result in the child having said diseases. Other than that, don't mess with life.

 

Food for thought: "The concept of parameters"

Many would argue that engineering to have children with less risk for diseases is fine, but tempering with other traits are not... Question is where do we draw the line?

Why are diseases fine but sexual orientation not? Can the argument be perhaps humans with diseases live with more inconvenience and are more unhappy? Though, under the nurture of parents who would have their children's sexual orientation changed, don't you think a gay son would probably be living with a hell lot of inconvenience and chances are he will be unhappy too?

In the end, the question comes down to, who gets to decide the parameters? Who gets to decide where to draw the line? And upon drawing the line, we have to be aware that we are imposing this line on people who might not agree with our 'subjective' parameters.

 

Why can't they just love their child for who they are? I don't understand these people. They could give them some sort of disease doing this!

 

my two cents

I'll quote wikipedia's descriptions of CAH.

You have to consider that this is preventing a genetic disease which causes, amongst other things, infertility, high blood pressure, and a painful death. The fact that it also can affect the orientation of the person afflicted is merely incidental. I would trust that the morals of this doctor are in the best interest of his patients' health, and not tainted by any sort of agenda, until i have some evidence to the contrary.

The accusatory nature of the article, but without actually backing up its assertions without quotes or any sort of evidence... It really smells like a witch hunt to me.