Remember when...
I said that I would write once in a while? Well, when I saw this headline today, I just couldn't resist.
Scientists may have discovered and designed treatment for homosexuality in rams. The implications arising from the fact that a hormonal imbalance can alter the animal's sexual preference has some people alarmed. What if, for example, mothers decided to test their babies in utero for gayness and then have them injected with a little extra testosterone (or whatever it is that's missing)? Isn't it ironic how the slippery slope is fine when we're talking about making marriage requirements completely arbitrary but when we're discussing making sheep more productive, suddenly, some folks have their nicely trimmed hair on fire?
Ah well - so it goes. The most fascinating bit about this is that it really lends credibility to the whole biological defense of homosexuality, at least, if you believe that humans are merely animals unable to overcome instinct and physiology. In my opinion, the idea that a hormone injection can reverse the (un)natural attraction of homosexual sheep gives rise to a new theory. Homosexuality, if indeed it is hormonally controlled and thus a function of biology, is a birth defect. And if you treat club feet... well, it just doesn't make sense to ignore this condition if a little neonatal intervention will resolve the issue.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by jim— 2006/12/31 @ 08:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/03 @ 09:56 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/01/01 @ 09:12 AM — (Reply)
OUTSTANDING find... I laughed my butt off, and then blogged it giving the appropriate nod to you. Thanks for putting a smile on my face
Comment by Coffeespy— 2007/01/02 @ 05:12 PM — (Reply)
Already, we have horrific numbers from India, China and elsewhere, where merely "being female" is essentially considered a birth defect. The Lancet estimates that over 10 million baby girls over the past 20 years have been killed in India, merely for the defect of not having a penis. I'm guessing that's not the solution you had in mind.
You should recognize a clear distinction between "birth defect" and "normal variation." For example, left-handedness is undoubtable genetic in origin. Yes, it is true that some people can train themselves to be left-handed (usually for sports reasons), while far more likely many left-handed individuals train themselves to use their right hand for most tasks.
Does this make left-handedness a "choice" that humans ought to be able to overcome with sheer willpower and desire?
Thankfully, we've reached an age where folks are stupidly superstitious enough to think of "left-handed" folks as evil or wrong, but once upon a time that was a common belief. The word "sinister" comes from the Latin for left, as you probably have heard before.
Maybe in four or five hundred years, we'll be able to look at your homophobia with the same bemused reminiscence.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/03 @ 10:06 AM — (Reply)
Take a breather, man, it was tongue in cheek.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/03 @ 11:07 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/03 @ 11:13 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2007/01/03 @ 11:37 AM — (Reply)
It is ridiculous for Navratilova to decry about any "rights" of the sheep to be gay. That bit misses basic agricultural economics.
It's also more than a little scary that the article so cavalierly suggests that someday an "anti-gay patch" for pregnant mothers. For one, the research thus far does not concern developmental hormone levels, but rather adjusting hormone levels in developed rams. That doesn't really even need to be done in human terms, for it's well-established that increasing the level of testosterone in a human male will increase it's desire to mate with a female. It's also known that it will increase its aggression, violence, anger and anti-social behavior. We could have a 100% straight society, by forcing all men to wear testosterone patches... we'd just have a much more violent one as well.
But flooding a pre-natal mother's system with testosterone, even in theory, just smacks of idiocy. There is such a delicate dance during the fetus' development that drinking and smoking can harm its development- why would we intentionally subject the fetus to abnormal hormone levels?
On the plus side, the research has at least allowed Cate to come closer to accept a natural biology theory of homosexuality...
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/03 @ 01:09 PM — (Reply)
Ever watched "Raising Cain"? It's a PBS special based on research about the natural and healthy inclination of boys to have violent imaginations and play aggressively. Very interesting...
I have my own theory about male human development but I don't think it'd get me on t.v.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/03 @ 02:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dayna— 2007/01/03 @ 08:44 PM — (Reply)
She routinely walks up to those big boys and smacks them for no apparent reason. I find myself defending them from her! But she's turning 2 this month, so maybe it's just that she's rounded that corner from cute baby to evil toddler
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/05 @ 12:50 PM — (Reply)
I'm always a little confused about why there's an argument over whether homosexuality is "natural" or a "choice." According to current science, it's both. Humans have many "natural," in-born impulses that they should rightly ignore.
Homosexuality is an attraction to males, pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children; once upon a time they were both classified as paraphilias. They both have the same root, in-born impulses that society has decreed should be denied. How can we embrace homosexuals and lock up our pedophiles if they're both just poor creatures afflicted by natural uncontrollable urges? Well, that's because they ARE controllable.
Personally, I'm not for criminalizing homosexuality. I'm also not for forcing everyone to accept that it's normal or appropriate for their families, which is what is happening in the United States. We've gone from tolerance (allow to survive) to forcing society to accept and support all manner of differences.
What is wrong if I have reasoned that a homosexual is merely a man or woman unable to control their own sexual impulses? How is that different from me thinking someone who reads Anne Rice novels is unable to develop appropriate taste in literature? In fact, if I manage three employees and one reads Anne Rice and the other reads Mark Danielewski, should they file an affirmative action complaint because I'd rather hire the more disciplined reader? (No, I wouldn't make a decision based solely on that.)
Whether it's natural or not, it is a behavior that CAN be modified and controlled. Celibacy is practiced. I learned to like broccoli. Since it IS a choice, it comes with consequences and does NOT deserve minority status protection. It certainly does not merit sensitivity training or moral instruction in the K-12 education system.
Comment by coffeespy— 2007/01/03 @ 10:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/04 @ 07:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/01/04 @ 08:19 AM — (Reply)
if it wants to survive it might at least think about it
Comment by elmers brother— 2007/01/04 @ 10:04 AM — (Reply)
That is, indeed, the question.
If you look at the basic inalienable right of existence, the right of each social group to live and thrive, it falls on social groups to decide for themselves if homosexuality is right for them or not. Most social groups vest that right in the parents. Being that it is only incumbent upon a person to tolerate, not support, behaviors and issues they don't personally hold, then it would behoove a child to have parents that will support rather than simply tolerate, no?
Contrary to romanticized versions of parenting and children, the relationship between parent and child exists on many levels and is not simply a one-way "nurturing road." Parents want their kids to grow up with certain values that they, themselves, hold. Forcing parents to leave their child a homosexual when they have the power to identify and choose to alter it, is much like telling a Jewish couple they aren't allowed to raise their son or daughter under their faith because the child has a right to worship how they wish. What is more accurate is to say that a child has the potential right that does not manifest until adulthood.
Up until that time, all moral teachings are the responsibility of the parent and our society's commitment to that fact is evidenced by the prevailing desire by the public to hold parents responsible for the actions of their children.
And let's be practical about one last thing: a truly homosexual societal grouping cannot procreate. Therefore, they cannot "live and thrive" and have, by default, condemned their own group to demise. The argument can be made that genetic material can be donated and clinically grown to be transplanted into couples, but I would have to think a lot more than I have on that to address it in a reasonable manner. Off the top of my head I think that sounds dangerous, putting the ability to create progeny based on assembly-line, scientific processes. Clone wars comes to mind.
Meh, all that is just preliminary thought, but I like the discussion going on here right now. VERY civil, and these things rarely are.
Comment by coffeespy— 2007/01/05 @ 10:19 AM — (Reply)
I wish I could agree that the prevailing opinion of society is to hold parents' accountable, but I'm more of a pessimist. More and more, I see "blame" being scattered all over the place- from "too much television" to "rap music" to "peer pressure" to "incompetent teachers." Particularly, when the child is their own, I see depressingly few parents willing to take responsibility.
However, that is a tangent to your point, coffeespy. Personally, I have no qualms at all with anyone trying to install in their children, the morals they, themselves have. I don't agree with Cate's opinion of homosexuality, obviously, but I have full faith that she is an excellent mother, raising her children with the sort of attention and diligence that I wish where more common in our country among parents. Just because she is teaching a different set of morals from what I am trying to teach my own son, does not mean that I think she is wrong in her childrearing- far from it.
As for your last contention, that a truly homosexual societal grouping could not procreate- I don't see any reason why this is a compelling reason for the society at large to intervene. I doubt that even the most radical homosexuals feel that everyone should be forced to live a strictly homosexual life, nor would it matter to society if some did.
When has "procreativeness" been a prerequisite for societal inclusion? Do we ban Catholic priests and nuns from renting apartments because they don't produce offspring? The Shakers are an example of a sect that actually did, effectively, drive themselves into non-existence from non-procreation. Ought we have banned their teachings?? Should we outlaw the priesthood and nunnery?
Society will thrive with, or without, homosexual relations. Indeed, the continued existence of our species is simple testament to that, if one accepts at least a partial biological explanation to homosexuality, and accepts that it has existed throughout recorded history, if not longer. Our procreation rate as a species is such that the world has more than doubled in number in just my lifetime, despite the raging flood of gayness that has blossomed since the Stonewall riots of 1969.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/05 @ 11:26 AM — (Reply)
I am not at all arguing against societal inclusion for homosexuals, if by that you mean "allowed to exist in peace." If by societal inclusion you mean "with full acceptance" then we have a problem. But I think that grew out of a misunderstanding, I wasn't trying to say homosexuals would doom themselves from our society, I was saying they'd doom themselves as a societal group. If parents were able to "cure gayness" in the womb and child-farms were not allowed to be established for gays, then the entire gay population would end after a single generation due to their natural inability to procreate.
As for Catholics being an example of others unable to procreate, I would agree if it was a whole society of priests and nuns. However, Catholic priests and nuns exist to preach the benefits of heterosexual couplings, actually promoting the procreation of humans. In this way, they aren't a society unto themselves but rather a portion of heterosexual society extolling "values."
Finally, the medical implications of altering children in the womb aren't known. We were dealing in hypotheticals, I thought. I'm not a doctor so I can't comment on the effects. People do what science believes is best at the time. Maybe 50 years from now we'll discover that prenatal vitamins promote a degradation of the human genome resulting in monkey headed babies. No way to tell. I'm certainly NOT for anything that endangers the fetus.
I'm curious, though. Are you an opponent of late term abortions? Seems someone unwilling to tamper with a fetus would definitely oppose the destruction of said fetus.
Also, I'm soon to be a father of four. I'm not trying to talk out of school. I've got some VERY real concerns about the world my kids are growing up in. I hope Cate doesn't mind, but I'm gonna hawk an older post of mine: CLICK That's the kind of stuff I'm worried about. Off the homosexuality topic, but in line with the child-rearing vein of the discussion.
Comment by coffeespy— 2007/01/05 @ 04:28 PM — (Reply)
The abortion question is a false syllogism. There is a world of difference between interfering with the development of a pregnancy that is intended to be carried to term, and one that is not so intended. I suspect you knew that, though.
But if you want to know, except in cases of risk to the mother's life or health, yes I'm opposed to late-term abortions. I can't say I'm even 'in favor" where the mother's life would be at risk- that would be an awful decision to have to make. But not a decision I'd want anyone but those immediately involved to make. Outside of that, I would have grave and moral reservations about any late-term abortion.
Do I think it should be against the law? Depending on how the law was crafted, I could probably be convinced. And if that was all the other side ever sought for, things would be great.
But it never stops there, does it? "Late-term" shifts from 24th week, to 20th week, to 16th week.. and soon there are studies that fetuses as early as 12 weeks have survived outside the womb. Then "morning after" pills are declared to be the equivalent of abortion. Suddenly, we're having the same vociferous, emotional battles, only the frontline has backed up, and personally I've got no ground to give.
So, as dumb as it sounds, I think I prefer the battleline to be at "late-term" abortion, even if I personally would conceed that issue. Find me a conservative who would conceed anything even close in kind.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/05 @ 06:27 PM — (Reply)
What exactly would be the difference between a viable baby at 24 weeks and a viable baby at 20? Or 16? Is there a specific number of days a pregnant woman should be allowed to make the big decision?
You want to talk about biological quandaries WRT homosexuality but with abortion there's this mysterious gestational prime meridian? Give me a break. It's not like Pinocchio is floating around in amniotic fluid saying "I wish I were a real boy. I wish I were a real boy." Either it's a human child or it isn't.
It wasn't God or the universe that made 24 weeks the line of demarcation, Michael, it was legislators. Medical science is driving the date backward - with studies showing that babies feel pain in utero at a very early age. And yet those legislators you voted for refuse to acknowledge that committing a brutal homicide of a baby via partial birth abortion is wrong. If someone did to an animal what they fight to permit in abortion clinics, they'd be tried for animal cruelty.
Don't get me started.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/05 @ 07:31 PM — (Reply)
Sadly, you're only proving my point about the amorphic intransigence of your side. No sooner do I concede late-term abortions (the definition of which entails fetal viability), and you're already talking about the moment a fetus can feel pain.
So is 'fetal viability' your goal test, or is it "pain sensation"? The beginning of a spinal cord and brain develop at 5 weeks- is that going to be your next boundary? And when that new boundary is conceded, will your next goal be the moment of conception... then back to the moment of intercourse. After all, you are fond of saying "the choice is made whether or not to have sex," so the next logical step is to say that a woman (or man, for that matter) can not even put a little rubber thingy on, for that would oppose the biological purpose of sexual relations.
And I beg to differ with your Pinocchio dichtomy. It's not like the unfertilized egg and sperm cells are conscious, desiring to unite and worship the Lord. No angel tears have been shed for the trillions of menstrual cycles that have passed without the egg being fertilized.
And I refuse to countenance the notion that the two, four, eight, 200 cells that are rapidly dividing inside the uterus are, in fact, a unified chorus singing the eternal praises of the Lord. Most conceptions never produce a viable fetus, and while I can't presume to know the mind of God, if He made us in His image, then surely His image would, for the most part, be more than unsustainable genetic abnormalities.
I do not know the moment when the 'divine spark' enters the human corpus. I don't know if it's when the sperm penetrates the egg, when the infant takes its first breath, when the mind becomes aware of the distinction between self and other, or when the waters of baptism cleanses away Original Sin... or some other spot.
I can absolutely accept a child that is born has a right to life (with possibly certain rare exemptions concerned solely with extreme measures). I absolutely reject that a woman must try to become pregnant every time she copulates. There must be some boundary between the two. Until there is some evidence of reasonable moderation from the other side of the argument, I'll support those who may be more adamant than my own personal view.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/06 @ 07:48 AM — (Reply)
might as well be age 18 for that matter
Comment by elmers brother— 2007/01/06 @ 07:54 AM — (Reply)
You are upset that I don't want to compromise on when infanticide is acceptable. I never mentioned birth control - that is your neurosis acting up. I use birth control. Choosing not to procreate and choosing to kill one's offspring are entirely different issues, in spite of your weak attempt at confusing them. Neither did I suggest that conception was the only reason for lovemaking.
What I believe, and what your are completely misstating is that people are responsible for their choices and that the choice to have sex carries with it a consequence, sometimes that is pregnancy, sometimes it is syphillis, sometimes it's a guilty conscience, sometimes it's a closer relationship with your partner.
Neither do I know precisely when a fetus becomes a real boy. But because I don't know I err on the side of caution. If I shot a gun through a window and killed someone would I get off because I didn't know anyone was home?
When sperm and egg meet changes in structure and composition begin to occur. If you don't want to qualify that as the begining of life, fine, but you can hardly fault people who do. There is a distinct moment in time when they cease to be merely a bit of male ejaculate and an ovary's ejected inhabitant. There is another distinct moment when they implant in a woman's uterus, some 10 or so days later, when they form the symbiotic union with the pregnant mother that will foster development. Those benchmarks have not changed - not by medical research, not by legislators, not even by God.
What I have noticed is that when I pointed out that the medical community is driving the date backward, you went insane and started throwing around irreverent and sarcastic references to God.
Very simply, you want to condemn moral conservatives/the religious right for not compromising on something that they consider an abomination. How about I ask you to compromise on your side's PC thought policing and we allow anyone in the country to, for sake of an example, write the word "nI**er" on every other public bathroom stall, and we'll even fund neo nazis (like we do planned parenthood) so they can buy paint? Up for the compromise? We both know that some things should never be compromised on. If you think abortion should be legal, I say fine. Pay for it YOURSELF. None of my tax dollars should support abortion. And don't force feed your views to my children or anyone else'e via the public shool system with my tax dollars.
On previous posts, you've adamantly decried the loss of our individual freedoms. You're angry that the Patriot act might link your telephone number to a web of other numbers used by terrorists from outside the country but you will side with a party that will take my minor child over state lines by way of a school counselor for an abortion. Are you serious?
(And for future debates, I don't believe in original sin, so those references are lost on me
We are not mortal beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a mortal experience.
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/07 @ 09:00 AM — (Reply)
With so many Americans going to Russia, China, etc. to adopt because they can't adopt her, it is sad for the dead babies and the childless parents that the two can't be put together.
Often it is the selfish mother without consultation with the father who aborts the baby. I am not talking about babies with known Downs Syndrome or health risks to the mother. I am talking about abortion on demand.
Seeing the human that is aborted even in the first trimester is a sickening disgrace.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/01/05 @ 08:23 PM — (Reply)
Actually, it's nothing like a false syllogism (all a are x, b is x, therefore all a are b). In both cases, it's the will of the parent imposed on the development of the fetus. That is why this is so hard to argue on a purely biological basis.
Equating a parent's decision to de-gay their fetus and a parent's decision to abort their fetus is valid. In both cases, the parent is making a decision as to that fetus' future. If you de-gay the fetus, you're effecting its future. If you abort the fetus, you're removing the future altogether, I'd classify that as a pretty hefty effect.
The intention of the parent; whether to have the baby or not, whether to allow it to be gay or not; effects the fetus for the rest of its potential life. To say the fetus has a right to be gay with one side of the mouth and then deny its right to life with the other side brings to light a "party line" thought process.
However, you said you don't support late term abortions. That leads me to believe you're not parroting which is great because it means we're having a discussion rather than just waiting to use our respective arsenal of tag lines.
I think most people would consider me fairly conservative but I don't believe abortion should be legislated to adults (as a right, the medical profession, of course, needs legislation). But I also believe that those opting for it should be open to all manner of social retribution, including dismissal from employment should an employer be so inclined.
In short, I'm not in favor of a whole lot of legislation when it comes to choice and consequence in the gray area where religion and science do battle. I suppose that may make me a libertarian, but I'd be a libertarian who chastises and shuns a late-term aborter for any reason other than mother's health (that I can think of).
Comment by coffeespy— 2007/01/06 @ 10:48 AM — (Reply)
The problem with you thinking coffeespy is that the mother is only ONE parent. The father gets no say in your one sided little world yet of course if you had a faux paux and neglected to kill the baby prior to its being born the first thing you would do is begin proceedings to collect child support from the father. How hypocritical. Shame on you Michael for agreeing with this tripe. Be a man for goodness sake.
Comment by Hugh Hefner— 2007/01/06 @ 01:08 PM — (Reply)
I'm not really sure what you're arguing, Hugh. You respond to Michael and then tell me I'm arguing from a one-sided little world. As a guy who knows what it's like to have a woman assert her mystical womb connection to our children in court and actually use my military service as evidence that I'm uninterested in my kids life (she tried to call be getting deployed twice physical neglect) I have some very definite thoughts on where mens' right SHOULD be but simply WON'T be because of the romanticized version of mother and child.
FYI - I used to be a wage slave dad. At the time of my divorce, my ex was awarded almost $800 per month in child support. That was in 2000 and I was an E4 in the Army ($1497 per month before taxes). The last thing I need to hear is some dude whining about child support.
I suspect, due to the lack of explanation and oddly phrased argument, you didn't really read the comments.
Comment by coffeespy— 2007/01/07 @ 08:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Hugh Hefner— 2007/01/07 @ 11:47 AM — (Reply)
Ah, hehe. Yeah, I'm the opposite of that.
Comment by coffeespy— 2007/01/07 @ 03:45 PM — (Reply)
Pre-natal testing for gayness, and potential pre-natal treatment.
If there were pre-natal treatment that was free of any complications or side-effects, that would 'cure gayness,' then yes- I would be in support of a parent's right to accept that treatment. Personally, I would be opposed to the decision, but distasteful as it is to me personally, parents already can choose the gender of their in vitro fertilized eggs. I can't see enough of a distinction that matters.
Realistically, I can not imagine that any such treatment could be anything but risky far beyond any 'benefits' obtained. Do the words "Thalidomide babies" ring any bells? "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome"? Here, though, the mother would be intentionally introduced to chemicals designed to affect development! The likely misbegotten abominations that would result are something I hope we never have to see.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/05 @ 11:40 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/01/05 @ 06:43 PM — (Reply)
Er... that should say "AREN'T stupidly superstitious enough..."
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/03 @ 10:07 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/03 @ 10:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/01/03 @ 11:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/01/05 @ 08:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/01/03 @ 05:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/01/03 @ 05:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/01/03 @ 05:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/01/03 @ 05:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/01/03 @ 05:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/01/03 @ 05:37 PM — (Reply)
I can't claim any special knowledge on either canine or ovine behavior, but isn't "mounting" in dogs generally a dominance behavior, or are you describing something else? And do you think that translates to other species as well?
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/03 @ 08:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/01/04 @ 07:42 AM — (Reply)
I'm totally stealing the music idea from you - don't be mad.
Comment by Dayna— 2007/01/03 @ 08:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/01/03 @ 09:38 PM — (Reply)
Sadly Michael you are missing the boat. I noticed that can't even attempt to refute the excellent points that Ernie and Barry have made. Their points are exactly the considerations that the Court wil cite when reversing Roe v. Wade.
PS: Cate is my squeeze on the side, leave her along you hound dog.
Comment by Chief Justice Roberts— 2007/01/06 @ 01:05 PM — (Reply)
So was California wrong for prosecuting Scott Peterson for two murders?
Comment by elmers brother— 2007/01/06 @ 04:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/01/06 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Tom Jones— 2007/01/06 @ 04:58 PM — (Reply)
This thread is getting convoluted and terribly long. Too many issues are being interwoven. I'll try to weed out what I can for responses here...
coffeespy, here is the false syllogism I saw you culpable of:
---"de-gayifing a fetus" is tampering with its development.
---"late-term abortion" is tampering with its development.
--Therefore, degayifing a fetus is equivalent to having a late-term abortion.
You would replace 'tampering with development' with 'parental imposition of will.' Fine. I still do not see there being an equivalence. Asking someone for a cup of coffee, and stabbing them in the gut until they do are both ways of influencing another person. They are hardly equivalent. Nor do I really think you see them as equivalent- I believe you were just trying to test out any 'party-line' parrots.
You also misstate my opinion on any "fetal right to be gay." Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post time-stamped Jan.5, 11:26 am or 11:40 am, but I have never asserted any "right to be gay" for the fetus. I have no qualms at all with parents instilling their moral beliefs upon their children, and if such a treatment were proven safe, then sure, let parents de-gay their kids if they want. I wouldn't, myself, but that's just my own choice. My chief concern is intentionally introducing developmental hormones to a fetus, which I believe to be risky beyond imagining. Then again, I'm not a doctor, so I could very well be wrong. Secondary is my own personal opinion that de-gayifying is silly, even in concept... but that comes from my opinion, and of course I realize that others do not share that opinion. So, in a hypothetical world with a totally safe (otherwise) de-gayifying patch, I would support a parent's right to choose the sexuality of their fetus. And no, I do not view that hypothetical choice to be at all equivalent to the choice of abortion.
C.J.Roberts,
I don't see Ernie (presumably Ernie Els?) responding to me. I see some guy calling himself "Hugh Hefner" with an icon of Ernie Els, who somewhere mistook me for some feminist that must have pissed him off in a former life. Child support payments?! When have I said jack about a father's rights or obligations? You're barking up the wrong tree there, Hugh. Father's rights before birth is an area I won't even touch; but after birth, I've gone and protested at my state capitol for more rights for the father. You've got the wrong guy there. Oh, and besides getting coffeespy and myself confused (understandable, since we are both devilishly handsome men), he lauds Cate for her arguments. That much, I'll agree with- Cate (as always) is articulate and incisive, though I think I gave her the wrong impression at some points.
In any case, CJ Roberts, I didn't respond to his post because I've been away for the past few days. My dad wound up in the hospital, so things like "check Cate's page and see how that thread is going" was low on my priority list. Sorry if that gave the impression I thought Hugh had anything worthwhile in his posting.
PS- Cate is my girlfriend. She just doesn't know it yet. ;)
Barry does have a point about first trimester abortions being disgusting, and a disgrace. And Cate has a point about not compromising on what she sees as infanticide.
Cate, I can't argue the point. No, I would not want you to compromise your values, and that's where this all starts to fall apart. I know that you, personally, have no issues with contraception, so I apologize if my post made it seem like I was suggesting that. However, there are others who do view contraception as on par (if not outright equivalent) to abortion. The Catholic Church, for instance.
Yes, I agree that there shouldn't be tax dollars going towards abortion. Yes, I agree that minors should not be allowed to cross state lines to have abortions. But yes, I will lean on this side of the argument because there is room for concession. On your side (though not by you), I have been called a murderer for happening to believe that Life does not begin precisely at conception.
And no, I don't condemn you, or any on that side, for the strength and conviction of your views. God bless you for it! If that is what my mind and heart told me, I would be with you. But what I have learned, what I have seen, what I feel in my heart, leads me to a different understanding of life.
(Oh, and as an aside, I'm not at all fond of my side's "thought police" either. Though the thought police don't seem to stretch to the arts, does it? Let an artist go to the NEA and suggest, that as a "performance piece," they paint "ni**er" on a thousand bathroom stalls across the country, and voila! There's your government financing! ;) )
Barry, there are a lot of really disgusting things. PETA militants are fond of pulling out disgusting photos of meat packing plants, or chicken lots, or medical experimentation on animals. No, that's not the moral equivalent of abortion, not by a long stretch. I can't argue the point that abortion, especially late in the pregnancy, is abhorrent. But emotive imagery is only part of the story.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/10 @ 12:35 PM — (Reply)
1. They choose to or somehow become pregnant as a result of deliberately having sex with the father.
2. They don't have to tell the father and can abort the baby without the father's knowledge or consent.
3. They can choose to have the baby and collect child support from the father.
4. Even though the father pays the child support he does not necessarily have the right to spend time with the child.
The logic of a system where a woman can choose to kill a fetus without the father's concent while also being able to have the law require the father support the child makes absolutely no sense to me.
How did liberal women pull this scam on men?
Hopefully a Conservative Supreme Court will correct this travesty.
In a perfect world both Ginsberg and Stevens will bump off in time for President Bush to appoint their successors. One can only hope.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/01/10 @ 05:42 PM — (Reply)
Hope you had a good New Year.
With regard to father's rights, the issue is complicated because every state seems to have their own set of rules and rights, etc. The Supreme Court's few rulings on this issue don't really suggest (to me) that it is a conservative versus liberal issue. From what I've seen, the dividing line tends to be more based on age than ideology. My conclusion is that the older justices are more apt to have a traditional view that the "mother is best" for children.
The rules vary from state to state, though, and I don't know if you actually live in Arizona, Barry. Minnesota has in law, a presumption that joint custody is in the best interests of the child.
But that's post-birth, and it sounds like we don't actually disagree on post-birth rights of fathers (or if we do, it'd be only on minor technical points). You sound like you're more concerned about pre-birth rights. That's a sticky mess, I'll admit (no pun intended) and one that, quite frankly, I haven't worked out.
Let's agree, first, that the man can opt to not have sex, or use contraception. So, point 1 is not really valid, since it can be as much of a choice on the man's part as the woman's. And I'm not sure what your state laws are, but at least up here in liberal Minnesota, 4 is not valid, because a father has visitation rights unless a court finds compelling reason that he shouldn't.
I don't think you'd say that a father ought to be able to force a woman to have an abortion against her will (point 3), so that really only leaves point 2. I'm just not sure what I think there, myself. There are good arguments on both sides... sorry I can't give you a strong liberal opinion for you to blast away at, but I really haven't made up my mind.
Comment by Michael— 2007/01/11 @ 02:07 PM — (Reply)