eileenbunny
Druish Princess
Finally, someone looking at this as it should be looked at.
My argument is not if it should be mandatory. My argument is should it be studied and looked at as a solution? As you can see, even the mere suggestion of such puts some into an unrealistic tizzy.
As I said, I am in no way advocating a forced eugenics program. But if tomorrow, PHDs came out and said 'We have developed this', the reaction would be hostile, violent, and hateful. Probably by both sides since the ultra conservatives have issues with doing anything in vitro.
See, I took you at face value on this and tried to discuss it with you like 20 pages ago, but you ignored me. I think people would resent you saying that having gay people in the world is a problem that needs a solution. I could just as easily say that religion is a problem that needs a solution because that's where all the gay hate seems to spring from.
So, you are comparing what a woman in today's society deals with with what a homosexual in today's society deals with?
Choosing a mate, what what I understand of things now, isn't a guarantee. latent versus dominate genetic traits, it's unknown which would appear until after conception.
People abort children today if they find them to have a condition which will cause a lowered quality of life. I totally know that is going to be taken the wrong way, so I'll just laugh about it now and ignore it when they do. Would I do it? Depends on the condition. If my child was found to have massive encephalitis, or is severely deformed, I would 100% at least consider the option. Other things, maybe not so much.
But trying to compare aborting the child, to simply making a in vitro modification to fix the child, is a pretty big stretch, and is NOT what I am inferring. That would insinuate that I am in favor of genetic testing for the 'gay gene' and support aborting if it is found, which was NEVER ever put forth by me. The entire discussion was all about an in-vitro genetic repair.
I'm wondering how dangerous this in-vitro repair would be to the fetus. Since in-vitro genetic testing in itself is dangerous and ends in a miscarriage like 1 out of 100 times is it really even worth the risk? I guess we are talking about a world in which this technology is better?
been stated here as well. 2% homosexual. 2.8% bisexual on top of that (no pun intended), with most of that second number being women.
I'm not sure that statistic is correct.