This is some scary shit. Doctor Treating Pregnant Women With Experimental Drug To Prevent Lesbianism

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2010 11:31 PM GMT
    I`m beyond speechless....

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/29/doctor-treating-pregnant-women-with-experimental-drug-to-prevent-lesbianism
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 2:19 AM GMT
    Yeah, that is some fucked up shit! So wrong...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 2:45 AM GMT
    they should concentrate on preventing ugly people
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 01, 2010 2:51 AM GMT
    Why are you guys against letting a woman do what she wants with her own body?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 2:57 AM GMT
    Anto saidWhy are you guys against letting a woman do what she wants with her own body?!


    Her motivation is bigotry, not a desire to plan her own life optimally.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 2:57 AM GMT
    hah is this like, the onion
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 3:04 AM GMT
    jduckj saidhah is this like, the onion


    Nope. It's the real deal and Dan Savage wouldn't sink to the onion, no matter funny.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 01, 2010 3:11 AM GMT
    Satyricon331 said
    Anto saidWhy are you guys against letting a woman do what she wants with her own body?!


    Her motivation is bigotry, not a desire to plan her own life optimally.


    What does that have to do with what she does with her own body?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 3:25 AM GMT
    Anto said
    Satyricon331 said
    Anto saidWhy are you guys against letting a woman do what she wants with her own body?!


    Her motivation is bigotry, not a desire to plan her own life optimally.


    What does that have to do with what she does with her own body?


    Under utilitarianism, allowing life-planning is clearly utility maximizing in most circumstances, whereas allowing people to express bigotry through hormonal changes incentivizes the bigotry unnecessarily, since another option would be to prohibit the behavior so the bigots like Dr. Now would have incentives to reassess their prejudices. Under neo-Kantianism, planning out when or whether to have children is a matter of personal autonomy, whereas deciding what characteristics that child will have after it is born is a violation of the humanity formulation of categorical imperative, to treat others with respect as ends in themselves. Under neo-Aristotelianism and most (all?) virtue ethics, the desire to pursue this hormonal modification indicates an unwillingness to commit to the offspring the mother ostensibly wants, which departs from the parental virtues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 4:38 AM GMT
    ...this has me thinking of thalidomide and DES.

    -Doug
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 03, 2010 4:39 AM GMT
    Satyricon331 said
    Anto said
    Satyricon331 said
    Anto saidWhy are you guys against letting a woman do what she wants with her own body?!


    Her motivation is bigotry, not a desire to plan her own life optimally.


    What does that have to do with what she does with her own body?


    Under utilitarianism, allowing life-planning is clearly utility maximizing in most circumstances, whereas allowing people to express bigotry through hormonal changes incentivizes the bigotry unnecessarily, since another option would be to prohibit the behavior so the bigots like Dr. Now would have incentives to reassess their prejudices. Under neo-Kantianism, planning out when or whether to have children is a matter of personal autonomy, whereas deciding what characteristics that child will have after it is born is a violation of the humanity formulation of categorical imperative, to treat others with respect as ends in themselves. Under neo-Aristotelianism and most (all?) virtue ethics, the desire to pursue this hormonal modification indicates an unwillingness to commit to the offspring the mother ostensibly wants, which departs from the parental virtues.



    None of that matters though. What is optimal is subjective.
    I've never heard of any rights or respect given to a fetus when it comes to abortion for example except maybe in regard to late term abortions and sometimes murder if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.
    People determine the genetic traits of their children just by the partners they choose (such has being white or black) to procreate with and as for bigotry that isn't much different. Parents are even allowed to raise their children with bigoted views and even false belief systems if they want besides being able to choose the genetic traits their children will have by the partners they choose.

    We don't ban parents from having children even if they have a really high chance of passing on really bad genetic diseases or dwarfism for example. How is that being optimal?

    Given all of the above how is it any different to use modern technology to further control the traits one's offspring will have? Just because we don't like it? So far what only seems to matter is if the parents like it or in more specific cases the mother.

    I think it's wrong but I don't see how it can be argued as 'wrong' legally or ethically given how we treat the process of having and raising children right now and also abortion.
    A mother can choose to abort the fetus ending future human life - that's ok.
    A mother can choose the sexual orientation of the future human life - bad!

    Why? Death is ok but predetermined sexual orientation is not? What if in a particular case it is most optimal for a woman to have a straight child instead of a gay one? Or a white child instead of a black one? Obviously in some cases the most optimal situation would be for a person to not be gay or of a race that is rejected by the society they are being born into. In Iran for example transsexual men will undergo sex reassignment surgery in order to comply with societal rules and beliefs that only a man and woman are to be together (obviously I think that's wrong but what I think is optimal may not be the same in another culture).

    Many parents are allowed to circumcise their male and female children because society expects it, not because it's actually best for the child. See how what is 'optimal' is subjective?

    People are already selectively breeding their children for certain traits they will have by the partners they choose, using technology to further that is just making the process more efficient.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 03, 2010 4:41 AM GMT
    meninlove said ...this has me thinking of thalidomide and DES.

    -Doug


    Do you think parents with dwarfism should not be allowed to have children if there is a high probability that their kids will have dwarfism as well?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jul 03, 2010 5:40 AM GMT
    That's odd.
    I thought it was a lifestyle CHOICE.
    Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2010 7:11 AM GMT
    Anto saidNone of that matters though. What is optimal is subjective.
    I've never heard of any rights or respect given to a fetus when it comes to abortion for example except maybe in regard to late term abortions and sometimes murder if a fetus is killed during an attack on the mother.
    People determine the genetic traits of their children just by the partners they choose (such has being white or black) to procreate with and as for bigotry that isn't much different. Parents are even allowed to raise their children with bigoted views and even false belief systems if they want besides being able to choose the genetic traits their children will have by the partners they choose.

    We don't ban parents from having children even if they have a really high chance of passing on really bad genetic diseases or dwarfism for example. How is that being optimal?

    Given all of the above how is it any different to use modern technology to further control the traits one's offspring will have? Just because we don't like it? So far what only seems to matter is if the parents like it or in more specific cases the mother.

    I think it's wrong but I don't see how it can be argued as 'wrong' legally or ethically given how we treat the process of having and raising children right now and also abortion.
    A mother can choose to abort the fetus ending future human life - that's ok.
    A mother can choose the sexual orientation of the future human life - bad!

    Why? Death is ok but predetermined sexual orientation is not? What if in a particular case it is most optimal for a woman to have a straight child instead of a gay one? Or a white child instead of a black one? Obviously in some cases the most optimal situation would be for a person to not be gay or of a race that is rejected by the society they are being born into. In Iran for example transsexual men will undergo sex reassignment surgery in order to comply with societal rules and beliefs that only a man and woman are to be together (obviously I think that's wrong but what I think is optimal may not be the same in another culture).

    Many parents are allowed to circumcise their male and female children because society expects it, not because it's actually best for the child. See how what is 'optimal' is subjective?

    People are already selectively breeding their children for certain traits they will have by the partners they choose, using technology to further that is just making the process more efficient.

    Utilitarianism seeks to objectively maximize subjective utility. You’re saying that this maximization/optimization process is subjective, but even if that characterization were accurate, I don’t see what it has to do with anything.

    You’re trying to argue that there’s an inconsistency between allowing abortion and forbidding bigotry-motivation fetal modification, but as my previous post discusses, there is no inconsistency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2010 7:29 AM GMT
    Welcome to GATTACA
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2010 7:30 AM GMT
    kind of interesting considering we just studied all aspects of reproduction and fetal growth this year...

    hmmmm...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2010 7:36 AM GMT
    I was going to say I hope it causes birth defects, but that´s a little mean.

    I hope they are all androgynous.