Is it moral for parents to decide not have gay children?

[NosPortatArma]

I am not well read on these subjects, but for the sake of argument lets assume that future technology will allow us to determine what sexual orientation children will have, and that we can alter this sometime during pregnancy, at no harm to the baby. The same can apply to mental disabilities, gender dysphoria, eye/hair colour, race, and basically everything.

So what would really be wrong if parents didn't want to have e.g. a gay child? That gays should be accepted because they "can't help the way they're born" I agree with, but if it is literally possible to turn them non-gay before their born, at no harm, what's the problem? The child won't notice a difference, parents will be happier. Does the community of currently living gays have a right to force parents not to meddle with the natural % of people who are gay? Personally I wouldn't care if I had a gay child, but I fail to see exactly what harm is done if parents choose not to have gay kids. Similarily, if a nazi couple made their kids all blonde and blue-eyed, I might find their reasoning disturbing, but I can't what actual harm has been done. The only case I can see a problem with is selecting based on sex, since that obviously creates sex-ratio imblances which are bad for society.

[Aexodus]

Absolutely not. That would be eugenics which is totally unacceptable in a civilised country.

It’s judging a human’s worth on material aspects, which is utterly wrong. It’s like killin someone because they’ll ‘pollute’ your gene pool with ‘gay genes’

[NosPortatArma]

afaik its already happening with eye color and hair color, which is basically the same thing, except less serious. It's same principle.

You can't compare this to literally killing people, that's the point. No harm is done, so why exactly is this wrong? As i've said, one might find it disturbing that some people would do it, but if there's no harm.. what's the problem? It is comparable to, if someone only wants to marry people of their own race. Yes, that's perhaps racist, but it's also non of our business, and it doesn't harm anyone.

[Aexodus]

It is killing people.

Where in what country are babies being aborted for hair and eye colour?

[NosPortatArma]

It is killing people.

Where in what country are babies being aborted for hair and eye colour?

"for the sake of argument lets assume that future technology will allow us to determine what sexual orientation children will have, and that we can alter this sometime during pregnancy, at no harm to the baby. "

we should start be recognising the premise.

[Aexodus]

I don’t really care, creating designer babies is wrong

[NosPortatArma]

I don’t really care, creating designer babies is wrong

yes but why? is it so wrong that you want it to be illegal? with what justification?

[Aexodus]

That foetus is not an object. You’re breaking the principle of consent when you meddle with their genes.

[NosPortatArma]

That foetus is not an object. You’re breaking the principle of consent when you meddle with their genes.

I'm not trying to have an abortion debate here. Let's assume then, that you can meddle with the genes when it's still just sperms and eggs, that you can somehow pick your preferred combination of egg and sperm, knowing in advance that the resulting child won't be e.g. gay. No physical harm done, no fetus's consent to worry about, just manipulating sperms and eggs.

[Aexodus]

I’m just very against what sounds like eugenics.

[NosPortatArma]

I’m just very against what sounds like eugenics.

It's a spontaneous aversion I also share, but with further thought there are some main differences to classical eugenics:

1) It's done by parents themselves and not by a state. In classical eugenics, the state forces it's view of purity on the people. But on who, or what, are parents forcing their views onto? Onto nature? onto pure chance itself? Something else? I can't think of something else. Who is the victim here? I can't see a victim

2) no one is getting hurt. people aren't sterilised, fetuses aren't aborted. No physical harm done to anyone, no one is forced to do anything. again, no victim

the main reasons to be opposed to eugenics, as it was practiced, is that it were clear victims -those sterilised and aborted- and the state forcing its views on people. But take those things away, what is left that is problematic? In my view, all that remains is that we simply feel it isn't "right" to do it, even if no one gets hurt. But if no one gets hurt, no one is oppressed, if the child wont notice, if the parents really want this.. isn't it a personal decision? I can't justify banning it just because I personally don't like it.

[Aexodus]

As far as I know you can’t alter the genes until after fertilisation, and at that point it’s too late to start meddling with another human life.

[NosPortatArma]

As far as I know you can’t alter the genes until after fertilisation, and at that point it’s too late to start meddling with another human life.

Yes perhaps so, but in this thread I am asking you to entertain the notion that we could alter the genes before it becomes a human life, and thus adress the moral issues from there.

[Diamat]

Honestly, I would like to address the OP's question specifically to people who think abortion is a woman's right. If that is the case, and if the unborn is just the woman's body, then technically she has a right to alter it in any way she deems appropriate. So the first moral question we have to answer is whether or not the unborn is a separate human being from the mother. If it is not, then the mother can do whatever she wants to it.

[Sar1n]

Any kind of genetic engineering is inherently unpredictable. Even if we manage to completely map out the entire human genome and its interactions, it's impossible to predict how will it interact with future changes in environment. An adverse mutation can prove, under certain circumstances, beneficial, and there is no way to be sure that the mutation won't evolve further into something useful. Therefore any genetic engineering in humans, especially one that removes diversity from population, should be limited to cases where it removes something that has a very significant, possibly terminal impact of the quality of life of that person, for example Down's syndrome or SMA (spinal muscle atrophy).

Genetic engineering among crops or livestock is a different matter, many ethical concerns are irrelevant for those, but that's another topic entirely.

[Heathen Hammer]

Absolutely not. That would be eugenics which is totally unacceptable in a civilised country.

It’s judging a human’s worth on material aspects, which is utterly wrong. It’s like killin someone because they’ll ‘pollute’ your gene pool with ‘gay genes’

Abortion is legal in most of Western countries. I don't see how killing a child for being a burden is better then killing it for potentially being gay. Also how would you determine its sexual orientation? Play village people and determine how fetus reacts?

[NosPortatArma]

Honestly, I would like to address the OP's question specifically to people who think abortion is a woman's right. If that is the case, and if the unborn is just the woman's body, then technically she has a right to alter it in any way she deems appropriate. So the first moral question we have to answer is whether or not the unborn is a separate human being from the mother. If it is not, then the mother can do whatever she wants to it.

well, I kind of wanted to avoid that, since that enters the area of the general abortion debate. That's why we must assume that the changes can take place before it becomes a human being, where ever that line is drawn.

Any kind of genetic engineering is inherently unpredictable. Even if we manage to completely map out the entire human genome and its interactions, it's impossible to predict how will it interact with future changes in environment. An adverse mutation can prove, under certain circumstances, beneficial, and there is no way to be sure that the mutation won't evolve further into something useful. Therefore any genetic engineering in humans, especially one that removes diversity from population, should be limited to cases where it removes something that has a very significant, possibly terminal impact of the quality of life of that person, for example Down's syndrome or SMA (spinal muscle atrophy).

Genetic engineering among crops or livestock is a different matter, many ethical concerns are irrelevant for those, but that's another topic entirely.

That's a valid argument, because now society has an interest in not fiddling with the genetics of the population. But it doesn't touch upon wheter or not it's moral to change a potential human just because it will be gay. So let's assume then, that we can make such changes without screwing up the genetics of humanity.

Also how would you determine its sexual orientation? Play village people and determine how fetus reacts?

Don't know, but we assume that we can determine it for the sake of argument. I definitely think we will be able to determine it in the future somehow.

[Sar1n]

That's a valid argument, because now society has an interest in not fiddling with the genetics of the population. But it doesn't touch upon wheter or not it's moral to change a potential human just because it will be gay. So let's assume then, that we can make such changes without screwing up the genetics of humanity.

That does not make sense. The main thing that decides whether an action is moral or not is its effects on other people. What you wrote is akin to asking "is it moral to help your child get accepted to college by murdering the other applicants, ignoring the fact that you'll be committing serial murders?". See, it does not make sense. Neither does your question.

[NosPortatArma]

That does not make sense. The main thing that decides whether an action is moral or not is its effects on other people. What you wrote is akin to asking "is it moral to help your child get accepted to college by murdering the other applicants, ignoring the fact that you'll be committing serial murders?". See, it does not make sense. Neither does your question.

thats not comparableci think. it is not unreasonable to assume that in the future we have fully mapped the human genome, and have a super AI that keeps track of how it changes, so we can alter it without problems. thats defintely a possibility, and when it happens your argument becomes obsolete.

[sumskilz]

Absolutely not. That would be eugenics which is totally unacceptable in a civilised country.

You may be aware that you're expressing what you believe should be the case rather than what is the case, but judging by its legality, it is considered acceptable in every country where abortion is legal. Which is part of the reason why amniocentesis is done so early in the pregnancy.

Although, as already has been touch upon. The ethics of the issue can be separated from abortion: CRISPR/Cas9 & Targeted Genome Editing: New Era in Molecular Biology