Pre-birth testing for “gayness” coming soon

[JamesSavik]

Pre-birth testing for “gayness” coming soon

August 9, 2012 · by James Newburrie

http://www.equallove...ng-for-gayness/

Imagine a world where, along with tests for Downe Syndrome, (and other genetic abnormalities) an unborn baby was tested for “gayness”. In a few years this will be our reality according to Professor Klitzman of Columbia University.

Professor Klitzman has told new Zealand television that tests are being developed to look for autism, Alzheimer’s and various types of cancers in unborn Children.

“We may [also] find tests [for] homosexuality” he said.

Right now there are lots of pre-birth tests for babies, usually for congenital illnesses and expectant parents often face a harrowing choice of raising a child with a chronic medical condition, or aborting the child. Genetic testing of embryos is also standard practice in IVF clinics, where “flawed” embryos are usually destroyed.

“So over the next few years as we develop more genetic testing, as the price goes down [and] it becomes very affordable to do this, these will be the questions that millions of people will face,” Klitzman said.

When asked where the line should be drawn, Professor Klitzman argued that society needs to have a debate about the ethics of such testing and where the line should be drawn.

All of this raises a very serious point – there is a high correlation between homophobia and opposing a woman’s right to chose. Would the members of the Westborough church, the Catholic Church’s hierarchy or the Australian Christian Lobby for instance make an exception to their “no abortions, ever” position where gay babies are concerned?

There is a silver lining in this ethical quagmire: such a test would prove, definitively that people are born gay.

Would you choose to have a gay baby?

____________________________________________________

Pro-lifers change their position in 3-2-1...

[Merkin]

I would cherish the irony of the pro-lifers' dilemma if I weren't overcome by the horror of what this may lead to.

[Cole Parker]

Today's technology has opened the door on so many moral dilemmas. This is just one. And more on on the way.

C

[Graeme]

I suspect that Professor Klitzman is being overly optimistic. Autism appears to be a brain wiring issue and while there may be tests developed to detect it, the question will be how much the brain has to develop before that can be done - it's quite probably that it'll have to be done after birth. As for homosexuality, again that appears to be something in the brain (the number one sex organ in the human body), and while there's almost certainly a genetic component, it's probably a combination of genes along with some sort of environmental trigger to activate those genes. It's certainly not simple....

What I suspect these tests will do is to indicate a genetic disposition to autism, Alzheimer's and certain cancers, but not actually detect the conditions themselves. A key piece of information would be the correlation between the test result and the appropriate condition. Autism they'd be able to check within a few years of birth, but Alzheimer's would a long term study to determine the test success rate, and the same may be true for the cancers, too. As for homosexuality, again they won't be able to confirm the test result until the babies grow to maturity, as sexuality isn't properly detectable until after puberty.

[The Pecman]

The question about sexual orientation has raged for years about "nature or nuturing," whether it's how you're born or how you're raised. Me personally, I think it was both, but I think it's different for different people, and I don't believe it's a choice.

I'm positive there was a Showtime movie in the last 10 years about a world where parents had the ability to submit mothers of unborn children to testing, and the government required abortions if they detected a gay baby. Can't for the life of me remember the name of it, but I do remember the movie being very controversial and raising some good issues. To me, this is as stupid as worrying about what a kid's eye color is going to be, or whether they're left handed, or anything else.

Having said that, I think being gay presents more difficult challenges than being straight, and I'm not sure all of us would deliberately choose this path if we could. I can't imagine being different, because I have no idea what it'd be like to be with those instincts -- I'd be a whole different guy. If they get to a point where they can manipulate the human genome in the womb, I'd rather ask for no diseases, a higher IQ, being a little taller, and having a much larger... charisma.

[JamesSavik]

The movie you are talking about is- Twilight of the Golds

[The Pecman]

That's it! Twilight of the Golds.

Apparently, the playwright had one ending for the Broadway play (the woman has the abortion and is tormented by her decision), vs. the TV movie, where she chooses to have the baby anyway, but her husband leaves her. Not a great choice either way.

[JamesSavik]

Doctors Use Off-Label Drug to Prevent Lesbian, Bisexual, Tomboy Babies

A new report details the dangerous experiementation that's been going on in fetal engineering, in which doctors are using a synthetic steroid off-label to prevent lesbian, bisexual, intersex, and tomboy babies.

BY Diane Anderson-Minshall

August 05 2012 11:44 AM ET

http://www.advocate.com/health/health-news/2012/08/05/shocking-report-doctors-using-drugs-prevent-lesbian-intersex-children

A new report out of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine details the dangerous experiementation that's been going on in fetal engineering, in which doctors are using a synthetic steroid to prevent female babies from being born with "behavioral masculinzation," or rather a propensity toward lesbianism, bisexuality, intersexuality, and tomboyism.

The paper, published in the current issue of the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, is authored by Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Ellen Feder, associate professor of philosophy and religion at American University, and Anne Tamar-Mattis, executive director of Advocates for Informed Choice.

The women utilized extensive Freedom of Information Act findings to "detail an extremely troubling off-label medical intervention employed in the U.S. on pregnant women to intentionally engineer the development of their fetuses for sex normalization purposes."

According to the researchers, pregnant women who are at risk for having a child born with the condition congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an endocrinological condition that can result in female fetuses being born with intersex or more male-typical genitals and brains, are being given dexamethasone, a synthetic steroid, off-label starting as early as week five of the first trimester to try to “normalize” the development of those fetuses, which are female and CAH-affected. Because the drug must be administered before doctors can know if the fetus is female or CAH-affected, only one in eight of those exposed are the target type of fetus.

The paper claims that this off-label intervention does not prevent CAH, but in fact just targets sex normalization. Like DES, a drug widely given to pregnant women in the 1970s which has shown to cause cancer and reproductive abnormalities in children and is now banned, dexamethasone is a synthetic steroid. The researchers say that the dose reaching the fetus is 60 to 100 times what the body would normally experience and almost 90% of fetuses exposed do not benefit from it..

The researchers claim this is a dangerous experiment on pregnant women and their fetuses that may turn into a tragedy like the one experienced with DES. In addition to reproductive abnormalities (that extend to second generations as well) and higher rates of certain cancers, male fetuses exposed to DES in utero have also been show to have higher rates of gender dysphoria than in the general population. Research on DES continues.