Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

...above all else, it seems to be a waste of time and money on said research.

Techically if the woman has the right to abort the fetus she should also be allowed to decide whether or not she wants her child to be homosexual, both are involuntary to the child.

Homosexual men are safer then straight men, personally i dont care if this is allowed or not, but i see a great deal of hypocracy when a person says a mother can decide a fetus' fate by aborting it, but it cant decide it's fate by changing it's sexual orientation. [and i mean, which is worse? dieing or being gay?]

At 1/13/07 11:27 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/13/07 10:33 AM, I-AM-PIRATE wrote: Homosexuality isn't a disease, you can't cure it.

Apparently you can, although "cure" is a very crude way of putting it.

When they say cure, it sort of means they can change. cure isn't nessesarilly the right term, for example, a person could use gene modification to make a human who was suposed to be blonde haired, into a person who is brown haired. [or visa versa] a doctor could say that they 'CURED' the person of being blonde, but since being blonde isn't some sort of body disfuction, it's not really the right term.

At 1/13/07 07:43 PM, BanditByte wrote: Well, if the mother may kill the zygote, fetus or baby in the third term, who's to say she can't alter its characteristics?

I wasn't aware that late-term abortions were legal except in extreme circumstances of danger to the mother... Even so, it's immaterial, and a blatant appeal to emotion. Abortions happen for many reasons, not just eugenics as your post insinuates (subtly, which makes the insinuation all the more devious).

The ONLY issue that this sort of engineering entails is the possibility of future abuse of the procedure, which is yet another logical fallacy called the slippery slope.

If, like Draconious said, it's merely a fix for a real problem, an in-utero immune system attack, then fine... fix it, no harm done. Especially if there are more resultant problems than just homosexuality. I'm all for medically fixing problems. I just don't see homosexuality as a significant problem. So if the only thing this situation causes is homosexuality, then why bother?

At 1/14/07 12:56 AM, Ravariel wrote:

If, like Draconious said, it's merely a fix for a real problem, an in-utero immune system attack, then fine... fix it, no harm done. Especially if there are more resultant problems than just homosexuality. I'm all for medically fixing problems. I just don't see homosexuality as a significant problem. So if the only thing this situation causes is homosexuality, then why bother?

Wouldn't think honestly be one of those "who cares?" situation?

"fixing" homosexuality = better than just killing it.

At 1/14/07 01:06 AM, Experimental wrote: Wouldn't think honestly be one of those "who cares?" situation?

Basically it would, yeah. (I'm assuming "think" = "this"... if I am mistaken, do let me know)

If fixing a real problem has the side effect of lowering the homosexual population... BFD...

"fixing" homosexuality = better than just killing it.

Are you insinuating that I, or anyone else for that matter, advocate aborting based on sexual preference? Or that abortion would be the only alternative to this procedure?

Knowing your general tilt, I know this is a thinly veiled jab at the left... but I'm afraid I'm missing your "point".

At 1/13/07 10:58 PM, AdamRice wrote: Sounds dumb, people should just accept others.

Fact is..... they don't!

But it raises one Hell of a moral question. If abortion is legal because Pro-Choice advocates argue that it's the woman's body, is it right for a pregnant woman to say she wants to give birth to a heterosexual child only?

I don't think it should be illegal. I would not want my wife to use this when/if we decide to have children though. If it were to cure something that would cause real problems with the child (blind, deaf, autism, down syndrome ect) then I would go for it. But to me homosexuality isn't a problem, nor would it bother me if my child were homosexual anyways.

At 1/14/07 01:06 AM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/14/07 12:56 AM, Ravariel wrote:

"fixing" homosexuality = better than just killing it.

I was unaware doctors could find out that a child is homosexual prior to birth. Then again you have a large portion of the population that also believes that it is not genetic anyways.

Isn't this just an extension on an already existing debate about genetic research and the whole "Should we remove certain genes if they lead to genetic diseases" blah blah blah?

Also, this is kinda funny, since not everyone believes that homosexuality is a 'disease' per se, in the first place.

A patch that "cures" homosexuality in theory could just lead to a whole bunch of birth defects in children. Drugs & Pregnancy go together about as well as water &electricity.

I hope they do it, then we can have a way to get rid of all those horrible straight people.

I don't mean to sound homophobic...But I would support this idea. If the world could learn to accept others, I wouldn't care about this, and if they went though, waste of money. If not, good. Most of this crap is brought on by the homophobic christians...Just because they think a magical hand poked the earth, and life jumped up...then someone waited a few thousand years (representing a deadly sin) and then told ONE person to tell the masses. Its shit like that I can't understand. If this almighty, all loving being can't accept gays, or anyone who doesn't think he exists, he is not all perfect...and thats what pisses me off.

People would accept others, off with the experiments. But because people WON'T, Let them do it. If my child was born homosexual, they would get screwed over later in life...(Somehow, a massive chunk of my post was deleted)

Yeah whatever.
Who cares? Is there something wrong with being straight now? Let the people have straight babies if they want, who gives a fuck? Is anyone here wishing they had been born gay or something?
What is this nonsense?

At 1/13/07 02:28 PM, Denta wrote: I say, let them be gay. Don't be a fucking Mengele and use money that could've for example go to charity to rescue a child from starvation instead

Charity money is usually thrown-away money. You're feeding burdens.
If you use money to do this research, then you have to pay people to build labs, lab equipment, hire janitors, pay scientists, paper, pens etc etc.
You're just giving money to people with jobs who do things, and not people with no jobs who are just starving.

Of course we could also use money to fund research on how to feed people better, and that probably would be less of a waste. But hey, just remember that it's really hard to actually WASTE money. Money flows. If you spend money, it will go to someone, and that someone will spend it etc etc.

The money used for this kind of research I think would be better spent on the kind of research that directly saves lives, or at least serves a more significant purpose than stopping babies from being gay.

At 1/14/07 10:19 AM, Peter-II wrote: The money used for this kind of research I think would be better spent on the kind of research that directly saves lives, or at least serves a more significant purpose than stopping babies from being gay.

yeah well that's how american and capitalism works.You may think this is a major waste of time and ressources, but out there, there's a guy with a Ph D who's entire life revolves around solving this project.
And hell don't be a hypocrite, you're using a computer and you're on the internet. The trillions spent on this technology could have enabled us to terraform half the solar system by now haha. Instead we scour google for naked pictures of people with money.

IF what you are impling is true.
There is a way to stop an embryo from becoming 'gay' by having the mother take a drug of some type.
Does that not mean there would be a way to use a different drug(s) to allow an embryo that is 'straight' to be influenced to become gay.
I have heard talk befor about designer babies.
Blond hair , eye color, gender etc. all this is not how we have developed as a species.
But if you look at our track record, maybe changing the human race ,by creating designer babies might be a good thing.
But I don't see how changing a persons sexual preference makes a difference one way or the other.

At 1/13/07 08:49 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/13/07 07:52 PM, SkyCube wrote:

So what? Humans have been doing "unnatural" things since we first existed.

There's that typical liberal attitude. "So what?" I barely stop laughing over the stupidity of that statement. No facts, no examples, just... "so what". LOL

Oh do stop trolling.

Not having a problem with people having gay sex has nothing to do with liberalism. People do many unnatural things that may (and sometimes do) have negative consequences, things that are far more dangerous and problematic than gay sex. Just because it's unnatural doesn't mean that it must be bad. Driving a car can, if you're not careful, have very bad consequences. So can staring at a computer screen for hours on end every day, or smoking, or drinking.

If it wasn't sex, you wouldn't care at all.

At 1/13/07 10:59 AM, ZagmenO wrote: I gotta say I support abortion as a woman's right to choose. However, being gay should be the the person's right. Curing homosexuality is just stupid.

Well, so is the babies right to living.

See, you can't be on either side of the debate without being a hypocrate. If you're pro abortion and pro gay rights, you're a hypocrit. If you're agianst abortion and against gay rights. you're a hypocrit.

At 1/14/07 04:16 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:
See, you can't be on either side of the debate without being a hypocrate. If you're pro abortion and pro gay rights, you're a hypocrit. If you're agianst abortion and against gay rights. you're a hypocrit.

Have you ever heard the turm.
Do what I say not what I do.

At 1/14/07 03:19 PM, SkyCube wrote:

Oh do stop trolling.

How about... no?

Just because it's unnatural doesn't mean that it must be bad. Driving a car can, if you're not careful, have very bad consequences.

It doesn't matter if there's any bad to it or not. It's unnatural, you're going to have to prove otherwise and quit bullshitting around.

Now wait, here's one, if they can do this by adjusting a hormonal balance, should a woman be able to choose to make her baby homosexual?

Whoooooo, there's one for you people.

I say yes.

At 1/14/07 10:40 PM, Elfer wrote: Now wait, here's one, if they can do this by adjusting a hormonal balance, should a woman be able to choose to make her baby homosexual?

Ooooh, you sneaky devil, you!

Why not? I say if we can determine the sexuality of our children, go for it!

At 1/13/07 11:43 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/13/07 11:27 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/13/07 10:33 AM, I-AM-PIRATE wrote: Homosexuality isn't a disease, you can't cure it.

Apparently you can, although "cure" is a very crude way of putting it.

When they say cure, it sort of means they can change. cure isn't nessesarilly the right term, for example, a person could use gene modification to make a human who was suposed to be blonde haired, into a person who is brown haired. [or visa versa] a doctor could say that they 'CURED' the person of being blonde, but since being blonde isn't some sort of body disfuction, it's not really the right term.

No, homosexuality is considered a polygenetic disease in most of the medical textbooks I read. And they are not being anti-gay or something. Being blond or brunette has nothing to do with you survival. and although homosexuality doesnt have anything to do with survival either it does affect your chances of reproduction.
a disease is mostly associated with an foreign body occupieying the human body (e.g. bacteria, virusses) but in medical terms genetic abbreviations are also considered as diseases. take ADHD, considered as a disease while there is no danger of early mortality, only an abnormal hyperactive behaviour. why would you try and cure that? or other behavioural related diseases. But you can also argue dementia isnt much different, because it will not directly affect survival rate.
there are alot of diseases caused only by genetic gene abbreviations, homosexuality is one of them. I have nothing against gays, but I do understand parents when given the choice would choose a heterosexual child. and I dont see why the choice would be inmoral.

so a CURE would be the right term

I'm not a homo but this is bull, people should just accept others like that one guy said, Homos have never done nothing bad to humanity (except for meatspin).
The thing that should be done is a cure like that other guy said but I think the cure should be something the guy would decide to get or not to get.

i think we r what we r it were not good if a mother could decide what sexual orientation her baby gonna have cause she have to accept her baby even if its gonna turn out gay, i mean whats the problem with it? if there was a "cure" for those fuckin psychos who rape children and stuff i would say YES every woman gotta take it but beeing gay hurts nobody so its not bad.

(i dont like them but i accept them)

(sry for bad english)

At 1/15/07 10:18 AM, CrazyEyesSebastian wrote: if there was a "cure" for those fuckin psychos who rape children and stuff i would say YES every woman gotta take it but beeing gay hurts nobody so its not bad.

Well actually, the research that they are doing could definately lead to curing deseases such as diabetes and albinism and maybe even the erge to kill and rape.

So if you're agianst it, don't consider it all bad because it could lead to some serious medical advancements.

At 1/14/07 05:44 PM, Experimental wrote: It doesn't matter if there's any bad to it or not. It's unnatural, you're going to have to prove otherwise and quit bullshitting around.

I never said it was natural.

Should a parent have the right to choose what their child turns out as?