We don’t know what factors lead to a propensity for homosexuality. (Frankly, I don’t think any “one” thing, but that’s an unexpert opinion.) But some believe we will discover a “gay” gene. If so, that has very real eugenic implications—which I fear would mostly accrue to the deadly detriment of fetuses with said gene. From “Gay or Straight Baby: The Choice Could be Yours:”
Professor Robert Klitzman of Columbia University’s Centre for Bioethics has told TV ONE’s Close Up that genetic tests are now being developed to look for autism, alzheimers and various types of cancers. “We may find tests with homosexuality for instance,” he said.
Well, that’s an (I am sure unintentional) odious juxtaposition. Homosexuality is a behavior or an orientation (let’s not get political correct), it isn’t a disease like cancer or a mental illness like autism.
This would mean people could decide they do not want a child because it is going be gay, or that they want a child that is gay. “So over the next few years as we develop more genetic testing, as the price goes down so it becomes very affordable to do this, these will be questions that millions of people will face,” Klitzman said.
I really doubt it will be that simple. But it shows the pure eugenics potential we now face surrounding reproduction. Not only that, but many actively call for trying to improve the human gene pool—assuring us that the new eugenics will be benign because it won’t be government forced. (That’s how the original eugenics started too.)
In the context of this story, selecting (or engineering) progeny for or against homosexuality is to turn our backs on unconditional love. Aborting to prevent bearing a gay or straight child is eugenics, which by definition is abhorrent because it defines one identified ”category” of human as superior or “better” than another. It reduces childbearing to an act of crass consumerism.
The scientific prowess we are developing requires that we proceed with humility and wisdom. But I worry about hubris—pride being a primary human failing. Thus, we face a vital task of tempering our science with strict ethics and proper morality to keep us from going off an ethical cliff.
The first step is to embrace human exceptionalism and the equal intrinsic value of every human life. If that is our moral foundation, we are unlikely to go far wrong.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
