It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality


www.latimes.com

A prenatal pill for congenital adrenal hyperplasia to prevent ambiguous genitalia may reduce the chance that a female with the disorder will be gay. Critics call it engineering for sexual orientation.
Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby's gender.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
rawstory.com
www.smh.com.au




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Social engineering?

This is merely a side effect of a treatment which can improve the quality of life for dozens of American females every year. But does it come at the cost of altering the psychology of the child indefinitely? Effectively preventing the occurrence of homosexuality, and could this treatment be subject to abuse?

Some pertinent questions which must be asked, as we enter yet another gray area of moral and ethical practises in medicine.

Personally I find it quite unusual that such a drug has been developed, given the limited percentage of the population effected. I mean think about the research and funding that must have been carried out to develop such a treatment.

I say this not to devalue the lives of those effected, as I believe that quality of life can be drastically improved, for which of course there is no price. But I do wonder at what point in the research did this 'side effect' become apparent?

This to me is a really tricky issue. I almost feel as though this drug may only exist as a precursor to something more sinister. Understandably gay and lesbian groups have been outraged and I don't blame them.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
There's more chemicals that control the human brain and personality than people that have ever been born. If it affects the mind, which I doubt, then it will be limited. This likely affects hormones. And seeing as sexuality is based partially on hormones, it makes sense. It would basically produce women with less chemical imbalance.

I would not be surprised, however, to find that those same children suffer from larger menstrual problems as a result.

In the end, the human being is a blank slate. Sexuality is programmed. We are all asexual females at conception. It takes the random combination of countless chemicals to produce the individual at adulthood. Some chemicals cause homosexuality, but because that is an undesirable trait for gene distribution, it is far less than the ones that cause heterosexuality due to natural selection.

And of course, a few are from life style choice.

For example, I felt no sexual desires at all for the majority of my life, leading me to think I was asexual. I mean, as a dude, I knew Women were beautiful and men were gross. But this was in a nonsexual manner. That's it. Only recently did the proper programs activate to make me like women. As a dude, that was confusing to say the least. But I'm young, so whatever.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 15-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
"Most clinicians speak about this treatment as ambiguous-genitalia prevention," said Dreger, who co-wrote an editorial about the treatment in a July publication of the Hastings Center, a bioethics organization. "Others suggest that you should prevent homosexuality if you can. But being gay or lesbian is not a disease and should not be treated as such."

Can you believe that some physicians actually think like this?


Some doctors suggest that the use of such drugs should be limited, and only take place in carefully monitored clinical trials. However there is apprehension that some physicians may actually consider the side effects as a beneficial outcome, and advertise the treatment based on this premise!



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


From a purely biological standpoint, homosexuality is less desirable. However we have learned how to convert women's bones into sperm cells and what not for reproduction between the two. Still, it is understandable that preventing homosexuality is more desirable.

In the end, however, it is controlling the brain from birth and engineering people to be a certain way.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I would not be surprised, however, to find that those same children suffer from larger menstrual problems as a result.

I hadn't even thought this far ahead into the issue. But you are probably right, I also wonder if this would in any way affect the fertility of treated females...

Perhaps making them more fertile. This would most likely then be seen as another beneficiary and could make use of the drug more widespread, into pregnancies that weren't at risk from congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

I suppose only time will tell, as the study is still in it's infancy.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


You are so diplomatic:

However there is apprehension that some physicians may actually consider the side effects as a beneficial outcome, and advertise the treatment based on this premise!


I'd put money on it and I am not a gambler. I can guarantee you that it will be touted as a cure for homosexuality -- I can see the late night infomercials now.

In all of human history there has not been a thing invented, no matter how horrendous, that has not be put to use by someone -- usually the government if it is sufficiently horrendous.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
 


Eggs are set in stone. The female's eggs are developed in the womb very early.

Seeing as fake estrogen causes cancer and other problems, but natural human estrogen causes sex change, I am honestly not sure about what health wise. What you would end up having is girls that are too female, if that makes sense. Ever female has testosterone and every male has estrogen, but these are at set healthy levels that are low compared to the higher opposite that is suppose to be in the sex.

For example, being too male results in anger, emotional insecurity, and basically acting like a Klingon. Being too female results in stronger menstrual cycles, emotional insecurity, and other various problems that are the opposite of being too male.

In the end, it's dangerous to toy with it.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join