Reproductive Technology and Sexual Destiny :: Reproduction Homosexuality Essays

Reproductive Technology and Sexual Destiny Homosexuality remains a controversial issue in our society, especially regarding gays’ rights that are generally readily granted to heterosexuals, where the currently hotly debated topic is legitimating the relationship with the sanction of marriage. Yet, numerous measures have been taken to eliminate homosexual behavior through hormonal, biochemical, and anatomical interventions. Regardless of the fact that such reproductive controls are not yet available in order to genetically engineer the sexual orientation of your children, Timothy Murphy presents a discourse on the possibility of determining your child’s sexual destiny. It puts forward the question, â€Å"Would it be morally permissible for parents to genetically engineer their child’s sexual orientation?† Murphy maintains the moral stance that there are important freedoms that need to be preserved regarding reproductive control and since we cannot definitely predict adverse effects on the interests of existing and future generations, he concludes that while these techniques should be morally resisted, the use of heterosexist interventions should not be criminalized. (343) This article came at the heels of the 1980’s, a time during which the Center of Disease Control noticed an alarming rate of a rare cancer, Kaposi's Sarcoma, which they at first called â€Å"gay cancer† but soon renamed GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) among otherwise healthy gay men since 1981. In fact, the term AIDS did not come into use until 1982. Because the disease was first identified among gay men, AIDS was popularly considered a gay disease through the 1980’s, although despite this misconception, also affected heterosexuals and children. Nonetheless, since it was still considered a gay disease, there was a certain stigma attached to having it as many claimed that AIDS to be â€Å"God’s punishment on homosexuals.† By the time Murphy’s article was published in 1990, there were 198,466 AIDS cases diagnosed in the U.S. while 121,255 people died.(1) Before presenting his arguments, Murphy provides a context of his discussion regarding the attitudes of gays and lesbians toward their sexuality. He cites the Bell & Weinberg studies that were published in 1978, which he refers to as the most comprehensive study conducted on the lives of gay men and lesbians in any nation. These statistics are dated about 30 years and therefore these attitudes may have changed. In addition, the statistics provided are skewed since each group is not fairly represented in the study since it only used 575 white homosexual males, 111 black homosexual males, 229 homosexual females, and only 64 black homosexual females. Reproductive Technology and Sexual Destiny :: Reproduction Homosexuality Essays Reproductive Technology and Sexual Destiny Homosexuality remains a controversial issue in our society, especially regarding gays’ rights that are generally readily granted to heterosexuals, where the currently hotly debated topic is legitimating the relationship with the sanction of marriage. Yet, numerous measures have been taken to eliminate homosexual behavior through hormonal, biochemical, and anatomical interventions. Regardless of the fact that such reproductive controls are not yet available in order to genetically engineer the sexual orientation of your children, Timothy Murphy presents a discourse on the possibility of determining your child’s sexual destiny. It puts forward the question, â€Å"Would it be morally permissible for parents to genetically engineer their child’s sexual orientation?† Murphy maintains the moral stance that there are important freedoms that need to be preserved regarding reproductive control and since we cannot definitely predict adverse effects on the interests of existing and future generations, he concludes that while these techniques should be morally resisted, the use of heterosexist interventions should not be criminalized. (343) This article came at the heels of the 1980’s, a time during which the Center of Disease Control noticed an alarming rate of a rare cancer, Kaposi's Sarcoma, which they at first called â€Å"gay cancer† but soon renamed GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) among otherwise healthy gay men since 1981. In fact, the term AIDS did not come into use until 1982. Because the disease was first identified among gay men, AIDS was popularly considered a gay disease through the 1980’s, although despite this misconception, also affected heterosexuals and children. Nonetheless, since it was still considered a gay disease, there was a certain stigma attached to having it as many claimed that AIDS to be â€Å"God’s punishment on homosexuals.† By the time Murphy’s article was published in 1990, there were 198,466 AIDS cases diagnosed in the U.S. while 121,255 people died.(1) Before presenting his arguments, Murphy provides a context of his discussion regarding the attitudes of gays and lesbians toward their sexuality. He cites the Bell & Weinberg studies that were published in 1978, which he refers to as the most comprehensive study conducted on the lives of gay men and lesbians in any nation. These statistics are dated about 30 years and therefore these attitudes may have changed. In addition, the statistics provided are skewed since each group is not fairly represented in the study since it only used 575 white homosexual males, 111 black homosexual males, 229 homosexual females, and only 64 black homosexual females.