 |
Freedom ≠ Free Stuff☭ |  |
| I, for one, welcome our new Cybernetic Overlords /. | ||
|
|
||
Posted on 06/19/2015 8:10:34 AM PDT by wagglebee
With same-sex marriage and the transformation of Bruce Jenner into Caitlyn Jenner in the world headlines, it’s time to ask what LGBT bioethics would look like. Timothy Murphy, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, foreshadows some of the major themes in the journal Bioethics.
Bioethics benefits. “Bioethics is better than it would otherwise have been, because people queer in their sexual interests and identities have challenged misconceived concepts of health and disease, challenged obstacles to access and equity in healthcare, and forced attention to professional standards in clinical care, among other things.”
Defending LGBT parenting. To show that the battle is not completely over, Murphy cites Oxford philosopher John Finnis’s implacable opposition to adoption by male and female homosexuals as “intrinsically evil”. Putting “skepticism about LGBT people as fit parents fully behind it” will be one of the first tasks of fully developed LGBT bioethics.
Promoting new reproductive technologies. In the not-too-distant future it may be possible to use stem cell technology to create synthetic gametes for gay and lesbian couples. This will allow them to raise their own genetic children. “This option would go a long way in helping transgender people express and consolidate their gender identity,” writes Murphy. Another development could be “male pregnancies”. Now that it is possible to transplant a uterus, why couldn’t males bear children?
Paying for them. Shouldn’t insurers and the government pay for these very expensive technologies, if they already cover costs for heterosexual couples? “We need to begin asking these LGBT-centric questions.”
Clarifying the scope of conscience exemptions. Denying legitimate medical services to LGBT patients should not be protected by the law. “If clinicians may turn patients away because of their perceived sinfulness or immorality, it would be difficult to set any limit on the exercise of that right … If we go that way, healthcare would be a moral bazaar, undercutting its overall value by reducing its efficiency.”
Achieving status equality. “A strong presumption in theory that LGBT people are the equals of everyone else is one very good starting point for working toward the achievement of that exactly that equality in practice.”
This particular article only hints at the panorama of changes and challenges for LGBT bioethics. But there could be many others, some quite unexpected.
For instance, in a previous article in Bioethics, Murphy saw nothing wrong with sex selection of infants. While one objection to this is the possible distortion of the roughly-equal natural sex ratio in society, Murphy points out that from an LGBT perspective, this not a significant moral problem. “Complications about who qualifies as ‘male’ and ‘female’ complicate judgments about the ratio,” he says. He concludes that “The natural sex ratio cannot be a sound moral basis for prohibiting parents from selecting the sex of their children.”
Another LGBT bioethics theorist has criticized American sex education programs which promote abstinence. Her analysis suggests that a conservative approach promotes “the terror of desire” and “the proliferation of fear”. More space needs to be given to heteronormative sexualities. In other words, it seems, when parents and teachers explain the facts of life, they will need to add lots more “facts”, from detailed discussions of homosexuality to sympathetic explanations of transgender sexuality.
All this suggests there will be more and more palaver about homosexuality and related issues. But perhaps there will be less.
About 20 years ago the bioethicist who is now the editor of the leading journal Bioethics, Udo Schuklenk and another author, argued in the Journal of Homosexuality that research into the origins of homosexuality was unethical in the present climate. “Research into the causes of homosexuality assumes more often than not that homosexuality is one or another form of mental illness or undesirable deviance from the heterosexual norm, and should be cured.” And in another article he (and colleagues) explained that “the very motivation for seeking an ‘origin’ of homosexuality reveals homophobia.”
In a society in which the fact of homosexuality is axiomatic, questioning it could become a crime. Buckle up your seat belts.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
Homophobia DOES NOT EXIST.
I am not afraid of homosexuals any more than I'm afraid of people with other mental illnesses.
I am very much afraid of the homosexual agenda that is simply a tool of the left and doesn't care about homosexuals any more than feminism cares about women or Planned Parenthood cares about parents.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Bioethicist = criminals with science degrees.
I wonder if this will change how the nanny state thinks about steroids?
Probably not. Because for the most part, that involves men becoming...more like...men.
Bull$h!t, but here’s the problem. Many things are different in medicine for men and women. Dosages is just one of them. The doctor needs to know the patient’s sex. (I didn’t say biological gender).
How many will be treated incorrectly because they told the doctor they were the sex they identify with? Of course they will sue the doctor rather than admit the truth.
Roger that. Homosexuality is a choice. They like to claim their preference is immutable, like race, but if that were the case, there would be zero former homosexuals. There are zero former black folks, but there thousands of former homosexuals. See Anne Heche and NYC Mayor De Blasio’s wife, for instance.
I’ve heard Obama refuses to meet with reps of former homosexual organizations. Because obviously if they exist, then homosexuality is a choice, and that constituency he loves so much denies that fact, ergo, he refuses to meet with them. How can he meet with a group that doesn’t exist? Yep, they’re that crazy.
IF homosexuality was genetic we would have heard about it because they want it to be true more than anything, the silence of science is the proof that it's a choice.
And once you come to the realization their behavior is a choice, then you need to deal with the profoundly negative health effects of that behavior. HIV/AIDS, cancers of the anus and rectum that are unique to their deathstyle, not to mention cancers of the mouth, tongue, etc. We’re not supposed to put something in our mouths that just came out of our rectum. Bad health consequences follow.
We’re governmentally discouraging smoking basically through shaming and criminalizing it, because of the adverse health consequences of that behavior. Homosexuality should be shamed and re-criminalized to discourage that behavior.
Several studies have come out claiming that homosexuality is genetic. Then when other scientists tried to duplicate the findings, they couldn’t. The homosexuals who conducted the initial “studies” had generated bogus findings trying to justify their depravity on genetic grounds.
William F. Buckley, defining the mission of National Review in its first issue.
You cannot stop something without first slowing it down.
Staying home is not an option. Stopping Hillary and every other Democrat is necessary.
We have gone from the idea of critical medical treatment being a "right", to broad based, non-critical health care coverage being a "right", to elective genital amputation (a.k.a., gender reassignment surgery), being a "right".
We have gone from parenthood being a "right", with the pushing aside of cultural and legal restrictions around single women having children out of wedlock, single women adopting, and gay adoption, to now treating homosexuality as an infertility problem, and mandating insurance pay for fertility treatments and surrogacy for homosexuals.
It is only a matter of time it will be a "right" for homosexuals to have children of only their genome, via genetically modified Frankenchildren or clones.
All of us will have to pay more for our health insurance so as to provide these services for others. At the same time, to control costs, insurance companies will not provide such genetic treatments for heterosexuals, even if they have grave genetic issues such as carrying congenital illnesses.
And expect serious side effects of these genetically modified children, similar to the effects of inbreeding.
Cure cancer? Nah... Clearly, figuring out how to let men have babies is where our research dollars are needed.
Take a look at relative spending levels for medical research and it will just flat pi$$ you off. Just like everything else homosexual, homosexual diseases like HIV/AIDS receive a disproportionate share of that limited pie. While diseases that normal folks die of suck hind teat. Some researchers have complained publicly about this idiocy, devoting such massive resources to just a small percentage of the population (homosexuals).
So enlightened self-interest should cause the average person to scream bloody murder at this great disgusting injustice.
You can bet that licenses are going to be revoked over this in the next two-three years.
| |
Freedom ≠ Free Stuff☭ | |
| I, for one, welcome our new Cybernetic Overlords /. | ||
|
|
||
Into a male pelvis?
Please provide a reference.
You’re talking about an accidental by-product. Meanwhile heart disease and other diseases normal folks die of receive far less money than they would have. It’s a zero sum game.
This is why the second to last paragraph of the article is important. Having “established” that homosexuality is genetic or some other unchangable biological factor they now want to stop all research into the matter.
So consider the implications of research that did determine that it is something natural, and a genetic cause could be determined. The bioethicists are saying that things like sex selection via various means (determination prior to IVF, abortion) is ok ... But what about orientation, or gender identity selection?
Wait, how can they have gender selection in unborn babies? We all know there is no such thing as gender, it’s a choice.
Can’t change the fact that God did not intend the anal canal for sex, thus causing disease when it is so used.
Yep, average lifespan of male queers is no more than 45 years while chronic smokers exceed 60. And to think schools are promoting this mental disease of homosexual behavior for our children. Criminal child abuse should be punishable by decades in prison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.