Interesting - earlier today I could log into the NYT article. Just now I was told that I needed a subscription.
The article's been squatting on my head all day. I wanted to go back and make sure that I'd read everything correctly before further commenting.
I guess, at the end of the day, everyone has "slippery-slope" fears which never really sound rational to someone outside of the concern. Until you look at your own fears and recognize how silly everyone really is.
There was an interesting counter-piece, of sorts, in the latest Time which I just received. The article was written by a gay man. At the end he made the point that he didn't mind the idea of a "straight patch" so much, in that people who couldn't abide gay offspring wouldn't have them... and those who didn't use the hypothetical patch were implicitly stating that it would be acceptable to have a gay child.
And this just occured to me as a follow-up thought, those who spend so much time making life difficult for homosexuals for religious reasons would probably be the first to adopt this technology - I wonder if they would see any irony?
I didn't see the article. The point is that this poor sucker had his research mangled by people who had an agenda. They selected what they wanted to believe. We're on our way to a scientific dark age. It's no difference than what Gallileo - as an example - went through. Let the scientists - well science.
Interesting - earlier today I could log into the NYT article. Just now I was told that I needed a subscription.
ReplyDeleteThe article's been squatting on my head all day. I wanted to go back and make sure that I'd read everything correctly before further commenting.
I guess, at the end of the day, everyone has "slippery-slope" fears which never really sound rational to someone outside of the concern. Until you look at your own fears and recognize how silly everyone really is.
Try this link. Dunno why they do that.I think it's the abbreviated version. Didn't think to keep the NYT piece in favorites.
ReplyDeletewww.iht.com/articles/2007/01/25/news/sheep.php
There was an interesting counter-piece, of sorts, in the latest Time which I just received. The article was written by a gay man. At the end he made the point that he didn't mind the idea of a "straight patch" so much, in that people who couldn't abide gay offspring wouldn't have them... and those who didn't use the hypothetical patch were implicitly stating that it would be acceptable to have a gay child.
ReplyDeleteAnd this just occured to me as a follow-up thought, those who spend so much time making life difficult for homosexuals for religious reasons would probably be the first to adopt this technology - I wonder if they would see any irony?
I didn't see the article. The point is that this poor sucker had his research mangled by people who had an agenda. They selected what they wanted to believe. We're on our way to a scientific dark age. It's no difference than what Gallileo - as an example - went through. Let the scientists - well science.
ReplyDelete