Genetically Engineering Your Child's Sexual Orientation

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, the saying goes, and this story is no different. Jill Stanek points to a blog entry by Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he supports altering a baby's sexual orientation prenatally. The dilemma:

A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." ... Will she use it?

Mohler suggests she should.

If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

How do GLBT groups feel about Mohler's statement?

Malcolm Lazin, executive director of the Equality Forum (a GLBT civil rights organization), responded by saying:

Fetal invasion to alter sexual orientation is reminiscent of the Nazis. It reflects a theocratic and Taliban-like plan that should frighten all Americans.

After getting grilled in emails for his statements, Mohler posted an update in which he claimed to never suggest using genetic therapies to make "corrected babies."

Other articles and reports claimed that I suggested that homosexuality may be genetic in origin and that genetic therapies should be used to create customized and corrected babies. I never even mentioned genetic therapies or germ-line experiments, and I am adamantly opposed to genetic therapies of such a sort -- real or hypothetical.

I'll type this slowly. If a biological basis for sexual orientation is found, it would be genetic. Using a hormone patch to alter the genetic expression profile predisposing a baby to homosexuality would be a genetic therapy.

Eschewing the eugenics question, Stanek's column seems more interested in another question posed by Mohler.

How can [feminists and political liberals who support a woman's right to choose] now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual?

Out of curiosity, I called the Equality Forum to ask their take on aborting a baby because he or she is gay. Communications officer Christopher Scoville said that the Equality Forum would not support the decision to abort a baby just because they're gay, anymore than they would support aborting a baby because they are left handed.

When asked if the Equality Forum had an official position on abortions of babies with congenital defects, Scoville demured, leaving that question to bioethicists. He said that the Equality Forum is a civil rights organization and therefore the question is "not in our purview."

It will be interesting to see how various religious denominations weigh in. Some will suggest, as Mohler did, that altering a baby's sexual orientation is a way to protect a child from sin. Others will argue that this is nothing more than eugenics and should be forbidden.

One thing's certain: If such a prenatal test is found and women start aborting babies for being gay, pro-choice organizations supporting gay rights cannot argue against a woman's right to abort a gay fetus. If they do, other groups will fight for the same protections for their members and the right to choose will be so limited that it might as well not exist.

Abort Gay Babies [WorldNetDaily]