Sexuality Is Written in the Genes?

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So how do they explain "switch hitters"?

Same as they explain those that are ambidextrous. 90% of the population favor a left or right handed approach to life and the other 10% is able to make do with either equally well. It is a matter of being able to use both hemispheres of your brain with the same level of results.

I like the idea of an "ambidexturos" lover.

I wonder, can you tell the difference between a right handed lover and a left handed lover? 😉

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
that wasn't an argument for abortion. Just pointing out the difficulty of detecting pregnancy at the early times that you suggest. I can't see how it applies to a seggestion of abortion..but I would have to agree with you that it is a terrible argument...I just never made it and am not sure where it comes from that statement you quoted?

In my initial post I said that I thought abortion would become permitted to within only a few weeks of the start of pregnancy. I guess I jumped the gun and assumed that your statement was an argument against restricting abortion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by: zinfamous
also....sure, it makes sense to consider this in terms of "as technology advances." I was merely suggesting that it may be more appropriate to consider if technology advances in the ways that you suggest. For instance, technology won't advace to the point where we can detect a gene being active earlier than the point that it turns on. A gene turns on when it turns on. If it turns on at 1 month or 2 months gestation, we won't be able to detect it any earlier than that. It's possible to detect the presence of certain genes, but predicting whether or not they will be active in the individual is another story.

I should have said a little more earlier than "Thats a good point." I understand that my initial prediction is probably going to turn out to be wrong because of cases where defects can not be immediately detected. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Lemon law]

Its one thing to know that you are pregnant---and I have heard tales of women who can tell as early as the next morning that a fetus has started in their womb. But extracting fetal dna, the crucial step in any scientific analysis now basically requires invasive and risky tests like an amniocentesis---something the female can legally veto--often rendering claims like paternity as something that can only be tested for post birth. Until these basic laws change, any attempts at eugenics has to be voluntary on the part of the subject.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: zinfamous
that wasn't an argument for abortion. Just pointing out the difficulty of detecting pregnancy at the early times that you suggest. I can't see how it applies to a seggestion of abortion..but I would have to agree with you that it is a terrible argument...I just never made it and am not sure where it comes from that statement you quoted?

In my initial post I said that I thought abortion would become permitted to within only a few weeks of the start of pregnancy. I guess I jumped the gun and assumed that your statement was an argument against restricting abortion. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by: zinfamous
also....sure, it makes sense to consider this in terms of "as technology advances." I was merely suggesting that it may be more appropriate to consider if technology advances in the ways that you suggest. For instance, technology won't advace to the point where we can detect a gene being active earlier than the point that it turns on. A gene turns on when it turns on. If it turns on at 1 month or 2 months gestation, we won't be able to detect it any earlier than that. It's possible to detect the presence of certain genes, but predicting whether or not they will be active in the individual is another story.

I should have said a little more earlier than "Thats a good point." I understand that my initial prediction is probably going to turn out to be wrong because of cases where defects can not be immediately detected. Thanks for pointing that out.

No, no, I Think you had a good point and that it's worth considering. Hell, that's what working in science is all about. You know that a year later we will understand certain concepts better than we did before, new discoveries will crop up that improve, and sometimes change our thinking.

I've come to the point where I can't honestly say that there is something we will never be able to know, or never be able to accomplish. Hell, I cringed when I posted "We will never be able to predict a gene's activity simply based on its presence." Based on current understanding, that makes sense...

I guess I'm too stuck in the present 😀