The Limits of Science

At some point along any slippery slope, you must stop before you fall off the edge. So it goes with science as well. We are embarking on a dangerous road when science and technology are "good" per se, without any thought to the cost of such progress. Until now, I assumed that moderns would consider my view out of touch with reality, but I was a little frightened to learn how utterly liberal I have become. That is right, the far left has decided that extreme scientific progress may require a little caution now that the progress is hitting a little closer to home:

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

. . .

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

Quite a conundrum, don't you think? It is just one more choice in a pro-choice world. We can choose our babies' gender, hair color, eye color, and about everything else, why not their sexuality? What advocate of personal freedom, choice, individualism, etc., would not favor another option? Yet the outcry has begun:

Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

And if a professional athlete's defense of an animal's right to be gay doesn't convince you, then how about this one:

Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said: “These experiments echo Nazi research in the early 1940s which aimed at eradicating homosexuality. They stink of eugenics. There is a danger that extreme homophobic regimes may try to use these experimental results to change the orientation of gay people.”

Mr. Tatchell gets extra points for adding one more to the tally in the ever-popular game of "Who isn't like Hitler?" (See earlier posts if you have missed the fun). All Nazi comparisons aside, the gay rights campaigner does get to the simplest, yet most important argument:

He said that the techniques being developed in sheep could in future allow parents to “play God”.

Well played, my worthy foe, and that is why I will stand with you arm-in-arm (in a purely platonic way, of course) against the science that will allow parents to choose whether their child is gay or straight. But then, why will you not stand with me against the science that allows a parent choose whether their child will live or die? How can a person's sex-life be more important than a person's life?