Sunday, December 31, 2006

Eugenics Wars

Two interesting news items today, whose juxtaposition reveals a disturbing double standard, and highlights the ongoing politically-correct brainwashing of society.

Without arguing the particular merits of either position, I am simply showing the difference created by one group having a well-established vocal media campaign, and the other one lacking it.

First up:
Science told: hands off gay sheep
Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay

Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger

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.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

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.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. 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.
Note that nobody is suggesting, oh, aborting homosexually-inclined fetuses. This is a potential neo-natal cure. To even desire a straight child however is apparently homophobic and evil.
Professor Charles Roselli, the Health and Science University biologist leading the research, defended the project.

He said: “In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don’t want science looking into what determines sexuality.

“It’s a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired.”
Doesn't matter, Professor. The gay lobby wants to shut down free scientific inquiry.

Interesting it's the same types of people who still, to this day, chastise the Catholic church for being uncomfortable with Galileo's astronomical research hundreds of years ago -- and for which it has apologized -- who are calling for their own stifling of Science.

Oh, but they have a good reason, you see!

Because curing hormonal imbalances is the same as Nazi eugenics!
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.”

He said that the techniques being developed in sheep could in future allow parents to “play God”.
Never mind that the Nazis were killing off the "undesirables" rather than curing them.

Look at the propaganda machine that instantly cranks up! In addition to hysterical professional gay-rights activists, we also have University professors and non-governmental organizations joining this circus of condemnation:
Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, who has written to the researchers pressing them to stop, said:
“Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example.

“It is typical of the US to ignore the global context in which this is taking place.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the pressure group, condemned the study as “a needless slaughter of animals, an affront to human dignity and a colossal waste of precious research funds”.
Ok, that's all pretty much to be expected.

Now, contrast with this rather blandly-reported item, also from today:
Group recommends Down syndrome testing

WASHINGTON - There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Down syndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or younger than 35. This week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman, regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth defect.

The main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-used amniocentesis are now widely available, some that can tell in the first trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or other chromosomal defects.
This is presented as entirely uncontroversial. It is merely a sober medical pronouncement in a respected medical journal, as Science marches on to make modern life easier.

The completely unspoken assumption is that first-trimester detection makes abortion easier, if that is what the family wants.

It is so taken as matter-of-fact that the article just breezes on by the issue:
It's not just a question of whether to continue the pregnancy. Prenatal diagnosis also is important for those who wouldn't consider abortion, because babies with Down syndrome can need specialized care at delivery that affects hospital selection, he added.
Why no, it's not just that at all! They feel they have to remind people that there may be other reasons!

Not a peep about Eugenics or Nazis in this article.

Whether such comparisons would or would not be appropriate is not my point.

My point is that if the second article is taken as rationally presented, then the first article -- where the procedure (if it even works on humans!) is a simple cure and NOT abortion -- is from some strange Bizarro World.

On the other hand, if you take the first article as reasonable and rational, then the second one should logically be making anti-eugenics advocates apoplectic.

Clearly, there's just no active lobby for Down's syndrome sufferers. The first article isn't really about eugenics, it's about the gay lobby losing power if there are fewer gay people, whether or not they can have the ability to live more normal lives.

You'd think these critics would like the notion of "choice" in the matter, they use that as their rallying cry in so much else.

Ha, you thought they really supported "choice" for women? Well, here's a choice the Left doesn't want women to make!

Chew on that hypocrisy for a while. In fact, that's not surprising, as the whole left-wing radical agenda does not rest on a logical foundation, unlike that of the Right. It's really just a grab-bag of grievances to hold together a coalition of special interests for political power, and not a coherent philosophy.

Remember, the cure doesn't even exist yet for people, but a media machine is cranking up to keep us from even researching it or talking about it, spewing anger and invective.

Just scream Homophobe! Racist! Nazi!

That's how the radical Left totalitarian operates, whether their religion is islam or atheism.

Get your group defined as a recognized Victim of Cruel Society, then demand privileges and money as reparations.



Blogger Jim Newman said...

PETA’s big lie:

Just so you know. The false suggestion that the research is aimed at curing homosexuality was made by PETA. Yes, the animal rights group.

Of course PETA has their own motives for receiving press on this story. In fact, PETA heavily edited quotes by the researchers and even fabricated information to generate press coverage. Many weeks ago, a writer in the states looked into PETA false claims. Here’s what he found:

7:30 PM, December 31, 2006  
Blogger The_Bad said...

An impressive analysis. The most salient in my opinion:

“...the whole left-wing radical agenda does not rest on a logical foundation...(i)t's really just a grab-bag of grievances to hold together a coalition of special interests for political power, and not a coherent philosophy.”

To me, this sums up not only the radical liberal “philosophy”, but also that of most “mainstream” liberals as well. We heard our President in his last election bid refer to John Kerry’s campaign as a “litany of complaints”, which was spot-on. Perhaps neither you nor I would consider Kerry to be “mainstream” versus “radical”, but he was the Presidential nominee nonetheless. Much the same applies to Nancy Pelosi, who is currently attempting to alter perception of her actual disposition.

Homosexuality and abortion are prime examples of how both sides of the issue are radical in nature, forcing the majority that lies somewhere in the middle to avoid the subjects with a wide berth for fear of verbal and physical retribution to opinion.

I’ve heard so much out-and-out crap from the left about conservatives and how “hateful” we are and how “intolerant” we are and how our philosophy is akin to that of a “Nazi”. I’m frankly sick of it all, but it is signature of most liberals: whatever it is that they are calling us or accusing us of, they are usually guilty of that very thing tenfold.

3:24 PM, January 02, 2007  
Blogger Jim Newman said...

Jim Newman here again from the university actually conducting the research.

In regards to the Sunday Times article which is the source of all these wild conspiracy theories, I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article is filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.

Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:

A wolf in gay sheep's clothing: Corruption at the London Times

7:52 PM, January 04, 2007  
Blogger RDS said...


Thanks for, as they say, "the rest of the story"!!!

8:23 PM, January 04, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home