Dexamethasone

[AlexTheSane]

For those of you who haven't seen it-->http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/06/29/doctor-treating-pregnant-women-with-experimental-drug-to-prevent-lesbianism
Some doctor proposing to use a drug that's supposed to prevent intersexuality to also prevent homosexuality and women not wanting to have babies. This drug should not exist and this doctor should have her license revoked.

My views in more detail-->http://alexthesane.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/19/

[omelu]

where is this person so I can be sick on her shoes.

because my reaction was an overwhelming need to vomit, and, it seems only fair I do so on her, or at least her shoes.

[intermundi]

where is this person so I can be sick on her shoes.

because my reaction was an overwhelming need to vomit, and, it seems only fair I do so on her, or at least her shoes.

Make that: burn to a crisp with fiery breath.

[smischmal]

Severely uncool. I fully support damaging this individuals shoes in creative and uncomfortable ways.

[Jicragg]

My opinion follows the same as the others but I do like this particular comment.

Wow they have a cure for women thinking for themselves? How are we going to continue the patriarchy if we DON'T put this in tap water.

[Psychopomp]

I highly doubt some drug could decide the way a woman's sexuality goes and/or her choice to have kids. I do think it's wrong to try but, and I'm going to irritate a lot of people with this remark, I do support the idea of altering the genetics of a fetus to get something more 'desirable'. If some bigot wants to try turning what could have been a happy lesbian into a repressed baby factory, let them. It already shows their state of mind. They don't want a happy child, they want grandchildren and the ability to brag about them.

It'll backfire.
Is anyone pressured into having children by their parents actually happy about the choice?

And now I feel I must clarify my remark about custom genetics. I don't feel we know enough about it to do it safely but, when we do, I see no problem with customizing appearance and taking out genetic vulnerabilities to certian diseases or illnesses. But only if we actually know what we're doing. Right now, I don't think anyone does.

[AlexTheSane]

I highly doubt some drug could decide the way a woman's sexuality goes and/or her choice to have kids. I do think it's wrong to try but, and I'm going to irritate a lot of people with this remark, I do support the idea of altering the genetics of a fetus to get something more 'desirable'. If some bigot wants to try turning what could have been a happy lesbian into a repressed baby factory, let them. It already shows their state of mind. They don't want a happy child, they want grandchildren and the ability to brag about them.

It'll backfire.
Is anyone pressured into having children by their parents actually happy about the choice?

And now I feel I must clarify my remark about custom genetics. I don't feel we know enough about it to do it safely but, when we do, I see no problem with customizing appearance and taking out genetic vulnerabilities to certian diseases or illnesses. But only if we actually know what we're doing. Right now, I don't think anyone does.

Except that such alterations can cause lots of unintended side effects that are actually bad. Like this drug, which may be the cause of neurotoxicity in the animal trials (it's still moving to human trials, cute huh?) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even if the bigots in your example don't succeed (and I agree that they likely won't), they (and more importantly, their innocent children-victims) will have to suffer the consequences of potentially deadly side effects. The bigot's "right" to meddle does not override the unborn child's right to not be meddled with unnecessarily.