At the very least those regimes would likely target additional surveillance towards people genetically predisposed to homosexuality. That’s oppressive in and of itself.
And that surveillance would thus catch and punish more people.
To flip things around, would it be justifiable to enable a society to punish voluntary acts of heterosexuality? Voluntary acts feel much less voluntary when they are extraordinarily self-actualizing.
I’m not informed enough about selective abortion to offer good thoughts. I tend to believe if a metric is not allowed for selection for one direction it shouldn’t be allowed in the other.
> At the very least those regimes would likely target additional surveillance towards people genetically predisposed to homosexuality. That’s oppressive in and of itself.
Ok, now you're becoming reasonable
> To flip things around, would it be justifiable to enable a society to punish voluntary acts of heterosexuality?
Some of those same countries do exactly that. What do you think happens to a woman in Iran who has sex outside of marriage?
Anyway, why should a few crazy countries like that determine what can be published in Nature? If there are low-hanging fruits that they can abuse to persecute people, they will just fund the studies domestically.
But honestly, this sounds just like paranoia. The real discussion is about the parent not wanting to give birth to a kid with trait X.
And that surveillance would thus catch and punish more people.
To flip things around, would it be justifiable to enable a society to punish voluntary acts of heterosexuality? Voluntary acts feel much less voluntary when they are extraordinarily self-actualizing.
I’m not informed enough about selective abortion to offer good thoughts. I tend to believe if a metric is not allowed for selection for one direction it shouldn’t be allowed in the other.