A different kind of abortion question

[Fish]

You can not transfer/transmit hormones from a female to a embryo.
You can transmit genetic material however.

Hormones greatly effect gestation on every level- that's what "Plan B" morning-after birth control is based on, among many other effects.

In other words if you were a screaming bitch all your life, it's doubtful your offspring would be by genetics (maybe by enviroment, but that's outside stimulus not internal).

This has everything to do with temperament, not hormones, but it is still correct.

Simply put...if by some chance that a "homosexual" male got you pregnant, it's very very doubtful that your son/daughter would be "gay" just because he was.

Correct, but this needs explanation: the mother's hormones effect sexuality, and the tendency for the right hormone levels for homosexual offspring may run in families.

Another thing to consider is this:  If two homosexual females adopt a child, only outside stimulus would affect the child (the way he/she is raised)..and then there is very little correlation that the child (adopted) would be gay at all, (short of forcing it upon him/her).

Love,
Liz

The societal influences exist, they are just not all that strong. It is rare in twin studies (raised separately, by different parents) for one twin to be straight and the other twin to be gay or bi, but it does happen.

[Fish]

I agree, you cannot transfer hormones, however the chemical mixture will influence the growth of the fetus. I'm sketchy on the science. I understood the study to mean that the chemical balance of the mother is altered when carrying a male child, in a way similar to what happens with a sperm from a male who has a different Rh-factor from the mother.

The way it works (I'm waiting for word from my professor on the peer-reviewed academic journal to cite), is that the male fetus' own hormones affect the mother almost as much as her hormones affect him. After the first boy, the mother's system appears to become acclimatized to the hormone levels present with a male fetus, and her system tries to prevent this shock by dumping more of her hormones into the bloodstream (they share a bloodstream- of course the hormones affect the baby). This is why second, third, and fourth sons are progressively more likely to be gay or bi.

The study on rats (experimenting in this way on humans is terribly unethical) showed that scientists can indeed determine sexuality with near 100% accuracy- in males. They crank up the mother's hormones at a certain stage of gestation, and PRESTO! the males crave rat cock. Female sexuality is also affected, but far less reliably.

Societal factors exist, but they are less of a rock-solid determinant than a gentle nudge.

[m4mpetcock]

This sounds like the same theory I cited in my earlier post:

http://www.kristensboard.com/forums/index.php?topic=17667.msg240585#msg240585

Is this guy mentioned at all in the paper you refer to?  

Dr. Anthony Bogaert

[Elizabeth]

The study on rats (experimenting in this way on humans is terribly unethical) showed that scientists can indeed determine sexuality with near 100% accuracy- in males. They crank up the mother's hormones at a certain stage of gestation, and PRESTO! the males crave rat cock. Female sexuality is also affected, but far less reliably.

Any time you "introduce" something unnatural into a biosystem (rats),
you change your entire results. Push hormones on any living creature and you can of course literally change its sexual orientation.
Also push enough of what is considered natural and safe to a biosystem (again rats). and your relatively safe item (artificial sweetener) becomes a cancer causing agent,
However, In doing so with humans....how many of us are going go go out and eat 100lbs of artificial sweetener?....Same with hormones (unless you desire a sex change, then the push is to change hormones deliberately.

Now Off Topic:  I know several family's that have two son's, and if the older son called his brother "gay"...the resulting fight would not be a good one.
For science or a scientist to come out and say every sibling after the first is going to be, or has a greater chance of being gay or bisexual, dosen't seem to hold true when you look at the population numbers and there orientation (if the above were completely true...the human race would have died out completely by now).

Love,
Liz

[Katiebee]

Probability isn't certainty. It's a roll of the die.

[chris r]

To the op - very good question but as it stands now the mother's......er woman's rights are more important than the baby's. A similar question could be raised if a white woman found out the birth control didn't work and she found out she would be having a black baby.

[Fish]

Any time you "introduce" something unnatural into a biosystem (rats),
you change your entire results. Push hormones on any living creature and you can of course literally change its sexual orientation.
Also push enough of what is considered natural and safe to a biosystem (again rats). and your relatively safe item (artificial sweetener) becomes a cancer causing agent,
However, In doing so with humans....how many of us are going go go out and eat 100lbs of artificial sweetener?....Same with hormones (unless you desire a sex change, then the push is to change hormones deliberately.

No, Liz, I mean to say they can mimic relatively normal hormone levels during pregnancy, and this will cause the rats to seek same-sex partners forever. They become gay rats. The only reason this hasn't been tried in humans is the ethics of changing a woman's hormone levels during pregnancy, and the cruel pain this determined homosexuality could cause to the child.

Now Off Topic:  I know several family's that have two son's, and if the older son called his brother "gay"...the resulting fight would not be a good one.
For science or a scientist to come out and say every sibling after the first is going to be, or has a greater chance of being gay or bisexual, dosen't seem to hold true when you look at the population numbers and there orientation (if the above were completely true...the human race would have died out completely by now).

Love,
Liz

Actually, it does hold true. This one is pretty solid, though I still need my professor to cite the studies.

Say any male child has a 9.25% chance of seeking a same-sex partner. if he is the third-born male, that chance would be around 10.05%, not enough to say that all later-born males are gay, but it does play a role, I assure you.

[Elizabeth]

I'm going to go out on a limb here......
I'm going to create an Island world....so read on, before you comment.
For the sake of arguement I'm going to keep population levels low (but the same results will happen with large numbers just longer in time).
On this island are 100 hetrosexual couples (no bi, no gay).
They all give birth to three (3) off spring (sex not with standing at the moment).
the breakdown (as per fish's comments/threads) are like this:
The first born 100% hetro
The second born 100% Bi
The third born 100% Homosexual
(this is a perfect world so hold on).
In order for the biosystem to surive the following must happen:
The 100% Gay are going to die off (1st generation).
The 100% Hetro have to reproduce (this is where the chaos theroy takes hold).
The 100% Hetro (first generation) depends on a 50%/50% split of male/female
(which in real life does not happen).
The Bi-Sexuals may or may not reproduce (again the chaos theroy).
the first generation hetro's are now (no longer 100 couples) but 50 couples.
The number is decreasing rapidly now.
They give birth to the same level as there parents.
first born 100% hetro
second born 100% Bi
third born 100% gay
Again repeat the reproductive pattern over again, and the numbers constantly decline....results are simple..all human life comes to an end, over a certain time.
Now the chaos theroy prevents that (hopefully) from happening.
Human reporduction is NOT even numbers, female children far outnumber male.
further nature has decreed that females are the key to human survival not males.
(sorry guys) for those of you who think I'm picking on guys
example: 50 females and 5 males stand a better chance at species survival, than the opposite of 50 males and 5 females.

Love,
Liz

[Elizabeth]

maybe, but the math is dead on....
sorry about that.

Love,
Liz

[MissBarbara]

Liz, you've completely misunderstood Fish's post and your maths is wrong anyway.

Not to mention that fact that 100% homosexuals can reproduce in the normal fashion, regardless of how icky they might find the undertaking...

[m4mpetcock]

Not to mention that fact that 100% homosexuals can reproduce in the normal fashion, regardless of how icky they might find the undertaking...

   Swear to God, I'm STILL chcukling.  Thank you, Barbara. 

[Elizabeth]

Not to mention that fact that 100% homosexuals can reproduce in the normal fashion, regardless of how icky they might find the undertaking...

LOL....I'm sorry it's wrong to laugh at this, but I have to ask.
Do you know of any??
because I certainly don't.
Adoption yes.
Artificial Insemination yes.
Surrogate's...no
But really I run around in both hetero and homo circles, and for the life of me, I don't know a single one that would do what you suggest.
However, I also inserted the chaos theory in the thread which would cover about anything that was not planned or control.
But the basic premise stands true.  the numbers will drop and species surivalability will decrease.


Love,
Liz

[Elizabeth]

 And your maths is wrong because in the absence of defined, concrete initial conditions the only viable option is to assume simple averages where The heterosexual population reproduce with a 100% success rate each generation, the bisexual population reproduce with a 50% success rate and the homosexual population with a 0% success rate. This will produce populations of 200 starting, 300 1st generation, 225 second, 169 third, etc, etc. So the decay rate is 33% for each generation.
[/quote]

Excuse me....but I never mention decay rates, you did, I DID mention DECLINE in species survival...I NEVER mention that it would take one or two or ten years only that IT WOULD HAPPEN.
And I do understand the chaos theory and fractal math as well.
Also Jurassic park sucked as a movie, and the sequels were not much better.

Love,
Liz

[MissBarbara]

Not to mention that fact that 100% homosexuals can reproduce in the normal fashion, regardless of how icky they might find the undertaking...

LOL....I'm sorry it's wrong to laugh at this, but I have to ask.
Do you know of any??
because I certainly don't.
Adoption yes.
Artificial Insemination yes.
Surrogate's...no
But really I run around in both hetero and homo circles, and for the life of me, I don't know a single one that would do what you suggest.
However, I also inserted the chaos theory in the thread which would cover about anything that was not planned or control.
But the basic premise stands true.  the numbers will drop and species surivalability will decrease.


Love,
Liz

I was speaking strictly in the context of the fictional/artificial "Island World" that you created. If "species survivability" were a problem within that closed universe, then yes, homosexuals could do their part...

[Elizabeth]

okay i stand corrected...
But I have to ask you a question...
"Why on earth did you use Jurassic Park for a model reference?"
I mean really you could have used "The Butterfly Effect" (biology).
Or even quoted "Edward Lorenz" who put the chaos effect as correctly as possible:
"CHAOS:  When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future".....Thank You Edward Lorenz.

love,
Liz
PS: wanna discuss Fractal Math?

[Elizabeth]

I referenced Jurassic Park because it features "chaoticists", despite the fact the author of the screenplay (I haven't read the book) clearly had no clue what chaos theory is.

And no I'd really rather not. It just rubs me the wrong way when people incorrectly add sciencey sounding words to their arguments to try to give them credibility.

LOL.....For some reason now, I'm glad I never paid to much attention to Jurassic Park.
Actually I hate math, but it's required for a science major, so I had to take it.
But I like argueing with you......

Love,
Liz


*Edit by Gia1978 to replace quote tags removed by Love, Liz