My son and I just got home from seeing X-Men 3, a movie that I'll give 2 thumbs up. He's out playing, and I thought I'd check out RealClearPolitics.com for a moment. Read an editorial saying Bill Clinton should be Secretary General of the UN, and saw a news link on the right side of the page. I clicked it.
I'm not going to spill the beans on the plot turns of X-Men 3, but the main story is that a "cure" for the mutants has been developed. I followed that link above because it immediately bridged the gap for me from the movie I just saw and the society in which we live. Were the mutations an "illness" to be cured, or were they a natural evolution for humans? Is homosexuality an "illness" that can be cured, or is it a naturally-occurring phenomenon?
Should schools be pushing a homosexual agenda, and should the so-called other side have its say as well?
2 comments:
But ultimately, should schools be silencing students with alternative beliefs, as happened in a number of schools when kids decided to counter the Day of Silence a few weeks back?
I believe you are discussing the ethical dilemma of the "slippery slope". This is often discussed in regards to euthanasia and abortion. I must admit, it's a scary premise. And if you believe that people should be assisted to die as opposed to allowing them to die, then you cross into a new frontier where those deemed less than deserving of services, such as the disabled or the incompetent, are denied. It's one of the key issues holding back much of the genetic research and not without good cause. If female children in certain nations are allowed to die in infancy because of preference for male children, then it's not a big leap to genetic selection, and on the flip side, selective abortion. While I am not a strident prolife advocate by any means, I think this raises some ethical questions that have not been adequately considered and addressed. To take it to the extreme, Hitler had a selective vision with his concentration camps. Do you know any parent, even those in gay life partner relationships, that would choose to have a gay child knowing the problems they would face? What about a Downs Syndrome child? Or one that is blind, or deaf or otherwise impaired and therefore seen as "imperfect"? I am really surprised that women's rights groups and advocates for the disabled haven't jumped on this issue. Without safeguards in place, this could be a very nasty situation ten years down the road as genetics progress.
Post a Comment