Now, without getting into the question of the morality or immorality of homosexuality (at least directly – it will inevitably come up indirectly), I have a question and seek an answer.
It seems that the pill the author is talking about doesn’t have much to do with an already existing human person, but only with human persons potentially. Certainly, contraception is an immoral act against potential people. It denies their ability to exist, makes impossible the end of the sexual act, etc. etc. (there are better formulated arguments against contraception than this)
However – again, if I am understanding the way this pill works correctly – what exactly is wrong with taking medicine to prevent future children from having not merely “undesirable defects” (one might consider things such as race, hair or eye color, male- or female-ness to be defects) but from having chemical imbalances which drive them towards unhealthy or immoral behavior? It isn’t peverting someone’s free will – it seems to be simply setting the conditions for one to live a healthier or more virtuous life.
For example, if one family had a history of schizophrenics, what would be wrong with a female from such a family to take medicine which would set the conditions for her children to be less susceptible to schizophrenia? It’s not 100% natural (not that most of human life is), but is there anything wrong with this?
Obviously, this is a very dangerous issue, since what exactly would be ok and what would not be ok for this procedure is pretty hazy, and the risk of prejudice coming in is high, but…
Well, any thoughts?