Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ck4829

(34,977 posts)
Tue May 14, 2019, 07:36 AM May 2019

A lot of people, a lot of institutes believe in nature over nurture in the nature vs nurture debate

That's the point of genetic testing for example

That's the point of "racial science"

That's the point of calling something "human nature"

It's the backbone of racism, sexism, and classism

When we hear that homosexuality isn't natural, it's because the people who do say it believe that heterosexuality is natural and that non-heterosexuality is a "learned perversion"

Could go on with more examples of how nature in the nature vs nurture debate is gets a head start in our rhetoric, policies, history, debates, etc. (Full disclosure: As you can probably tell, I'm biased for nurture in the nature vs nurture debate and another reason I think nature gets this head start is because I consider "nature" to be conducive to the status quo, but that's another story for another time)

So then it makes me wonder, why then, when it comes to rape and women carrying their rapist's babies and the recent debates we've been having now that the right to abortion could end soon, does the nature vs nurture debate suddenly stop? We can use gene editing, the CRISPR for example, to make sure a rapist's genes are not passed on by making them so different the baby might as well not be the rapist's baby anymore. If I was on the nature side, I wouldn't want this to happen, a rapist shouldn't be rewarded with having a contribution to the gene pool and did so using anti-social acts.

It makes me think of two reasons:

We use the CRISPR gene editor to get rapist genes out of the gene pool and we'll have to use it for everything. Universal healthcare. Can't have that now!

Perhaps worse. People don't care. A lot of people in power and on the street may not want to admit it, but they see rape as more "normal" than perhaps they would care to admit. It is an exercise of power of men over women. It's domination. It's functional even. A rapist's baby is a feature, not a bug, of the gender power status quo.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A lot of people, a lot of institutes believe in nature over nurture in the nature vs nurture debate (Original Post) ck4829 May 2019 OP
eduction is a liberal project because conservatives rampartc May 2019 #1
Actually, the conservatives do believe people can be educated -- but they oppose it struggle4progress May 2019 #2
you may be right rampartc May 2019 #3
Yes, you are right. raging moderate May 2019 #4
I'm sorry, but "HUH???" A DAY IN THE LIFE May 2019 #5

rampartc

(5,264 posts)
1. eduction is a liberal project because conservatives
Tue May 14, 2019, 08:48 AM
May 2019

do not believe that many people can be educated.

i don't want to say that "nature" has no part, but certainly everyone can be taught to some extent.

maybe this does put me at odds with people who believe that homosexuality is a genetic instinct. but even if homosexuality is learned behavior, it is still a choice, and none of my business unless there is no consent.

 
5. I'm sorry, but "HUH???"
Tue May 14, 2019, 09:05 AM
May 2019

The nature in nature v. nurture refers to genetics. Which is more important, genetics or learned behaviors? Your point about homosexuality as seen by the right actually shows their misuse of "natural." To those people, natural means procreation. Unlike other animals, humans do not have a genetic disposition to reproduce.

But lets look at your rapist concept. To begin with, is rape a genetic or nurture behavior? It is probably epigenetic, external stimuli that influences the expression of genetic traits. But you point about modifying a rapist's DNA to prevent his DNA from being passed on would mean there would be no baby. Humans are not capable of parthenogenesis (yet).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A lot of people, a lot of...