General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA 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.
rampartc
(5,264 posts)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.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)rampartc
(5,264 posts)theu certainly oppose educating the working class.
raging moderate
(4,281 posts)They want to keep their tame mobs under mind control.
A DAY IN THE LIFE
(88 posts)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).