A reader writes:

It is interesting that Mohler first acknowledges that the development of tests for in-utero gayness and any subsequent "cures" for such a condition "would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America," but then ignores this salient point by advocating for the potential "treatment" anyway. It seems clear that since one of the main intellectual legs of the Pro-Life movement is the personhood of fetuses, any attempt to alter a fetus' genetic makeup without its consent is wrong in the same way that they claim abortion is wrong. It's a moral conundrum for those Pro-Lifers who continue to view homosexuality as an "objective disorder." 

I expect those who traditionally stand upon their values, such as the Catholic church hierarchy, to oppose this type of process, whereas the moralizing opportunists that are Christianist leaders would likely welcome this type of procedure with open arms, saying something along the lines of "it's not as bad as abortion and we prevent the birth of another fundamentally sinful person."

The Catholic hierarchy is not as hostile to gay people as the Protestant Christianists. But it still seems extraordinary to me that a leading figure like Mohler can talk of genetically engineering fetuses to prevent homosexuality. Would he favor genetically altering fetuses to remove other genetic markers? Dark skin? Or the instinct for self-defense which could lead to murder? Or genetic markers for envy or greed? The Christian answer to sin, if that's what Mohler believes being gay is about, used to be the grace of God. It's instructive to watch a professed Christian go for eugenics instead.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.