I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be pissed if I found out someone was screwing around with my future while before I was born. Would it have "harmed me," per se? Maybe not. Would it have been a violation of personal rights? Yes. I'd like to use haelmarie's example of circumcision. I was circumcised as an infant, and I resent this. It was infringing on my right to choose what to do with my own body. Did this harm me? Not really. Was it a personal violation? Yes. It's the same basic principle.
Y'all make very good points and unfortunately, I'm about to severely weaken my stance on child alteration with the next clarification. I stand by my opinion of the law. Things like rape and murder are outlawed, not because they are immoral, but because they destroy the rights of others (the right to not be violated and the right to life in this case). In a perfect world, all laws would be based on rights. As it stands, there are still rubbish 'ethics' laws in place that prevent scientific achievements in stem cell research or infringe upon our rights to marry because some people deem it 'immoral'. Some would argue that those rights are universal (pro-lifers, for example) and others would argue that they are restricted to those we assign personhood. And I personally only assign personhood to a fetus when its cerebral cortex has been formed (20-24 weeks) as we have no other means to accurately determine sentience at this time. Thus, while it may seem unjustified to change the orientation of a child who has the ability to feel emotions and make conscious decisions, in the case of assigned personhood it need not be judged as immoral. Your circumcision argument (which we should really just call genital mutilation at this point) is valid. But unfortunately, if everyone was circumcised and you never knew anything BUT circumcision, it is highly unlikely that you would feel violated. This is why as a child until you see the other plethora of penises in the world, you are content. In the same vein, if all you ever knew was being attracted to the opposite gender, you would not 'miss' it. It only differs from the circumcision analogy in that you will be exposed to other people of varying orientations, but since it's a feeling and not an outward characteristic, I personally cannot imagine feeling offended that you aren't one of the gays. We screw around with our child's futures in infinite numbers of ways! Through jobs and wages and pre-established preferences and exposure to androgens in plastics... The list extends for eons. The only difference that can be drawn (and it's a weak one at best) is that the ones that I have listed are unconscious actions by the parents versus taking a firm decision to change your child's orientation. I still don't follow the artistic remarks. I think I made it clear that I'm not arguing from a medical or feasibility standpoint. Provided that they discovered the correct dosage of hormones to affect orientation but not other areas of the brain, I'm sure you can agree that the artistic and personality traits become irrelevant. Anyways, let me make this clear. I am not a person who would do this to my child. I am simply saying that I understand why someone would want to do it and I would not call them evil people for doing so. I'm arguing that you can't blank-term the option and say that it is immoral. Of course, to put this in context, I also do not believe in absolute objective morals. So you can see my issues with the laws being 'ethical'.
