Being Able to Choose the Sex of Your Child

@ TeamTonyVincent
Baby-sitting is a lot different than raising a child. Additionally, hopefully you would have a partner(s) to help raise the individual. Plus, it's a lot of money to spend because you don't want to 'deal with' girls.

^ I agreed with Dru. Don't stereotype too much. Maybe girls are hard to raise, but boys can be downright devils too, and at times even harder to deal with. (I was an ass to my parents for most of my childhood; my sister is alot easier at age 11 now than I was).

I had no idea how much IVF was until my aunt told me. She and her husband spent over $35 000 on IVF.

I would actually consider this. I want two girls. So yeah.

@ Kovoumakesmetingle
It's a very expensive procedure that costs thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars and even then isn't guaranteed. If you want to confirm the sex (not gender) of your child, adopt.

@ dru chases the wind.
What's the difference in the sex and gender?

@ Kovoumakesmetingle
Sex is what you're biologically born with and gender is what you mentally identify as. My sister was born in the body of a biological male, but she is female (transgendered). Changing the bits and pieces someone is born with (or choosing them) is no guarantee that child will grow up to the be the gender that corresponds with its sex organs.

@ dru chases the wind.
Ah okay ^^

Honestly, I'd check to make sure there aren't any serious risks before even thinking about it. I want a boy first, then a girl, but if choosing the sex of my child means putting it in danger then I'd rather let God decide for me. -A

At first it seems like a neat idea, I mean woo, getting to decide what child you have! It's almost like making your family on the Sims or something. But, I don't think I would do it personally because I like the element of surprise that comes with the identification of the sex of a child. I got so excited when I got to find out the sex of my little cousins, I can't imagine how excited I'd be to find out the sex of my own child someday.

I think it should come with limitations, though, based upon the population at that particular time. If there are far more girls, people shouldn't be allowed to physically choose themselves if they have a girl and vice versa with the male population. That's when you let nature handle it.

I think it should be allowed, though, to an extent, like I said.

@ ronnie radke.
But what about the people who will pass a disease onto their child if it's of a certain gender. You're talking about using this to create the 'perfect' child. A lot of people would use this just to make sure their child isn't sick.

@ dru is the man.

Choosing the gender to prevent illness (I'll use hemophilia as an example.) is not the perfect solution, just like adoption isn't the perfect solution for abortion.

Hemophilia is a disease that resides on the X chromosome. Males only have 1 X chromosome, while females have 2. If a female gets passed that trait and is only a carrier (1 chromosome carrying hemophilia, 1 uninfected.), she can pass on that trait to her children and if she has a male? 50% chance of Hemophilia. You may have stopped it one generation, but it could reappear in later generations, so it's almost irrelevant for X chromosome related diseases in my opinion.

One could argue "well even if it is several generations down the line, it wasn't my child, so what does it matter?" Knowing that your grandchild or even great grandchild or your great to the 5th power grandchild is sick isn't a pleasing thought. At least it isn't to me. Where it a perfect world, I'd rid myself of anything in my genes that could pass on disease to my children and eventually grandchildren.

I'm not saying people can't do that or shouldn't do that to prevent their child from being ill, but I'm just saying it's not the miracle solution and problems could still occur later down the family line.

This probably made no sense whatsoever, but that's just my two cents.

@ ronnie radke.
But it's certainly a reason not to force someone to have a child of a gender they know will be sick. I understand the implications, but you're suggesting gender control based on the population and if someone is going to have a sick girl and a healthy boy, I think they should have a boy.

Granted, I also don't believe in gender control based on the population and I don't think this should be used for designer babies, really, either.

@ dru is the man.

That's true, in that situation, it's a double edged sword in my opinion. You know SOME BODY down the family line will end up sick, and that kind of sucks.

My whole idea on it is, it's none of my personal business. I get where people are all like "UH YES IT IS OUR BUSINESS THEY'LL SCREW THE WORLD UP WITH POPULATION AND OH MY GOD YES IT IS YOUR BUSINESS BUT IN AND SPEAK YOUR MIND ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SCREW IT UP BY CHOOSING THE SEX OF THEIR BABY" because it could lead to some sort of hot mess down the road if we're all choosing one sex to have just for funsies, but I still don't find it any of my personal business as to what people do as long as it's not harming someone, you know? When someone is being hurt, then it's my business, it's everyone's business. But with something as harmless as sperm isolation or whatever it's called, I don't care what people are doing.

I don't agree with the abortion option of choosing the gender, I think that's wrong, and I'm even pro choice.

@ ronnie radke.
It's incredibly expensive. It couldn't be done by just any family willy nilly. You would need a large sum of money on hand or to take out a loan. Most people wouldn't do that just for fun.

@ dru is the man.
If you do so medically. Sex selective abortions or infanticide are free/inexpensive and happen every day globally.

@ Kurtni
I think that when most people visit this thread, they are talking about the medical procedure to do it, not talking about killing their children or getting abortions on boys/girls, so I have a tendency not to suggest they will.

dru is the man.:

@ Kurtni
I think that when most people visit this thread, they are talking about the medical procedure to do it, not talking about killing their children or getting abortions on boys/girls, so I have a tendency not to suggest they will.

I know that's what they think, but that's the least common form of sex selection. I think it's naive to only consider what happens in the US/Europe when infanticide and sex selective abortion are commonplace elsewhere. I doubt most people support infanticide for gender selection, and that's a distinction worth making when you say people should be able to choose the gender of your child.

I guess I my feelings about this are similar to my feelings about cosmetic surgery: I wouldn't do it and I think it's healthier not to, but I don't have a problem with others wanting to.

I say yes, but not for me I would leave it up to nature (not to god).