Being Able to Choose the Sex of Your Child

Bells.:

But there are more women in the world right now, and women are the non-dominant, weak gender, which I think, is the way it should be. If the genders become balanced out, I think the women are fucked. We will be abused and taken advantage of. The world is perfect the way it is right now.

Women are abused and taken advantage of every single day. Hell, people in general are. I'd just thought I'd like to point that out to you. And the world isn't perfect. If it were perfect, then theoretically no one would be abused or taken advantage of.
It doesn't matter how much the population of females grows or dwindles; it's the ideologies and belief systems about men dominating over women that are to blame for women being taken advantage of. Not actual population.

But I digress.

---

I personally wouldn't want to choose the sex of my child, or choose anything for my child before it's born, if that makes sense (in terms or looks, intelligence etc.). I wouldn't say I'm against it... I guess I just find the whole concept of being able to choose the sex of your child a bit alien to me. I mean, I would like to have children one day, but I don't have a gender / sex preference, personally.

Emily.:

Governments make armies, and governments make laws.

If you want an army of males, you're not really going to put a law on making an army of males now, are you?

Again, I'm not saying it will be used to create armies, just that the possibility is there. I think.

I'm not meaning to offend you, but that's truly ridiculous. What's the government going to do; advertise in the paper expressing interest in looking for couples to breed men so that they can make an army? :think:

If that was the intention of the government, then they would have to make is somehow publicly known that that was their intention, otherwise how else would they get people to breed boys? How would the public react to it? I'd say there'd be lots of angry letters to the editor of the local paper to be honest :coffee:

Human Error:

Emily.:

Governments make armies, and governments make laws.

If you want an army of males, you're not really going to put a law on making an army of males now, are you?

Again, I'm not saying it will be used to create armies, just that the possibility is there. I think.

I'm not meaning to offend you, but that's truly ridiculous. What's the government going to do; advertise in the paper expressing interest in looking for couples to breed men so that they can make an army? :think:

If that was the intention of the government, then they would have to make is somehow publicly known that that was their intention, otherwise how else would they get people to breed boys? How would the public react to it? I'd say there'd be lots of angry letters to the editor of the local paper to be honest :coffee:

I don't think it's nice to say that anyone's opinion on this is ridiculous.
Plus Emily's idea could work. And overpowering government could just say "Right, from now on every couple wishing to conceive will concieve a boy", and people aren't just going to say that they don't want to have children anymore.

^Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying an idea is ridiculous. Because that's what it is; an idea. I don't have to think highly of and agree with everything that is proposed, and nor should I.

And even though I understand that it is just a theory, I just don't see how it could actually work.

Emily.:

In Nazi Germany, many women determined 'racially worthy' were put into breeding camps - they were basically forced to have sex with Aryan men to create children for the armies of the future.

... I don't see how this is really that different. Just give the pregnant woman an injection/operation to ensure the baby is a boy and... bang.

If a governmental official came knocking on my door while I was pregnant and said 'have this injection or you'll be imprisoned', I know I'd take the injection. I know that it would be almost impossibly hard to pull off in well-developed countries - using Australia as an example because I live here - for the simple reason that it would spread in the media very very fast and wouldn't work in the government's favour; they'd find it nearly impoosible to get re-elected.

But in a less developed country with an overpowering government? I think it'd be quite possible - who's going to stop them?

And not to spam but I don't think Lena was saying you had to think highly of my opinion, and I don't believe you should either. I think she was more saying that you should respect it, and calling it 'ridiculous' could be taken as rude.
But I wasn't really offended. :XD So it's all good.

I'm glad you weren't offended :XD

But, in relation to the Nazi Germany example, can you honestly believe that there will be a time where we would revert to tactics such as that? Forcing people to breed certain types of people? I honestly can't, maybe because I like to think more positively about the future :XD

I get the "less developed country" part, and I can see how one would think something like this could happen in one of those countries, but from my perspective - I can't see this happening in my country (in Australia) any time soon. So forgive me if I can't get my head around it :shifty

Although I must admit, it's quite interesting to think about...

I say yes. But I think if it meant there would be implications with cells or genes, I wouldn't endanger my child's life.
I want two kids, (at the moment) a boy (Klaus :P) at least four years older than the girl, (haven't thought of a name yet.) :) Sorry...spamming...

Errm...I haven't actually heard of people chosing the sex of their child! :roll:

But to be honest, it sounds a little similar to chosing what characteristics your child has....

Just another mild form of playing God, in my opinion. Changing what's supposed to happen...

I'm kind of ambivalent on this--I would never do it myself, unless it was to prevent a genetic disease. I think there are just some things we need to leave alone and let nature take its course with, the gender of your child included.
But if other people want to do it, I'm not going to stop them. It's none of my business and if someone proposed to make it illegal, I wouldn't agree. Unless choosing the gender of your child in utero is proven to have negative consequences for the baby, I don't see why it shouldn't be legal.

Personally I wouldn't. I don't think it's healthy to be able to pick and choose how you or someone else are. I think humans should be happy with the charactreistics and gender they were born with.

Although, if there was a genetic disease I had and it wouldn't be passed onto a boy, but it would to a girl then maybe.

But other wise no.

I like the idea of the luck of the draw, but if someone else wants a boy over a girl and we have that type of intelligence, then I don't see why we should say no. There are some cases where a woman will have 5 or 6 boys, and she's just begging for a little girl, only to have another boy. After having 6 boys, I think that woman deserves to have one girl. :P

I could potentially see this being abused, however, by some governments as a way to control the population, which I don't approve of.

^ That post made me think Molly Weasley from Harry Potter. </spam>

But while I think the concept is slightly disturbing, So long as it is completely safe for the child and mother and they are not just changing the childs gender for the heck of it, I think it can be done in certain cases. I do not fully agree with this, but I have no say in what people do now do I?

Besides, people have gotten on without choosing the gender of their children for years now. Why start?

I think it'll cause some major problems, as well. Like, in third world countries where parents sell their children as slaves, etc, and girls are treated worse, etc.

Freddie Mercury.:

I think it'll cause some major problems, as well. Like, in third world countries where parents sell their children as slaves, etc, and girls are treated worse, etc.

That's the problem. I would be okay with it if it were a simple matter of a couple just wanting one over the other, but when you get politics and other things like that involved, it may not be the best idea. I'm sure terrorist factions would love to raise a swarm of boys to aid their armies. It would almost need regulation to make sure people are doing it for the right ethical reasons, but would that even be possible? Would the technology not be leaked to those with bad motivations?

dark_rose:

Freddie Mercury.:

I think it'll cause some major problems, as well. Like, in third world countries where parents sell their children as slaves, etc, and girls are treated worse, etc.

That's the problem. I would be okay with it if it were a simple matter of a couple just wanting one over the other, but when you get politics and other things like that involved, it may not be the best idea. I'm sure terrorist factions would love to raise a swarm of boys to aid their armies. It would almost need regulation to make sure people are doing it for the right ethical reasons, but would that even be possible? Would the technology not be leaked to those with bad motivations?

I agree, but, like, ethical reasons?
What ethical reason is there that you have a girl over a guy or vice versa?

The parents shouldn't choose who you were born to be. Gender is your choice.

Fag.:

The parents shouldn't choose who you were born to be. Gender is your choice.

But how is it your choice? You weren't even conceived at the time to make that choice?

I find it completely ridiculous. If people were able to choose the gender of their children then in a few years they are able to choose the hair colour, the height, the looks, hell, maybe even their personalities. People will be just like robots, built to please the parents. But if people were like robots, who would operate them? That's scary and this whole business just freaks me out.

Four Minute Mile:

I find it completely ridiculous. If people were able to choose the gender of their children then in a few years they are able to choose the hair colour, the height, the looks, hell, maybe even their personalities. People will be just like robots, built to please the parents. But if people were like robots, who would operate them? That's scary and this whole business just freaks me out.

It's like in the movie Gattaca, what you're talking about, if you've seen it.
It's the future, and you're able to choose all these things about your child. Even if they want additional fingers to play piano better, etc.

[Points for both sides from www.idebate.org Choose your poison :cute:]

PRO ANTI

People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:
"Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family."
and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed.

Freedom of choice is a good principle, but harm is done to others by the practice of sex selection and so it should not be allowed. Apart from the danger that serious gender imbalances will result (covered in point 3 below), making some sort of sexual selection legal and acceptable will reinforce and legitimise gender stereotypes. In practice this will inevitably mean more oppression of women, already seen as less valuable than men in many cultures. Nor is sex selection supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; its writers did not imagine recent developments but did include rights for equal treatment and status for women, which allowing gender selection would undermine.

It is a fact of life that sometimes parents are disappointed with the gender of their children. This is true, for example, when they already have six sons but want a daughter. Guaranteeing (or improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family’s dreams. He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved.Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity. Parents give so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn’t it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights.

Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. This is an extension of the consumer society. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people will demand more and more ability to change their kids, and be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want…

Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations.
If a state’s population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, do not, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, e.g the paying of dowries may change, women will achieve higher status.

This argument veils the likely result of the policy: reinforcement of already unhealthy cultural practices. Selective abortion has meant that gender imbalance in China and India is already very, very high – 1.3 boys to each girl in some regions – demonstrating the likely result of such policies in some countries. Even in western countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in serious imbalances in some communities. These imbalances are
socially harmful because in time many young men will be unable to find a partner; in China this is already linked to a rise in sexual violence, kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution.

It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc). Why not extend that ability to plan?

Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives.

The trauma and grief of having lost a child might be more easily relieved by allowing the couple to have another child of the same gender.

Children are not replacements. They are individuals, unique in themselves. How will a child feel if they know that their primary purpose for being on this earth is to serve as a fill-in for a dead sibling?

Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child’s interests that they don’t have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to ‘fall back on.’ These range in nature from baldness and color blindness to muscular dystrophy and hemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system.
Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a ‘sperm-sifting’ machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 200 babies have been born using the technology without problems.

Medical benefits are outweighed by medical costs. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. One or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. Those that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has been created with the express purpose of being destroyed. This is another form of abortion – only the conception is deliberate. Ultimately, it will be these technologies and not MicroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a 92% accuracy rate if a girl is desired (itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis), its accuracy falls to 72% for boys, and the vast majority of selections will inevitably be for males. Thus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk using MicroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far, scientific experts like Lord Winston express the fear that the process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more likely. Both techniques are therefore to be condemned.

In many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion.

In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. In any case, the cost of these new methods is so high, and likely to remain so, that the proposition argument is irrelevant - the use of ultrasound scanning leading to selective abortion is so much cheaper that this great evil will not be reduced. Instead, these new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer, e.g a boy rather than a girl.