firstly apologies for second succesive post, but silly timed editing rule seems to have stuck here form old .com site.

Personally me and my partner would love to have a boy and a girl.
Now say we have two children both boys, and it is such our dream to have a daughter, why is it wrong to make certain our next child is female?

(it'll make the car sharing later in life easier as women simply cannot drive......I know bad bad joke, but its meant as a joke :))

In the process of defining the sex of the embryo, the scans could also reveal genetic defects that would change and destroy the life of the existing family members if they were present and left unchecked. (incidently my partner had an older brother who died of cystic fibrosis when he was 11 and she carries the recessive gene, I have yet to be tested).

As some of you who may have been through a similar thing can understand, that if the eventuality is that I carry the gene also we cannot have children. But if the gene can be repaired or eliminated with genetic screening we can have our family.

For me religion doesnt come into it, if it was against the things "god" allowed or wished for us, he would intervene and do something about it.......as a non believer in god nor any form of religion, I cant see this happeneing.

As some of you who may have been through a similar thing can understand, that if the eventuality is that I carry the gene also we cannot have children. But if the gene can be repaired or eliminated with genetic screening we can have our family.


couldnt agree more ;) :D :D

A friend of mine's two brother's were both born with a genetic disorder. Are you trying to tell me that they had no right to exist? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

excuse me my mate , no need for the attitude , the point is if people have the chance then why shouldnt they take it , i know i would rather have a healthy child rather one that i know is going to die , like a lad at work his son has cystic fibrosis and he wont last much longer :(

Bred. Exactly. There is a world of difference between selective breeding, which chooses between naturally-arising genes, and genetic manipulation, which introduces completely novel information into the genetic code. 'Hacking' DNA is fraught with difficulty and poses a terrible risk to all life.

Animals can be inbred with sad results (the Kennel Club has a lot to answer for in this regard) but a few generations of mongrel breeding restores genetic diversity and puts things right. However once a single piece of clumsy, defective man-made DNA gets into the environment, how is it to be stopped?

That's a pretty huge theory to be presenting to a discussion as if it were fact. Could you provide a link to some conclusive evidence in support of this?

'It'll happen anyway, we have no choice, best go along with it' has been used by people of every generation to defend their part in some of history's worst atrocities. It isn't a valid reason or excuse for anything. People have the right to do, or do not, but they should base it on solid reasons that actively back up their position, not a defeatist shrug of the shoulders.

As above, IMO nothing's inevitable. I agree that we have to have laws/policies/procedures to help us deal with new challenges, and I think the UK's current position is illogical and indefensible.

First off, I recognise that there is a difference between genetic manipulation and gender selection by IVF (the original topic of this thread). Genes are not being modified, although they are arguably being scientifically selected as sex is genetically determined.

The UK's position is illogical because we allow selection under somecircumstances but not others. It gets all concerned about proper treatment of embryos in scientific research and then allows a woman to abort a child at 16 weeks for purely 'lifestyle' reasons.

IMO any debate on how we interfere with the reproductive process in the UK should start from the very beginning - the acceptability or otherwise of abortion - and go on from there, applying the same logic to all the questions that need to be answered, including the matter of sex selection that we're discussing now.

Unfortunately if we did that I fear we might be horrified at the answers we receive.

I'd imagine that since evolution happens over milions of years and the fact that modern humans have been around for approx 50,000 years that it is indeed true.
Its noticible that humans now are taller, brow ridges in males are smaller, little toes are smaller too.

i agree there.

I dont think we would be horrified, I think its just some people are too sensitive to the situation to be able to grasp the full impact. Hell the world has gone to ratsh*t recently anyway, why should'nt we try and help ourselves?

Probably because as a species we'll be a lot worse off without learning about compasion and care.

yeah but how will leaving people with a death sentence over them be called compassion?

"oh sorry, you are going to die before you are 16 years old, we could have done something about it, but we decided it wasnt right"

there cant be in that case , mummy and daddy why did you let me be born if you knew i was going to die and that sort of thing :mad: :mad: :mad:

And you are going to live forever because?

I aint gonna live forever, but I also am not going to die as a child because of some genetic defect.
And I sure as hell would have anything done if I can ensure the genetic defect free life for my child, given the circumstances I am in, awaiting the test to find out if I carry the cystic fibrosis gene I think I have a right to feel the way I do.

Dont preach your ethics to me, or jump down my throat, I want children, "nature" may have made it so my children would die, if there is a way to "cure" this why the friggin hell shouldnt I?
and before someone gets all smart arsey, I want children, there is no question of not having children, its a matter of is it safe to do so, if not I'll have to adopt.

Umm, the only thing that's certain in this life is that you're going to die sooner or later. :confused:

I am thankful for the time alloted for me and I think the vast majority of people are, whether that's 8 years or 80.

Maybe one or two people would say they would rather they had never been born, but you can't make a policy of killing every unborn child with a 'defect' because of that. That's called eugenics, and the Nazis were quite partial to it.

no one is going to live forever , well maybe no one , i just cant get my head round the bringing a baby into this world knowing it has a major problem and doing nothing about it :confused:

But also you have to think of the quality of life that child will have
Granted. Certain genetic diseases/defects arent painfull, some are down right horrible, cystic fibrosis being one.
Would you say its better to put a child through that suffering or select certain embryos to not develop?

I think our frames of reference are too different for me to answer that in any way that would be meaningful to you. When you say 'select certain embryos not to develop' I hear 'kill certain unborn children.' I think our assumptions / understanding about where life starts and what rights or responsibilities we have to intervene in the process are very, very different.