VERY VERY worrying
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3025416.stm

Am I alone in thinking this is immoral, disgusting and very disturbing?

Saw her on GMTV this morning... medically it is within "reason", cosmetically is a no-no.....

How can chosing the sex of your child ever be 'medically reasonable'?

Now this is getting a bit to far into the 'playing god' way of things.

Unless there is a medical reason things should just be left to nature.

Whilst I am not in favour of this, you have to consider the point the lady makes -

It opens a whole can of worms regarding abortion etc.

That is so wrong unless it is for medical reasons

I don't see why be able to 'plan' your family is a problem ? Surely it will lead to a happier more stable family unit ?

It's not as if this will become the 'norm' with long queues outside fertility clinics !!

Tests are available now to check gestating mothers for genetic faults in unborns, not a giant leap to testing for gender.

Lets face it, it's probably about 50/50 what gender child parents wish for, so I don't envisage an unbalancing in the gender balance. This perhaps can't be said of countries such as China (heard of the killing rooms where female babies are left to starve to death ??) and Italy where I understand females are in short supply !

If you don't believe in God then surely you can appreciate the dangers of interefering with "Mother Nature". Who on earth are we to mess with a power MUCH great than us, and which we could never understand?

Hi...I think it is something to do with a free world?? and freedom of choice..IMHO it only concerns the Lady and her family..If they are happy with THEIR decision then be happy that they are happy..
*takes to the shelters and waits for the flack*

Free world? So am I free to walk in to a car showroom and just drive off in a brand new car? Yes it's a free world to a point - but there are limits to every society. Children are a gift - from who depends on your beliefs. God, Mother Nature etc. So what is this woman saying? Oh thank you for the gift, only this time, I'll decide on how it comes out.

Receipe for disaster IMO. There WILL be repercussions.

God chose the sex of his only begotten Son didn't he so if it's good enough for Him it's good enough for the rest of us mere mortals :D

I can see where Russ is comong from, today you can choose the sex - tomorrow who knows what, colour of eyes/hair, left/right handed or even sexual orientation ( if you believe that that is something you are born with ;) ) :eek:

But where does it end? Do we start selecting on the basis of colour of hair/eyes? Height? Maybe we'd like a page three girl who can support us in luxury in our twilight years?

"I'll have a blonde green-eyed girl with a 38D bust please!"

The world's gone mad.

Enterian
(Who's wife is pregnant with a child of unknown sex - we don't know, we don't want to know and we'll be happy either way!)

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

<basa dives behind same wall as fraz !!!! >

Congratulations. :D

When is the "nappy" event? :)

Who provided Adam and Eve with the tree of knowledge? And who exactly are you to say what is or isn't God's will? Seen any talking burning bushes in the back garden recently?

;)

Sept. 20th

And speaking of Adam & Eve wasn't Eve the first genetically modifed person having been created from Adams rib ?


See, all the way through the Bible there are references to revolutionary medical practices ergo it must be ok for science to interven if it can.

I'd have thought that would have made her the first ever clone. :cool:

Proof if proof werre needed, cloning is sanctioned by the Bible !!!

:cool:

Impossible, clones have to be the same sex!

not necessarily ;) heheh.... whether we'll like it or not, it bound to go down this road. Why ? Money ? Doctors are greedy!!

Free world? So am I free to walk in to a car showroom and just drive off in a brand new car?
No,thats called stealing,cant see who this Lady has stolen from?,and I am sure there are thousands of parents who would have loved the chance to be sure their children would be born without any impediment..or is that part of the `gift`?..

and to think most of you were whineing over at the .com site because i posted something similar but under diffarent circumstances i told you all it would happen

http://www.nthellworld.com/forum/sho...threadid=43457

No, clones have to be of the same genetic material.

indeed russ and i think your against it so i side with you on this one its totally wrong to mess with mother nature huge implications for the baby can arise in the future

But wasn't it Mother Nature that endowed us with our brains so therefore anything we do must be a natural progression.

Hmmmm....this threads gone very quiet ??

Didn't see any lightning :D

Speaking of which, saw Bruce Almighty last weekend, cracking film :)

sorry but i cant see what is wrong with it , at the end of the day you choose to do what you want to do , if it hadnt come to light no one would have known about it , whats to say that your next door neighbours little girl wasnt created the same way ????????? , do you know are you certain ???????? , storm in a teacup i reckon , im gonna hide now and put my flameproofs on for when russ comes back :Peace:

Well seeing as the Bible states God is the creator of all things, that give me pretty good grounds to say we are not the entities who have control over life in this way.

We have our place in the grand scheme and creator/controller of life is not on our CV. Or at least is shouldn't be.

If God wants to 'clone' as Fraz puts it, that's up to Him. The day we can be put on the same terms as the Boss is the day I'll agree with all this. :)

Just think what we could of had for an 'Arm and a Leg'!:)

thats utter stupidity just because we kill others does that mean its right in my mind no or is that natural progression ?

The thing is, whether it's "right" or not, it's possible, and we are going to have to learn to deal with it. I would much rather see genetic modification done responsibly than see it run rampant because it's driven underground. This is one of the many instances where prohibition just won't work.

And, in case you're worrying about super beings taking over, forget it. Being able to do some small degree of genetic modification is the present state of affairs; being able to do it to a greater extent than removing genes for diseases or selecting sex: i.e. trying to produce greater intelligence, athleticism, beauty or anything like that is still no nearer. They would involve combinations of genetic material that we're not going to be able to work out for a long time yet, let alone execute them correctly.

And, to get back to my original point, I think it's much better we learn to deal with them at this early stage than bury our heads in the sand until we have real genetic manipulation to deal with and no idea how to.

God gave us freedom, Most people dont believe in god anyhow... Who cares?

Surely this will only bring the family closer together, More love.. and overall a better thing! Life's there to be enjoyed, we dont last long, we might as well enjoy it whilst we can imo.

Fraz, your not with the O.U. by any chance are you?

Russ .. little hint .. your mother is not the virgin Mary ;)

so what if some people dont believe in god i agree we should be happy but i thought when having children you would be happy to have a child rather then custom produced baby and the big possibility of it dyng at anytime...............

The only problem I can foresee is Asian family's. Its well known that allot off them prefer son's as they value them more. This of course is wrong but on the other side their are family's which say have three girl's and just wont a son or vice versa and I don't see a problem with that

Havnt really read the whole thread.. The baby should lead a complete normal life.. Just like conceiving naturally, there's no health implications.

if this is a 'genetic' modification which i think its then there are risks significant ones at that of future problems

Its not really altering genetics, Its Just Choosing the XX XY chromasomes, and using IVF treatment to implant them in the egg.

So you don't even believe in 'mother nature' or anything like that?

Well of course there's something that created us.. and the universe.. But I dont see how this relates to the thread tbh.. Lifes' there for the taking, there's no point worrying about something supernatural.

I'll use my pre-christian beliefs here to help with my point.....

In the view of a non-christian, life must have been created by a 'mother-nature'. 'She' continues to oversee life, and if you subscribe to the idea of 'evolution' then surely you must agree that she controls that, thus ensuring species evolve the right way. 'She' has laid down strict rules governing life, such as elephants only give birth to baby elephants, and canines give birth to puppies etc.

So anything which 'changes' this natural process is going to be encroaching in uncharted land. This can only be described as foolish behaviour IMO.

Humans are slaves to this process, NOT the other way around.

Yeah, Your post makes sense.. But that goes against Christian Beliefs....

How can we be slaves, when We have freedom?.. Im actually a christian, But I prefer to take a broader view on life.

and if that is your belief then fine , i am not going to get into an argument about it , i still say it is upto the individual to choose as they see fit , although i reckon the line should be drawn at creating super beings , if i had the need to create a baby in the hope of saving another child then i would do it , no probs , i suppose it depends on your beliefs after all

Erm, I did say that those were my pre Christian beliefs ie this is what I believed before I became a Christian :)

whoops for russ i reckon :p :p :p

I think that sums it up pretty well.

Your idea of Super Beings Could strike something different into the subject though - We defiently need Strict laws with this.. Though I fear things like this have been going on for a long time now, Area 51 such an example.

I know, but I couldnt think of anything else to say :D

But God didn't create modern cows, sheep, horses, roses, wheat and lots of other stuff. We did.

The "traditional" British landscape is largely man-made and not natural at all. We've been messing with nature for a few thousand years.

Not saying we always do a good job. Just that we've been doing it for a long time.

See my previous reply. :)

Anyway, the only thing we can affect is us. There are LOTS of us - most of whom follow natural childbirth techniques (and most of whom will continue to do so for a very long time).

Also, variety within species is what powers evolution, not the sex of the individual. Unless I misunderstand my Darwin. (Which is always possible.) :)

And, just to scare you all a bit, we're probably a failed evolutionary line anyway, much like the horse - a little twig on the big tree of life. Lack of diversity, you see.

Bacteria rule. And always have.

What if you don't believe in mother nature?

People already do various things to try and dictate the gender of their child, whether it be starving themselves to get a girl, or over eating for a boy, or doing it doggy style facing towards or away from the sun.

And there are many medical reasons for chosing the gender of your offspring.
Many genetic illnesses are gender specific.

while genetics & the associated research has a bearing on this case, as do religious beliefs and concerns about genderism in 3rd world countries - I think we are missing the point.

In my opinion the debate is about ethical issues - scientific research into IVF treatments and the treatments themselves, involve the "creation" of human embryo's. Many embryo's "die" during subsequent procedures.

Many partners have had children using these techniques, who otherwise would not have been able to have any - currently acceptable in the uk.

Using these techniques to add a gender specific child to an existing family is not acceptable in the uk, but can be done abroad.

Whatever the "meaning of life" I don't think we should get too blasÃÃâ€*’© about "creating" life to suit our whims. Where do we draw the line?

I think the line should be drawn where you alter a variable thats dictated by your upbringing.

IE - Inteligence..Strength.. (Thats where these freaky movies come in play, with superbeings)..

But are they "alive" to start with?

Ok. My view. They're potential lives. IMO, until you can ***** it with a pin and make it squeal it's not "alive" (this applies to humans only, BTW). {I see we still have the silly censor in action. You'll have to work out for yourselves what one usually does with a pin. I'm sure you can all do that without genetic modification.}

But don't we do this already? People choose to have children. Ok, not all, but a lot of couples plan their families, having babies when they want to have them as suits their lives. So what's the difference?

Or do you mean "creating" as in specifying characteristics? Even this I don't have too much of a problem with.

All ethical arguements about us doiing this start from the premise that, in some way, there's a "plan" or we're "special". There isn't and we aren't. So where's the problem?

Will genetic modification of humans destroy the world or the universe? I don't think so. We have better methods of doing the former and are incapable of doing the latter.

Will it give us a better chance of survival as a species? Yes. I think it will.

Well if the logical conclusion of genetic engineering means we all kill ourselves then so what?

Man as a species has developed to a point where the Earth is not capable of supporting them.

Can we stop going on about genetic engineering as it has nothing to do with this case.
All that happened was that the mother was given a say in the selection process of the embryos.
How do you know that all the embryos they developed, including those that weren't used, weren't all XX anyway?

:erm: imho no. sorry nogger I would prefer natural selection to be the determinant here - imo not being able to have children is "natures" way of saying you can't have children.

My bad, but I don't think we should mess with that?

Gaz

quote from Russ...'She' has laid down strict rules governing life, such as elephants only give birth to baby elephants, and canines give birth to puppies etc...

Am I missing something from the report of this happening??
I was of the impression that the Lady in question was to give birth to a baby girl..as in humans only give birth to humans..I respect the religious beliefs of everyone,will never argue about them,and am happy to live with what I believe is ok..

I think this mainly comes under moral implications, as Russ has sort of said, never toy with nature as it has a nasty habit of biting you in the ass.

I think morals in today's society are rare now unfortunately.

Personally I have no problem with the principle of genetic manipulation. If there is a process by which you can ensure a longer, heaththier life for your offspring then why shouldn't you want it for them.

As for interfering with the natural order, surely this happens every time we have a vaccination or operation allowing us to survive some medical catastrophy that a few centuries ago would have meant death.

As I've already pointed out, using genetic manipulation to ensure a longer, healthier life is still a looong way from being possible, except in the few cases where we can remove a specific genetic disorder.

But it would be stupid to stick our heads in the sand and refuse to deal with it until it it _does_ become a possibility. And, as you said, KB, we accept the myriad of other medical benefits - in fact, we're probably much too ready to accept treatments that are sometimes more harmful than the malady.

Surely it is justified if there is a hereditary disease in your family that is only passed through the genes of one gender (be it boy or girl).

Having said that, it should ONLY be allowed for medical reasons. It should not be open to choice.

It would cause problems in the world's population (a lot of races favour one gender over the other).

Just going back to the point the woman makes though, what is the difference between her choosing the sex of her child at 3-5 days - or someone else waiting for a 16 week scan, finding out the sex of the unborn child, then having a termination if the child is not of the desired sex? :confused:

Why don't people just let nature take it's course, we all know when you have a child it's going to be a boy or a girl, whatever sex it is just prey to god it's going to be ok.

Manipulation of a life even before it has been created is IMO a far cry from vaccination after it came in to being. Although children are our responsibility, surely we do NOT have the right to make such a big decision on their behalf. We do not have the right or moral ability to interfere with God's natural/Mother Nature's plans for us.

ummmmm, nope :)

I dont believe in mother nature or god.... so.... hmmm... lol

Anywayz... If mother nature / god created life... why is sexual intercourse necessary to produce pregnant women? Why arent there hundreds of virgins walking around pregnant?

Doesnt that make it the produce of two peoples hard work????

If you were to go out into your garden and build a shed, why couldnt you choose what size you wanted it? Afterall it is you putting all the hard work in to create it........

I.e. She is carrying the unborn around, she put in the hardwork to create it, why shouldnt she be able to choose which sex it is?

I hope that makes sense......

Personally when it comes to my time for a child (which shouldnt be too long i hope... :D) i will not want to control anything about that child, unless medical reasons force otherwise. No matter what it is, i will love it as my creation... Not gods, not mother natures.... MINE!!!

So who/what do you think will 'give' you the child? Sex is a 'natural' act. Life is given to us through nature, it just depends on who you believe to be controlling that 'nature' - God, in my case.

i see your point russ, i really do....

I bet your one of those people that truly believes in fate?!?!? I'm not knocking anyone or anything if they do... that includes you russ.. :)

I.e. if your meant to get hit by a bus then you will type of thing?!?

See i believe i am in control of my life... if i want to stay in bed i do, if i want to go out and get hammered i do, if i want to buy a new CD i do.... I am in control of anything i choose to do... There maybe consequences for my actions, but that is still my choice!!!!

See my point to this? :cool:

i agree with the above we should not mess around with lives

Did God not grant us freewill?

Sorry Russ, but I have to disagree with you on this one....

The success of genetic manipulation will result in a better quality of life for people. Nearly all diseases can potentially be cured. Cancer will be wiped out as cancer causing genetic defects will no longer be a problem.

As a result of genetic testing, risk prevention is also a benefit. If you find that you are genetically inclined to have a heart attack, You can reshape your habits around your genetic dispositions. Or, if you know that you have a recessive gene for a disease, You will know not to have a child by another person with that gene.

However, the fact that genetic information may one day become easily accessible leads to the scenario of genetic discrimination and violation of genetic privacy.

People may be judged and oppressed on the basis of genetic information as well as skin color. Why should I hire a man who has a genetic risk of developing heart disease? Why should I offer him insurance?

The potential for reward and for disaster are both great in this issue. I think that with sufficient regulation and responsibility, the benefits of genetic manipulation can far outweigh the drawbacks.

I believe the problem with that way of thinking is the (IMO) foolish notion that just because we are the technologically dominant species, this give us the right to make up the rules as we go along.

The world is not ours. We are just tenants. Neither is the right to manipulate life. We do not control life, it is bigger than we ever will be. Whatever you believe in which created life, that is who/what makes such decisions.

Yes but he did not grant us the right to mess with HIS business.

in escense i believe that and agree with you i may think it was all nature and not god related but i am certainly against the tampering/modification of this type

but it is human nature to want to control life , as long as it is tempered with caution i dont see what the problem is :eek:

it wont through will it the ethical thing is let nature take its course you tamper you will pay the price maybe the death of whatever you tampered with but ultimately we have evolved through various species by nature taking its course and so the cycle should progress naturally

back to the old argument then , say for instance you have a child with a problem and you are offered the chance to save its life by a tampered with baby are you going to take the offer or not , i know i would ;)

yeah but it depends how the problem can be solved

by which you mean what , i am saying to you that the only way to save your child is to genetically engineer another one to save the first , how would you react to that ????? , this is of course nothing personal and i hope it never happens to anyone here :)

to create another to GE it no i would not also financal implications would be a major factor i understand your point but im afraid im deadset against the tampering of nature especially human nature it will lead to more unethical woes in the future

Russ and Kronas, I understand your concerns but this brings us back to something Nogger brought up earlier:

If you are against any tampering of genetics you would have to live a pretty spartan life... The truth is our lives are full of examples of genetic manipulation

so you would let your child die , and not even attempt to help it , forget about the money for a mo , dont forget this is nothing personal , i dont want or need a flame war ;)

i dont know the ins and outs of evoloution but im sure nature played its part in those instances btw i am talking about human modification as the mmain focal point for my objection

ofcourse i would do anything to protect my child even though i refuse to have any until i see fit interms of something to change my mind but i would not use GE

sorry mate but i cannot see how you can say you would not use ge if you had the option to :confused:

i just did didnt i things happen for a reason i will do anything almost to protect the child except that

Few if any of the domestic animals (dogs, cats, horses, cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc etc) or domestic plants (eg most crops, garden flowers etc) would exist in anything like their current forms if humans had not bred them to it.

And, while humans may not be doing much in the way of deliberately altering themselves yet, we've already been considerably changed because we're a social animal. And we're still in the middle of it - the fact that humans are so prone to circulatory problems, back problems, hernia problems etc is because we're still adapting to being bipeds.

Our society and technology are changing us whether we want it or not. So, if it's going to happen to us anyway, why not try to direct it to some extent?

And, since it's something that people are going to start doing anyway, it would be wise to start developing ways to deal with it rather than deluding ourselves that it can't happen here.

If these people have their way it will be like going into a supermarket, what sort of baby do you want? Boy or a Girl, how high would you like it to grow? What colour would you like it's hair to be? It ought to be stopped before it gets out of hand.

I dont disagree with any of this, genetics happens, the more we learn the more help we can give other people.
Look at the stem cell technology being investigated atm. Look how that branch of genetics is going to benefit amputies, people with severed spinal cords etc. Who are we to deny that choice to these people?

Ok so maybe it is slightly worrying to know that people can have the child they always wanted, but hang on, why is that actually bad? surely giving someone the chance to fullfill their dreams is one of the best things humans can actually do for each other.
The only time a situation like this could become horrific is if it was not guided and controled by a select panel of experts.

To put it quite simply it will not be like walking into a supermarket etc. What it will do, is eliminate things like cystic fibrosis, downs syndrome, spina bifida and a whole other range of genetic defects that DESTROY the life of the child.

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?