Boy or Girl or chimera?

[allieyoung666]

No it is gods way , if you are meant to have a girl, then get on with it, do not medal with nature!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by bopdude

Not right, but understandable ....... mmmmmmmmmmm, so if there was a sudden imbalance of one sex or another would it be understandable then to mess with the sex of babies

Not to cause an arguement, just asking

If there was such an imbalance then it would be for a reason.

[punky]

Originally Posted by bopdude

Not right, but understandable ....... mmmmmmmmmmm, so if there was a sudden imbalance of one sex or another would it be understandable then to mess with the sex of babies

Not to cause an arguement, just asking

(This isn't coming from a Neil-The-Hippy standpoint, but a scientist.) Nature exists in cycles and equilbria. If you go against her then she'll do something to redress the balance (and she'll always win). If the world became disproportionately high with males, or females, then a gender specific disease would come out.

The world is designed to have an equal number of male and female occupants. Who are a load of men going to breed with, without women?

Besides, I doubt genetic selection would ever get so out of control. Might do, but unlikely.

[bopdude]

Originally Posted by Russ D

If there was such an imbalance then it would be for a reason.

So reasonable to say that if it came down to it, a lot of people would change their standpoint on this Interesting, isn't having, as Coggy said about having, 2,3,4, or 5 boys and wanting a girl, isn't that reason enough for said couple ? In their eyes I suppose it would be. A 2,3,4, or 5 to 0 imbalance on their side is a BIG reason, IMO.

Originally Posted by punky

The world is designed to have an equal number of male and female occupants. Who are a load of men going to breed with, without women?

NOOOOOOOOOO, resist the urge serious debate

Originally Posted by punky

Besides, I doubt genetic selection would ever get so out of control. Might do, but unlikely.

It was just a hyperthetical what if type thing, I don't see it happening either.

[Salu]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Because we can?

Just because we can does not mean we should.

I can murder someone but I shouldn't....etc

I don't think this should be allowed with the exception of avoiding gender specific diseases/malformations and even then with heavy regulating.

The problem with opening a door slowly is that the door can be opened bit by bit until it is open completely almost without anyone noticing. Give it ten years and we may find it OK as a society to have full designer babies choosing hair colour and whether it lives or dies.....just because we can...!

I believe we need a certain amount of metering or governance to help society from becoming anarchistic due to our sincere belief that we are promoting freedom...

[Paul K]

Originally Posted by skunk4u

Why do we Have to play God?

We don't HAVE to play God but but the arrogance of man means that we no doubt will Nobody should have the right to choose what sex their child is, some things should be left to nature and this is one of them.
As has been stated in this thread if too many people start choosing male over female we'll have the Alaska syndrome where males are outnumbered 4-1 (don't quote me on that figure) but it would stop a certain group of people aborting babies as soon as they realise they are having girls. Obviously if they continued to do this then their race would soon see a massive decrease in numbers but then it might serve as a wake up call if that happened and they may start acknowledging that female children are just as special as male

[ZrByte]

What about changing the sex of the child born to take away the risk of it being born with congenital dissorders that normally only males can be born with? A large number of cengenital dissorders do only effect one gender (normally male) and this could be avoided simply by making your child a girl.

Any reason other than medical and it becomes imoral IMO but dont even try and say that its gods will or life will find a way, that may be your belief and thats fine but using that as a reason not to allow this is just the same as forcing your belief on the masses (well it would be if that was the reasoning that leads to the ban being made permanent).

And life will find a way? Does that mean our offspring will become pondering 50ft long meat-eating reptiles? just kidding

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Russ D

If there was such an imbalance then it would be for a reason.

Endocrine disrupting toxins? i.e man made pollution?

I come from a large family, I have three brothers and one sister, my mum had twins, a boy and a girl & it was totally natural & wouldn't of wanted it to be any other way.

The twins were born last and I was 9 years old when my mum gave birth to them, yet I remember, I longed for a sister just as much as my mum and dad longed for a daughter. The day they were born, was one of the happiest days the whole family had ever lived.

I am trying to think of the potential, psychological, long term damage this might do to someone should they discover their sex was pre-selected before they were born.

Reminds me very much of the film Gattaca, a film about advanced genetic engineering, that makes it possible for the creation of biologically superior human specimens known in the film as 'valids', who then grow to positions of power and prestige. Whilst those born the old-fashioned way are treated with prejudice and treated as rejects and given the crap left-over jobs.

Let's hope we won't ever come close to this way of thinking in the future, but looking back at this subject of choosing to have a boy or a girl, we are on that path already it seems.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

What about changing the sex of the child born to take away the risk of it being born with congenital dissorders that normally only males can be born with? A large number of cengenital dissorders do only effect one gender (normally male) and this could be avoided simply by making your child a girl.

Any reason other than medical and it becomes imoral IMO but dont even try and say that its gods will or life will find a way, that may be your belief and thats fine but using that as a reason not to allow this is just the same as forcing your belief on the masses (well it would be if that was the reasoning that leads to the ban being made permanent).

And life will find a way? Does that mean our offspring will become pondering 50ft long meat-eating reptiles? just kidding

As I understand it, Gender selection is already allowed for medical reasons.

I have to admit, I don't think it will be a massive problem, as most people will probably just be happy to have a kid, but there are certain groups who value one gender over another.

I will say, however, that I do think Nature will act to correct any imbalance caused by this, and we may not like the results of that.

Another thing. I believe several people have misinterpreted Incog's posts in this thread. When she talked about China (although I don't think she actually bought the subject up) and the 1 family, 1 child rule, I got the impression that while she understood the reasoning behind the rule (in places, China is massively overpopulated), she didn't agree with it.

I also got the impression that she doesn't agree with Gender Selection (although people seem to think she does).

[allieyoung666]

Im a twin and if my mum had decided to make my sister a brother, I would have bloddy killed her, do not mess with nature, as stated above there is a reason for all this and it is the gene pool, if you muck with the gene pool you are messing with nature!!!!

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by scastle

As I understand it, Gender selection is already allowed for medical reasons.

as in carriers of certain diseases/disorders and the likely hood of being passed on depending on gender.

e.g.

A carrier female of an X-linked condition may pass on either of her X chromosomes to her children. On average, half of her sons will be affected, and half of her sons will not be affected. Half of her daughters will be carriers, and half will not be carriers and therefore will have no chance of having a child with the condition.

In that case, statisically it would be safer to have a girl because she would definitely not get the condition itself and would stand a 50% chance of being a carrier of the condition.

[orangebird]

I can't see the problem tbh. It's up to the propesctive parents and the guidance of the consultant to decide. Who are we to tell someone else who desperately wants, say, a baby girl 'tough titties, you'll get what you're given like it or lump it?'

I personally would love a baby, and wouldnt give a monkies about the sex of it. But that's me - and my wants and needs do not suit everyone.

[allieyoung666]

i was like that I did not care as long it was fit and healthy, playing god is wrong, what ever next!!!!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

as in carriers of certain diseases/disorders and the likely hood of being passed on depending on gender.

e.g.

A carrier female of an X-linked condition may pass on either of her X chromosomes to her children. On average, half of her sons will be affected, and half of her sons will not be affected. Half of her daughters will be carriers, and half will not be carriers and therefore will have no chance of having a child with the condition.

In that case, statisically it would be safer to have a girl because she would definitely not get the condition itself and would stand a 50% chance of being a carrier of the condition.

I wasn't actually arguing that Gender selection should not be allowed at all. I can see the sense in Gender selection if there is a valid medical reason. I just don't think we should be encouraging it otherwise.