Would you choose your child's gender?

I do not believe that I would I would choose one over the other, I would prefer one over the other; but in the long run I would be happy with whoever I received...

Adopt Lady Gaga what?

Can't comment, did not see that movie...

Wow Lady, calm down. Take a look at your own misogynistic assumptions that boys cost less than girls. That's only true if you indulge your daughters in the media and societal expectations that all girls MUST love make-up and perfume and douching and getting married and having babies and cooking and cleaning and trimming our pubic hair and getting Botox and really really wishing we could have married a Vampire. Spare me, Please!

Emperor has never struck me as misogynistic...and after all, most women in this country DO seem to buy into the perfume-douche-vampire thing so they ARE kind of expensive (he says from not-quite-bitter-but-heading-that-direction experience). But oh my God Lucretia, that third sentence makes you an early favorite for best line of 2010 in my book. Let me know what Slarabee's answer is so I can start shopping for a ring...

People aren't just worried about Christian fundamentalist/Evangelical bullshit as you so eloquently put it. My fear is of a social division between children who have been genetically chosen and those who haven't. If this science expands people could possibly choose things like their child's height, looks, and even manipulate their brain functions. While I understand how making sure people have healthy children is very important (I would advocate this procedure for health reasons. For instance if both parents have a genetic disease and they didn't want their child to have it). I wouldn't advocate choosing a child's traits because it could lead to this social division. Unless, of course, it was available to everyone, where I would feel fine. My problem is the $18,000.

Why would it matter? What is the problem with choosing those things exactly?

I fail to see your point.

Agreed. I had to make a choice not to have children with my wife thirty years ago because of a mental illness she suffers from. Could not see any way after the effects of the illness set in that I could work and trust her with a child.

Agreed, That's a little too creepy for me.

Nature is blind. There's nothing motherly or wise about the natural world, save our own imaginings. Divining some kind of grand destiny or design from genetic mutations would qualify as far more arrogant than attempting to better the human condition. Should an embryo that won't develop eyes be considered some wise work of nature that we make no attempt to change? What about any number of diseases or disabilities that could be cured through genetic engineering? Am I to believe that you would choose to let others suffer for the sake of your philosophical premise? I don't believe you can espouse the 'wisdom' of 'Mother Earth' in the face of so much misery, randomness, and pain and still claim a moral high ground. Can genetic engineering be grossly misused? YES. But so can anything else.

"There is a huge difference between repairing genetic defects and 'hand picking' genes." You are mistaken. The repairs come from hand-picking healthy genes and inserting them in the right place at the right time. The process is identical.

"The life you are fucking with is really not yours to fuck with in the first place...."
You're partially right in this regard. An embryo's life is not my own, so it could appear presumptuous to take conscious efforts in its design. However, blind and random processes design embryos all the time. Allowing a human double-check of certain errors or failings of this random process strikes me as prudent and responsible. To be designed by chance is no inherent virtue. But if you still have reservations about the moral responsibility involved in this endeavor, you are free to not participate and advocate your point of view. I'm curious where your objections lie and why.

"...nature has worked for.. hell who knows how long... and humanity has been around for a few thousand years or so and we somehow tend to believe we know better with our theories and studies.. haha."
The very fact that you know nature has been working for so long is due to theories and studies, so I find your statement to be a little ironic. To the point of it, though, you seem to be asserting that 'nature' is a conscious entity that 'knows better' than human beings (are we not a part of nature, I wonder). I have seen no evidence that abstract properties like 'nature' can hold consciousness of any kind, no matter how long they persist. Gravity is not wise. It's simply a property of matter in space-time. Nature is chemistry and time. Complex, sure, but intelligent it is not. It's not a grand scheme of meaning or wisdom that requires us to abdicate any power in shaping our own condition.

Taking part in our own design does carry a great deal of responsibility and risk. No one is under any illusions on that point. To be cautious in tampering with complex systems is not something anyone seems to be arguing against, and I wholehearted agree with your call for caution and respect. Where we disagree seems to be in our understanding of nature itself. You seem to think that random processes have copyright on the design of organisms by right of seniority, and that within that lies some kind of wisdom we cannot know. You provide no reason why this is true, and I am curious to hear what have you to say on the subject. It is my view that withholding knowledge that would improve human life is negligent. With due caution and respect for complexity taken into account, we must do all we can to shape humanity for the better. I'm sure you would agree with that.

very true

yes sweet child, perfection is subjective. Really not my point, paying for it is very objective.

According to what I know, your link is only a fraction of the equation when it comes to gender preferences among parents. For the study you've pasted only looks at one country - China.

Does a preference for male children hold true across the globe? Does it hold true in Western countries? Does it hold true where this procedure is actually allowed?

You cannot deny the statistics that this study among many others comes to about numbers of males to females in China since the implication of the One Child Policy.

I only mentioned China because China is the only country that has regulations that can directly show the effect of gender selection. In other countries that are not regulated, there are abundant external factors that could bias the studies.

Yes there are other countries that have a greater preference to males such as India, as there are also some countries in Africa that have preferences for females. However, my point is that any preference that can cause a gender imbalance in any particular society is detrimental to the gene pool.

PGD is not mainstream in any society mainly due to costs and how invasive the procedure is, therefore no accurate statistics can be applied. We can assume/hope that in any given society there is enough of a balance of preference that the sex ratio would not be significantly skewed, but it would take a tremendous amount of time to gather enough data to show a significant trend in sex selection due to PGD. Also, once a technology has been approved, it is much more difficult to take it away and by the time all of the legalities are taken care of to remove the technology (if the data is significant enough to warrant these measures), the impact will already be felt.

Though I do understand what you are asking about whether this applies across the globe, we must really think how much of a reality global travel is for the 6 billion+ people on earth. Globalization is a reality and people move around but I am willing to bet that if statistics existed about global travel, we'd see an incredibly low percentage of people who actually leave there country of origin. We need to look at each society and the direct impact of PGD as it relates.

Here are 2 more recent studies that look at the gender imbalance in China due to another method of sex selection (abortion). I did not include these in the first post as you can only read the abstracts if you do not have a subscription to pubmed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19359290?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.P...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589015?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.P...

"these people" what do you mean "these people"? ohh those people, ya

kstein - My apologies, I was referring to the children in the study, but as some of them were born in 1979, they are no longer children. I therefore chose 'these people' instead of 'these children'... I guess I could of also said the product of this study group... semantics...

not semantics people real live emotional PEOPLE, people not "products" or "these children" 'not anything wrong with these people". there was no genetic experimenting, killings. And thats the difference between China and USA people, we would base gender on what we want as a couple, and not what society wants. When it comes to kids that is still one of our freedoms. sounds like you may be Chinese. "suitable mate for males" Im sorry, I then dont mean to ridicule your writings, but here we still value people, as being respected. Except our homeless, unemployed, disabled, elderly and poor, uninsured. LOL

Yes it is semantics. Again, this is referring to a study. If this study was talking about American babies, I would have still referred to them as THESE BABIES. And really, you got that I was Chinese based on these few paragraphs that I wrote? Way to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions, based on no facts... if this is how you derive your arguments this exchange of knowledge will go nowhere....

And yes, in America individual values seem to often take precedence over societal values regardless of the outcome for the greater society. It seems that because of individuals selfish wants, they may in the end cause great devastation to the whole.

No, choosing the sex of your child may not have cataclysmic consequences immediately on society, but just think if you were one of the parents from China that had a male child that was unable to find a mate and therefore was denied parentage. Would you care whether your genes were passed on?

Then I feel sorry for you because even PEOPLE in studies, no matter where their from are people. Living breathing feeling People. My wish is someday youll understand what I mean and I pray I never feel how you feel. LOVE Kstein

If you read the articles (as well as excerpts from my responses) you will see that the issue in China that is creating the significant sex ratio discrepancy is the sex selection due to abortion and NOT the one child policy per se. The reason I brought the one child policy into this, is because it is the driving force behind the sex selection through abortion.

If you look at this statistically, the one child policy should still produce the same ratio of sexes in any population due to chance. Every time a child is conceived there is an approximately 50/50 chance of having either sex (with a slight higher predisposition to females). This is basic science and statistics and supports that it is the sex selection due to abortion that is causing the sex ratio discrepancy. And no, the number of parents choosing to have abortions due to the sex of the child in China is not that high (due to cost and morals), but there has still been a significant impact on the sex ratio in that country.

And yes, the cultures are very different, but that does not mean that there will be an even balance of sexes produced in the USA if this were to become a mainstream technology. Believing that society would use this technology responsibly and make sure that there is still an even balance of sexes is quite naive. People are selfish and lookout for the best interests of themselves often not caring about others or the future of their children as has been so eloquently proven by the responses to the scientific implications of this practice.

Who is is to say that the USA would not see a sex preference if this technology became common place? It may not be for males or as significant as China, but it may still exist. Do you really think that the people who choose to use this technology would split evenly as 50/50 for each sex? No, not everyone would use it, but for those who do, if there is not an even preference for male and female, it will still cause a sex ratio discrepancy in the population.

Every country calculates the birth rate slightly differently, but the general formula is to pick a viable date of survival (usually sometime after 20 weeks) and record any birth after that time. This is included in the national statistics to determine sex ratio (stillborn or live). Your statement about murder, abandonment, trafficking etc, are all after the fact and would actually cause the sex ratio to have even more of a discrepancy if they recorded it at a later date. Again, your use of uncontrolled abortions would further support this point as it would show a greater increase in the sex ratio discrepancy if there was a way to account for these.

I have no issues with the technology for its initial intended use. People have used it for over 20 years to screen for genetic abnormalities. As advancements in medical technology is making it possible for many recessive and dominant lethal/ harmful genetic traits to be passed on, it is a vital tool to use to prevent/ limit the transfer of these lethal traits to future generations. In the past these genes would have been eradicated/reduced with the death of the carrier. This is the intended use of the technology. Just because it can be used for other purposes, does not mean that it should be. This technology has been in regular use for over 20 years in many countries, so it is not an issue of whether it should be used. The issue is should it become used by the general public for non-medical purposes.

And do you really think people will be able to put there selfish wants aside and use this technology responsibly? Even the fact that people would even consider selecting the sex of there child shows that they are thinking solely about themselves in the immediate and not the future well being of their child's generation or the viability of their own genetic blueprint.

What is 'the medical discipline'? Has all of medicine now been combined into one discipline? Can doctors, nurses, techs, researchers, specialists etc. all be grouped as one discipline now? Is everyone in 'the medical discipline' omniscient to EVERY aspect of medicine? Sorry I did not get the memo about this amalgamation, so I MUST be wrong on all of my points... right.

Reread each response a few times before responding. You clearly misinterpreted my statement about the usefulness of PGD. I did not say the "Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis may have adverse affects; therefore, the technique shouldn't be explored the to the fullest extent". We already know that the technology is capable of determining sex. I am saying, that just because it CAN be used for that purpose, it does not mean it should be. Rutherford split the atom, but should that ability have been harnessed, turned into a fission bomb and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Your reasoning would also justify the barbaric and inhumane experiments Hitler ordered on prisoners in internment camps in the name of 'medical and scientific exploration'.

As per the Chinese governments data; do not except it then (though this data was reviewed and compiled in these articles by non-governmental sources). But if you choose not to look at this 25 years worth of data, just use simple science and statistics (common sense if you will) to look at this objectively. If you want to be naive enough to believe that all the stats you read from the USA are more accurate and without agendas backing them, then that is your prerogative. You have a lot of faith in a notoriously selfish society that has an abysmal track record with responsibly using technology for the betterment of man.

Though I wont make rash judgments about your educational background given the little facts that are presented in your arguments (as you have laughably done about mine), your last statement CLEARLY shows your lack of understanding of the molecular level of inheritance. Being in the medical field does not give you carte blanche knowledge of every aspect of medical science nor does it make you an 'expert' on the molecular basis of medicine. Again, I will make no assumptions of your educational background, but someone with a background in ANY medical research would know this.

Back to basic science again, harmful traits work there way out of the gene pool through natural selection and death of the carriers. No, this does not happen in a few generations, but can take 1000's of years. For instance, before the advent of artificial surfactant and respiratory aids, a person that acquired the genes for cystic fibrosis (one affected x chromosome for males, two affected x chromosomes for females) would more than likely die before reproductive age and not be able to pass on the genes to future generations thus reducing the transmission. Yes, other female offspring could be produced that could still carry the recessive gene, but the transmission rate would decrease over time as all males who receive the gene and any female that receives the gene from both the mother and father would more than likely die before reproductive age. The fact that techniques to prolong the lives of those with CF past the age of reproduction are now in use, shows a significant spike in the incidence of those with the disease and carriers of the disease since data was collected on this disorder (though data on the carriers has not been collected from the beginning due to infancy of the technology for chromosomal detection). Over time, traits such as these become less and less prevalent and eventually non-existent. Yes, there are still mutations that can account for SOME disorders, but the majority are passed on through inheritance. Diseases that do not kill before reproductive age can still be deemed as harmful, but are not considered lethal to the gene pool as viable offspring are still able to produce other viable offspring.

Wow. You really do not read anything completely before you respond do you? That will really hurt you in your career as a 'lawyer'.

The reference to the Nazi experiments was made to your response of "Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis may have adverse affects; therefore, the technique shouldn't be explored the to the fullest extent? By doing so, we impede medical advancement simply out of unsubstantiated apprehension. That kind of reasoning is a disgrace to the procurement of knowledge. " Are you telling me that that statement ONLY applies to genetic testing and NO other areas of medical science? The justification used then for those Nazi experiments is that they provided expansive knowledge about medical science. Still to this day we are building on those advancements that they derived from exploring the technologies to the "fullest extent". Does that make what they did right? Would telling them that these experiments were unethical have stifled the "procurement of knowledge"?

My last paragraph was simply outlining the genetic process and not in any means saying people should not benefit from scientific advancements. Again, reread the previous response where I state "as advancements in medical technology is making it possible for many recessive and dominant lethal/ harmful genetic traits to be passed on, it is a vital tool to use to prevent/ limit the transfer of these lethal traits to future generations". This simply states that this is a pseudo form of natural selection. It in no way states that those with disabilities should suffer and die or be wiped out. On the contrary, as my original argument is for NOT testing for sex to allow for the greatest genetic diversity in the gene pool, thus allowing all capable people to have the opportunity to find a viable mate.

And did I ever say I was not in the medical field? No. Though I have chosen to not disclose my educational or occupational background on this site (as I enjoy to remain anonymous to the full extent of my ability), I can assure you I have a MUCH more expansive background in this field then you do. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant to me.

Anyone that needs to state their credentials (especially when they do not apply ... ehem Law??!!), obviously is using them as a crutch to support an already weak argument.

At the risk of being burned from both directions, I would observe that I have enjoyed reading your debate and find it unfortunate that the discussion appears to have become a bit personal. Dartmouth to UCLA, eh? Sounds like the loneliness got to you (Ithaca to Seattle over here...heh)...

I am from Montana, so I had 20+ years of snow and cold when I finished undergrad. I went so far as to apply to the Us of Hawaii and San Diego but UW was a top 20 law school and a book that had just come out listed Cornell as the 3rd most beautiful campus in the country and UW 2nd, so I figured I could take liquid rain after all those years of the frozen kind. I know what you mean about leaving the Ivies. Seemed like even the (relatively few) jerks were interesting. But Seattle was a kick...no regrets... Example: great jazz club a few blocks from where I lived. Had breakfast with Harry Connick, Jr. after his gig one morning. Nicest guy you'd ever want to meet...

Agreed. It seems as you and I have very differing view points on various topics (military mom case as well), but I am always open to an honest debate (as heated as it may become).
Take care.

Mental acuity is genetically endowed, so understanding the genes and process involved in shaping an intelligent mind would allow you to replicate the process. As of this time, we lack the understanding to engineer intelligence, but it's only a matter of time until we have gained such knowledge.

What evidence do you have that choosing a child's sex would be detrimental to their emotional development? I don't see the connection. And what are these "laws of nature" you mention? Homo sapiens have been intentionally selecting children for thousands of years now. This is simply a more precise way of doing the same thing. Whether or not doing so is morally acceptable is a separate issue from its practical impact on human society.

"THERE WAS A TIME WHEN PEOPLE HAD NATURAL HOME BIRTHS!!! "

People still do- but the "time" you are talking about was also a time when women died in childbirth pretty regularly! No thanks!

Not only does the process reduce the chances of parents passing down genetic disorders, it also helps parents who have problems with fertility. And, it reduces the chances of birth defects and miscarriages...

As for your question though, the article makes no mention of what they do with the embryos that contain disorders.

I totally agree with you. When it comes to something like this, just stick to the safe route... it shouldn't be that big of a deal to you if you have a boy or a girl, at least not big enough to take a medical related risk.