Why is there all this controversy over parents choosing there childs sex?
Printable View
Why is there all this controversy over parents choosing there childs sex?
You are manipulating stuff...I guess.
I would hazard a guess that it has something to do with playing God.
I always ask how they can say this method hasn't been created by God, or through His desire.
OH! I know. It isn't natural. I don't think it is such a great idea especially in countries where women are second class citizens or are treated as such. The number of women in those countries would go down drastically if people could easily choose.
Was does everyone want to take the uncertainty out of life?
Some times not knowing is half the fun.
Really though, I don't see a need for it. Unless you're going to die because you don't have a son.
As it stands I don't got a problem with it... though I may if additional info shows some problems.
If people want to.. and it don't hurt anyone.. then let them.. don't mean you have to do it.
I agree with ed; it's dangerous primarily because of the way many cultures value men over women. When you get to a certain point and the females have been eliminated from a population, there arise serious social concerns as well as problems perpetuating a population.
Not that the latter would be BAD for the world right now, but we're probably not responsible enough to administrate it properly.
Now, the reason other people make a fuss over it? Because people are, for the most part, sheep, and religious zealots like to stir up controversy over anything that gives people any reproductive choice. Besides which, the media likes to play up any minor controversy and turn it into a huge thing that it's not, in reality (see the American media with the so-called "Mommy Wars" during the past twenty-five years).
it will be doe no matter what the popular view. science is not held back by opinion or morals. if it's possible it will be done.
I would hazard a guess that if you force a fetus to be male when it was originally going ot come out female, it's probably going to grow up gay. And with the homophobia issues around the world, I can see a problem then arising if it hasn't calmed down in the next few decades. Also I fully agree that cultural influences could be bad on the choice factor.
Do you have any scientific data to back this up? Gender dysphoria, which is the only thing I can see that might conceivably result from changing a fetus's sex after some development had begun, has nothing to do with homosexuality or bisexuality. Otherwise, saying that changing a baby that was "meant to" be a girl into a boy would have ill effects is like saying that the potentiality of what COULD happen biologically is more important than what IS happening, like because someone was "meant" to die from cancer, preventing them from doing so will have ill effects. This reminds me of the philosophies of some fringe Christian groups that refuse all medical treatment on these grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyk
Here's a thought... If we're allowed to do this... then what are we gonna do next? If we don't give ourselves a limit to all of this crazyass stuff, who knows what we're gonna be doin to oursleves in the future. Especially with advancing technology nowadays, we're gonna have to convert our research into different directions like not destroying the planet or something close to that.
Scientific data? The first thing I said was guess. And that's all it is. I'm not pretending to be any kind of expert.
I feel that Cloud no 9 is correct here in saying that science will stop for nobody.
I feel choosing your childs sex or anything just lamens it up. Imagine the concequence if you child would hit thier teenage years and they find out they shoulda been the opposite sex? Oh god - even another way to screw up teenagers... great.
more screwed up teens, zombie hapsters - definatley the end times :) (refering to outside posts in the EOTW area)
I just don't see it ending well when you modify your fetus like its some kinda sea monkey.
Bipper
Well I don't think this would be too much of a problem. First, particually in the begining, the opporation will likely be somewhat pricey(prolly not ultra so.. but enough to keep anyone from doing it). And since most countries I know of where the projected scenario would be really bad, have many poorer people.. I really do doubt that it would occur on a large enough scale to get rid of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asorie
Second... well once females became more scarce.. they would have more value attached to them.. after all males like to have females around.. once more value was attached their would prolly be more to choose it. Though this may or may not happen I could easily see it happen.
If it did have consequences then it would have to be weighed. .but likely I would say it would be wrong then.
"Gender dysphoria is an umbrella term that covers feelings of unhappiness and incongruity concerning an individual’s physical sex and/ or gender role."
"Gender Dysphoria:Conflicted feelings about one's gender, gender assignment, and gender identity."
This could be a problem. .but depending on severity(really uninformed about it so I don't know how serious it normally is) it could easily be overlooked as something mostly non-important.
Disclaimer: looked up the term sence I was unsure of what it exactly was(I could guess.. and I wasn't super far off.. but then again I wasn't right(and I aint' saying what it was either)).
Dudius.. I lost you. All Vyk was saying is that he only guessed that all he can see as a consequence was possible homosexuality.. etc. I am sure Vyk, as the rest of us, would definately prefer it being tested first. Most of us dont' like screwing up others' lives.
yeah sorry bout that post I totally read that wrong :P
Heh.. happens.. and that is what I thought.. but just in case... Safe rather then sorry.
yeah my mind sorta races on topics like these. But yeah question. Where do you think the initial drive comes from? Does the Government want to know what the heck'll happen or is it just some mad scientist who's got some "brilliant" idea?
maybe some scientists who heard about the number of people in the US who have always wanted a girl but had 6 boys instead. One of my freinds wants at least one girl in his life time.. but what if he is unlucky?
Really, they can do that? Awesome. Now if only we could do something about the 'christian' gene....
Kill a christan gene? Wow, that is sick. I would rather loose anything else on my body in the most barbaric way - than loose my 'christain gene'.
I suppose there is not gene for ignorant posts? Is there?
Bipper
Nothing wrong with it. Whats the big deal unless theres too much of one sex?
I see you’ve already lost your ‘witty comeback’ gene…Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Anyway, I was referencing an Australian show called CNNNN, which created the idea of the ‘Christian gene’ after the idea was put forward about removing the theoretical ‘homosexual gene’. This topic, pertaining to a similar premise as the CNNNN parody (i.e, the part about religious protesters) caused me to reference the ‘Christian gene’ in my reply. Of course, I could have just said “religion should stay the hell out of science”, but I felt that it would be much more entertaining to reference the show, in an attempt to pass it off as my own idea. Having failed that, namely due to my inability to leave anything alone for more than a few hours, I will simply leave with the knowledge that I was…
*runs*
Parents don't deserve that kind of control over thier children.
Why? And theyre giving it life in the first place, Why the heck cant they be picky if being pickys an option? And in the average case (when its not in China or something along those lines)what real difference will it make?Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Out of mostly contrarian reasons...
I'm all for choosing your child's sex. First, societies that value men over women would no longer have a reason to kill newborn baby girls. More broadly, genetic manipulations could *eliminate* thousands of hereditary diseases. Turning some damn sea monkeys into awkward teens(I could argue that's an oxymoron) seems like a small price to pay for the greater benefit of society.
Lastly, the idea that corporations and madd scientists are out there just waiting to...uh...do stuff is sophomoric, leftist fear-mongering derived from the silly, anti-intellectual institutions that produced Captain Planet and Lex Luther. Think rationally about the most dangerous technologies currently out there such as nuclear energy. Last I checked, only twice has it been used in war and there have been less than a handful of civilian accidents related to its use.
Nobody goes about trying to intentionally destroy civilization.
Oh yeah, terrorists just have a lot of accidents misplacing bombs and planes...Quote:
Nobody goes about trying to intentionally destroy civilization.
That is a nice summary of your post; I don't really think some cartoony mad scientist is what we have to worry about. The real people who want to kill for thier reasons are the ones to watch. So if you gave osama a nuke, do you think he would not use it on us?
I do agree with you that this technology could help medecine; but i dont think that just changing a babies sex is healthy in any way: Mentally, or Physically. It is just an opinion, and I can only base it of my own limited knowlage and morals. You can almost link it to some anti abortionists and anti-Embrionic Stem Cell Research belifes which simply belive that you shant have control over anothers life in such ways.
Bipper
No human should be allowed to play God.
Terrorists aren't scientists. Why is this a discussion about terrorism? Why would I give Osama a nuke?Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Still, no terrorist is gonna use pre-natal genetic manipulation to undermine our 'values.' Everytime there is some new technology that someone doesn't like the arguement is always: well, that could help millions but there *might* be somebody, somewhere willing to do bad things. That's quite a reactionary stance.
BTW, you can't change a baby's biological sex, you can change a fetus's sex. You could also quite possibly fix a person's sex cells to reduce or eliminate unwanted genes. Unless we shant have control over our own testicles and ovaries.
oh please, Deciding an unborn childs sex is hardly anything near a big deal. Heck, the parents are giving it life in the first place. That sounds more like playing god than deciding to have a boy or a girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty
Unless you're an evil clownQuote:
Originally Posted by Rusty
Well how I figured this worked is that it would be a manipulation done at the start or as close to the start as possible. Actually.. wouldn't you have to have a "test tube" baby for this to work.. or do they got the tech now to somehow do it in the mothers womb..(heard nothing about that).
Thus you actually have less of a time frame for that chance then you would for .. say an abortion.. or any number of things.
And if it causes no problems.. then why not?
Though this can lead rise to the question "if we can choose the sex.. can we choose the eye, hair and skin color.. how 'bout pimples..?".. StarSplit anyone?(I think I got the title right)
Anyways that last bit there.. could be a bit hairy.. and could lead to problems.
And a logical stance. Guns can be used for good and harm - as most any scientific advancement. Whie fixing a 'fetuses' cells may not be entirely evil, who knows what come next. Thats where I see the defensive point commin in. It is scince though- and it stops for nobody. Just to clarify, I am all for medicine and cures of mostly all sorts when they don't involve testing on unwilling victums and such. I just think that changing your lets say soon to be son - into a female would pose some issues for the child in some way or another.Quote:
Everytime there is some new technology that someone doesn't like the arguement is always: well, that could help millions but there *might* be somebody, somewhere willing to do bad things. That's quite a reactionary stance.
--DNA--
Also it was said that you can change a fetus's sex but not a baby's sex? How is there a difference - once past blastoid stage - arn't all the DNA sequences the same through out the body? Hell right when the egg is fertilized you have your first DNA strand - it starts coppying right from there. So now how does this change take place? It baffles me lol :tongue:
--On GOD--
I don't think its playing god - and if playing god is wrong - shouldn't we crusify all the people whome right stories and "play god" over thier imaginations. Honestly, I don't think we have the technology nore mental aptitude to even attempt to play god outside of our minds. Aeather you "Create life" or what not; I would not constitute these minamal achiements to playing god.
Bipper
Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Well I ain't sure... as for why there is a difference. A fetus is the begining of development the very base. I have no doubt a forced sex change after birth could lead to trouble(more the longer you wait). However so early on I have seen no indication of problems. This is because the change, from what I know, happens even before the brain is formed.
I will research this more.. and see if I can find you something more exact on how it happens... sparked my interest you did.
Edit- Came accross this.. though ain't sure how true it is
"A fetus's brain is female by default (we all begin as female). If testosterone is produced the brain develops male, if estrogen is produced it remains female"
Also haven't found out any good info on it yet.. that or the tech really is backwards right now. And soon mom will drag me out. So I'll have to try again later.
It's true. XX/XY (female/male) chromosome thing.
graphic description ahead...
Yeah, male hormones during pregnancy supress the formation of breasts, drop the ovaries(to become the testicles) and elongate the clitoris. The amount of hormones determines penis size and sometimes muscle mass and body fat mass.
Well with that knowledge.. it is almost quite easy to guess one way they could perform such an opporation.. which in my mind proves it to be fine... Afterall you just prod it to the line you want it to take.. parents already do that with thier kids.
I am well aware of all this XX/XY and begining female - but its not just changing one chromozone to a 'x' or 'y'. There are billions of DNA strands in the body - changing one would be like slapping lipstick on me and calling me the hottest chick ever! -- Dont do it!
Thats where it seems not so feasable to me. Just changing genetic code; wouldn't the body try to reject the forein DNA; as it does for transplants and such. Its true, the body will often time see a donor part as a forein object (as it truely is) and attack it. The do have ways around this - obviously, but it still seems... i dunno. Then again - when the world is 100% hot chicks.. who would complain :rolleyes2 Societies cookie cutter is not always right.
Bipper
I see nothing wrong with deciding your child's sex. In fact, I think I would do it myself, if my (future) wife agrees. Girls are more fun than boys.
Because they are the parents, not the child. Just because they are giving the child life, does not mean that they deserve any kind of control over the childs body.Quote:
Why? And theyre giving it life in the first place, Why the heck cant they be picky if being pickys an option? And in the average case (when its not in China or something along those lines)what real difference will it make?
Parents don't deserve "rights" over their children. A parent is obligated to provide and get nothing in return. Don't like it? Don't have children.
Nobody deserves control over the physical body of another human being, fetus, sperm, egg, etc. except for the individual himself. No exceptions,
And amen! go go nik0!
Great summary
Yeah, but if any culture I can think of that would be that stupid can't afford this kind of operation. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Asorie
The "it's not natural" argument is too stupid for words.
I, for one, would never even consider this kind of thing. But if people want it, they will have it.
What happens when a person grows up, knows they could have been changed into something they'd rather be, but wasn't? Then they can begrudge their parents for not taking action.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
It's a very, very simplified way of putting it, but it certainly isn't false.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Basically, an egg carries an X chromosome, and a sperm can carry an X or a Y. If it carried a Y, that Y carried the SRY gene, which begins the process of hormone releases (including releases of inhibitory hormones to keep female hormones from releasing; one of the reasons for sexually ambiguous people), but innitially the fetus is in the position to develop into a female. It's far more complicated than just testosterone or estrogen, but it's a sufficient explaination if you're not interested in learning the whole sexual differentiation process.
Has this ever happened even once?Quote:
What happens when a person grows up, knows they could have been changed into something they'd rather be, but wasn't? Then they can begrudge their parents for not taking action.
Not that it matters, because this argument still doesn't hold. You're going to let parents do this over the chance that the child may wish that he or she was a different gender? I mean c'mon now.. There is no way a parent can know what gender their child will want to be. Should they take blind guesses? If you pick it randomly, it's no different than letting it happen naturally.
So, nik0tine - I guess we shouldn't give toddlers a football, because that's choosing something for them. Or we might not want to force kids to go to school, because that is too. And we definitely can't pierce the ears of a five-year-old girl, because that's changing her physically!
Right. It's the same thing whether it happens through parental choice, or nature. Either way the child has no say whatsoever in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Again, comes back to the "it's not natural!" argument, which is pure arbitrary nonsense.
I guess it depends on where you draw the line. Force your child to own a football or force your child to own a vagina. Hmm... Thin line there, eh?
But where can you draw the line, and why? There's no logical reason why you can't choose a child's sex if you can choose what a baby/toddler/young kid watches on TV. "But it's not natural!" Well, neither is going to the hospital when you're hurt. Neither is most of the food you eat. If you worried about what's not natural, you should go live in Amish country.
That's fine. I was just sayin' is all.
I know you were, Shluppers. That reply was mostly for the other people. :p
I draw the line at taking health suppliments to promote proper development, and maybe taking my temperature or douching with baking soda or some other BS method to encourage a certain gender. Medically forcing gender just seems less fun. Dunno why, but meh.
And there is my reason! Taa daa!
I hope you realize that "dunno why, but meh" is not a logical reason. :p
Thanks to that whole "not being a robot" thing, I don't need to know or have a logical reason for every little thing. I can just do what feels appropriate for me.
Thanks to the whole "not being a mindless animal" thing, I don't understand how to act solely based on feelings and urgings. I do what my rational mind tells me. :p
A person doesn't have to either be a robot or an animal. They can be a person.
What seperates a person from an animal? Cognition - the use of the rational mind. A robot, actually, does nothing than what it's programmed to do, which is a characteristic more appropriate to an animal than a person who uses logic.
You don't think you just agreed with me, but I say you did.
No. You associate "consistent" with "non-human" and think "I'm only human!" is an appropriate excuse for inconsistency. I don't.
That's seperate from what you just said. I know you wish people were robots, but just because you're in denial doesn't make it so. It's okay for some people to feel fine with forcing their babies gender, and for some to think it's not fine. There is no set of logic that, when presented to every person, will cause every person to come to the same conclusion. I know you really wish there was, but it just isn't true.
Of course there is. It's called "freedom." Not everybody agrees either because they don't value freedom(or don't value it consistently), or don't use logic.Quote:
That's seperate from what you just said. I know you wish people were robots, but just because you're in denial doesn't make it so. It's okay for some people to feel fine with forcing their babies gender, and for some to think it's not fine. There is no set of logic that, when presented to every person, will cause every person to come to the same conclusion. I know you really wish there was, but it just isn't true.
Everyone being logical and coming to the same conclusion isn't freedom, it's software.
The problem is that you see everything in black-and-white. Either a person is logical or illogical. Either they think your way, or they're not thinking. People aren't completely logical, and trying (but failing) to be so doesn't make you any better as a person.
Of course not. Trying is the only thing that matters. I could be completely wrong in my conclusions because I'm missing a crucial piece of information, but with the knowledge given to me, I constantly strive to use logic. Whether I end up right or not is irrelevent.Quote:
Everyone being logical and coming to the same conclusion isn't freedom, it's software.
The problem is that you see everything in black-and-white. Either a person is logical or illogical. Either they think your way, or they're not thinking. People aren't completely logical, and trying (but failing) to be so doesn't make you any better as a person.
How did you drag me into this again? My reasons for not wanting to plan my child's gender are fine! I don't need to read a book on the topic to come to that conclusion because there is no logical reason why doing so would be a benefit to me. And that's all I have to say about you and your stupid robotface!
No, there isn't, which is why I can't fathom why anyone would want to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I love you too. :love:Quote:
And that's all I have to say about you and your stupid robotface!
But in this case, the parent does. If the child doesn't even have control over his own body, why should his parent have any?Quote:
Right. It's the same thing whether it happens through parental choice, or nature. Either way the child has no say whatsoever in the matter.
There are logical reasons to other people, based on their values. Which goes back to the main problem with this technology having to do with cultures where males are valued more than females. Or something more simple, like BJ might be for it (I haven't asked him) because he feels responsible for passing on the family name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Or why shouldn't they? Parents have a lot of control over their offspring that the children themselves don't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
There is no reason to value males over females if you value individual life(just as there is no reason to value a "family name"). A morality which does not value individual life is not worth considering.Quote:
There are logical reasons to other people, based on their values. Which goes back to the main problem with this technology having to do with cultures where males are valued more than females. Or something more simple, like BJ might be for it (I haven't asked him) because he feels responsible for passing on the family name.
Why shouldn't they? They will for the first five years of the child's post-birth life; why not pre-birth? THEY made the decision to make the baby. Until that baby has a mind of his/her own, that embryo/fetus is property. The same justification goes to abortion.Quote:
But in this case, the parent does. If the child doesn't even have control over his own body, why should his parent have any?
I just realized I said the same thing as Shlup for that last part. DAMN YOU SHLUP, why don't you listen to yourself? You should be agreeing with me! ;_;
To you, based on your values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
I thought I was. Mostly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Yeah, pretty much. But do you even consider moralities which say we must castrate/kill homosexuals? I doubt it. Neither of those value individual life - and both are equally deplorable.Quote:
To you, based on your values.
Mostly. ;_;Quote:
I thought I was. Mostly.
Based on my values, no. Nor do I agree with people who value males over females. Either way our logic is still based on our values though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Oh, go suck an egg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
>>> Planning a child`s sex is harmless, so I think there is nothing wrong with it.
Yes. And since we have the same value, if we use logic we should come up with an objective conclusion. People who come up with a different conclusion either have different information, are being inconsistent, and have a different set of values. Someone who doesn't value life is not worth considering, in my book. You do the same thing when you dismiss fundamentalist religious nuts' arguments that homosexuals should be all killed off. :pQuote:
Based on my values, no. Nor do I agree with people who value males over females. Either way our logic is still based on our values though.
That's assuming we either have all the same values, or that values in general run parallel and never conflict with each other, and that we never have to prioritize when our values conflict. There are circumstances where my value for something else takes precedence over my value for individual life.
...like what?
Dammit, I knew you were going to ask for an example. I dunno, world explosion or something!
And why is a world explosion bad? Because it kills people. Why is that bad? Because life is valued.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
I'm sure I could come up with some examples of why it would be worth sacrificing some measure of individual life for some vague notion of "the greater good" but I don't think I want to put effort into coming up with vague hypothetical situations.
The "greater good" is the most evil notion impressed on mankind.
I could conceive of giving my life for a cause such as freedom - but since you haven't mentioned that, I assume you realize that freedom is based on the value of the individual.
You're starting to go in circles again.
But there are some things that they should not have much control over. One of these things is the childs body.Quote:
Or why shouldn't they? Parents have a lot of control over their offspring that the children themselves don't have.
BullQuote:
THEY made the decision to make the baby. Until that baby has a mind of his/her own, that embryo/fetus is property. The same justification goes to abortion.
. Total bull
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Kids are property? Awesome, now I know I'm having children.
Something that I think is important is exactly how/when this is done. You see for all we know it could be an injection you take before having sex that does this(I highly.. highly doubt this as likely). But lets say that is how it is done. This I would not have a problem with.
Right after conception. This is, in my mind, the most probable timeframe. If it doesn't harm the child(which to my knowledge it doesn't) it must happen early on. Again here I don't have a problem.
When I do have a problem is when there is a good chance that it will harm or otherwise damage the child.
What the hell? what kind of sick, twisted f@#$ would piece the ears of a five year old?Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
Uhh... A lot of people. It's commonplace for parents to have their infant daughter's ears pierced.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroneofDravaris
Not that I approve. Just sayin'.
I just don't think that we know enough yet to safley do this... It's like giving a five year old fireworks: Somthing bad will prolly happen.
Genetic Alteration is insanley evil and will prolly a hot topic here in a few years. When people are all genetically enhanced to be 'perfect' in the scewed minds of thier parents. Then guess what... hitler won.
Bipper
I didn't see this earlier, but this is just too stupid for me to pass up. Let's break this down bit by bit.Quote:
So, nik0tine - I guess we shouldn't give toddlers a football, because that's choosing something for them. Or we might not want to force kids to go to school, because that is too. And we definitely can't pierce the ears of a five-year-old girl, because that's changing her physically!
That toddler doesn't have to use that football, now does he?Quote:
So, nik0tine - I guess we shouldn't give toddlers a football, because that's choosing something for them.
You can use your head here. Stupid statements like this don't warrent anything other than a rude reply, if that. Great way to twist my words to get your mute point across.Quote:
Or we might not want to force kids to go to school, because that is too.
You're right. No, we can't. That is, if she doesn't go along with it. If mommy and daddy want her ears peirced, and she says no, then that's all there is too it. Mom and Dad need to deal with. Under no circumstance is it okay for a parent to peirce a childs ears without their consent.Quote:
And we definitely can't pierce the ears of a five-year-old girl, because that's changing her physically!
Oh for the love of...Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
The fact that Hitler attempted eugenics does not make eugenics evil. Any more than the fact that Hitler was vegetarian makes vegetarianism evil. Or hell, Stalin and Hitler both had mustaches! Mustaches must be evil!
HAHa!
No I am just talking about the prefect race. Hitler wanted this above all. Everyone to be full blooded german :) I am just merly saying that if we could alter all the other genetics as well, what is to stop us from making a supposed supirror race? On that I am saying that hitlers view on making the perfect race was evil, not the fact that genetic alteration is evil because he did it.
Thanks for the heads up on vegetarians though! :p
Bipper
I don't see anything wrong with it, any more than there is anything wrong with 1st trimester abortions.
However, I don't see any point to it. Why would someone go to so much trouble to have a child of a particular sex? It just doesn't make sense to me.
But if it occurs through creation (Which is what this would be) as opposed to destruction (The holocaust, ethnic cleansing, things like that), then where is the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
It basically comes down to what you belive in. I can't sway people either way, as thier are so many different debates outside the scope of this thread.
Basically I see humans playing with thier own evolution as a dead end road. Basically, we don't know everything we should before we do it. We might decide that having an IQ of 190 is good accross the board, what we may not see is that the other traits that may go with being _stupid_ (I use this saying that anything under 190 in a cardboard cut out world would in deed be stupid if not viewed as reatarded). There is a reason that we reproduce sexually and that genes are created with recesive/dominant pairs. Certain recesive traits that we may not think we will need, would infact get ripped out of our system.
Then you look at the fact of who could afford such a procedure... The rich will become god like while the poor become more magatized by the rich. Not suprisingly, I would rather be the poor in this rate. As controling such things in a person would indeed destroy our planet on seemingly every level. But that is just my narro foresight.
EDIT: btw milf i noticed your worth more than me on the other thread... that makes you a better person. (Sarcastically of course in relation to the article.) I think that system for defining price would be taken into consideration when altering.
Bipper
Actually, that is a fairly reasonable reason to be worried about it. It's rare that science - or anything else - can see all the ends of their actions. I doubt that we'd go tearing out great big strands of DNA which we will end up needing in a decade's time, but obviously I think these things should be thoroughly investigated before being carried out.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Less fortunately, the only way to do these tests is, well, to do the tests. You can't use computer simulation without the data, and animals could react completely differently to thinks being added or removed.
However, it must be said there's a big difference between a treatment which decides one gender or the other, and a procedure which actually alters the base genetic code of a person.
oh please, I still dont see what difference it will make at all. It wont harm absaloutely anyone in the slightest. If it makes no difference at all then since Im into logic and all that then there can be exceptions. If you dont like it try coming up with some decent reason not to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Wow, I am sorry. Prehapse you wouldn't mind telling me exactly what is 'illogical' about my posts? Please, by all means do. Unless of course you just wanted to bump the discussion :D
I do think that answer presented by the opposition is perfectly fine. Nothing illogical about any of it really.
Bipper
I was responding to Nic0tine. Are you using a second account?Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Anyway, its Because outside of places like China and countries where sexs arent treated equally deciding someones sex would have no negative or postitive effects. Is there any reason to decide the sex in the first place? Nope, just preference. Is there any reason to stop it or see it as a bad thing? Heck no.
I was boastingmy other accountNik0tine's views. I think they are fine views to have. Based mainly on his beliefs and moarality, his beleifs are just fine.
There are and will be issues with planning a childs sex. We can (and have in this thread) speculate the emotional effects. Aside from that there are side effects as gene theropy is a pioneering technolgy.
I still feel that Milf and I had come to a fairly fair(?) foreshadowing of events that can occor later down the road. Back to the subject at hand, I would like to think that parents should have respect for thier child. Treating them like some customizable commodity is just wrong.
There is a lot easier way to do this is there not? Incemination using a sperm which is found to contain the Y chromozome. I would not have a problem with this; as you are not affecting an already existing life. The point that you are treating your child like a comodity is the only thing you will have to live with.
It is gene theropy that I hate with a passion. Manipulating DNA of any living being should not be so carelessly used and tossed around. If this road is followed, our chilren will become more like robots when every parent wants them to be 'perfect'
Bipper
I agree with your theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Even less female babys would die, better said, get killed.
A lot of female babys get killed in these countrys.And since you can ask for your babys gender while pregnancy a lot of abortions were done in these countries, too. I don't think, that I have to mention the reason...
But that doesn't mean that I would ever wanted to choose my Babys gender!