[celticsong22]

I just watched a segment on Fox News which discussed the pros and cons of gender selection. A husband and wife bowed to the wishes of the grandfather and used new scientific techniques to get a 70% chance of having a boy baby instead of a girl. The process was done through invitro fertilization. They were successful and she delivered twin boys.

The good thing was that the parents got what they wanted, but was it the right thing to do morally? The bad side of this according to the opposition, is that with gender selection, more value is placed upon one sex than another. For instance, they quoted statistics from China and Cuba where something like 118 boys are born compared with every 100 girls. The long term consequences of this have caused countries like the UK to prohibit this practice. Although it is accomplished through abortion in the aforementioned countries, for much of the western world, this will be done by scientific human engineering. The results are 70-90% effective depending upon the techniques used.

What is your take on this? Do you feel it is wrong to "play God", or "Mother Nature"? Do you think the UK was right to ban this practice? Do you feel abortion is a more viable alternative to pre-determine the sex of a child? Should we leave well enough alone and accept what we get? Will this take all of the fun out of passing out cigars at the hospital? Whoops! That's not politically correct, either, is it! Let the battle begin!

[flyeater]

A yes, Fox "so called" News. The bastion of fair, balanced and unvarnished truth. The same network that gave us 101 things removed from the human body" and Temptation Island. I'm certain there was no sensationalism in that story Celt.

[pyritechips]

I feel that, being fundamentally conservative philosophically, gender selection is unnecessary and potentially disruptive socially. As you say, the laws of probability dictate that the male to female ration in large "natural" populations will be very close to 1:1. I may be wrong but I think is has been shown that social groups with a preponderance of one sex over the other creates certain conflicts. It is no secret that males are highly preferred over females in some cultures. This is an atavistic cultural trait and has not place in modern societies. The preference for male offspring was due to a)a desire to continue the family lineage and b) to have many sons to work the farm in agricultural societies due to the fact that maintaining a farm was labour intensive.

There are also self-centred parents that wish to engineer their children to be a model of what they think a "perfect" child should be. This all comes back to the controversy of eugenics.

[Davey7549]

Interesting subject!
Personally my gut instinct tells me this is wrong but is it really?
Nature seems to balance itself quite well but should we overlook the wants and needs of the family since they now have a choice. No matter what gender the prospective parents choose the child will be loved and cared for.
I could see a definite use for this gender determination technology in an instance of a family that has a boy already and wants to have a girl to balance the family.

PC
I see your point in prior sex preference and discrimination but would this be the case in current western counties where cultural and farming demands do not apply? Am not sure of current eastern cultures so left them out of the question.

Dave

[oldie]

No rights no wrongs, just differing personal opinions. Many based on religious grounds.

In case the subject of "cloning" enters into this thread. Gendre selectivity and cloning couldn't be more opposite, more polorised. As opposite as, say, the US Democratic party and the Republican party

NB - Maverick Italian fertility doctor Severino Antinori said yesterday (5th May) at least three babies had been born from cloned embryos in reproduction experiments he had collaborated on

(Reuters)

Regards - Oldie

[plschwartz]

There is in the movie Rodger Dodger an interesting sort of barroom arguement as to how men in our culture are in fact superfluious and will soon be extinct So it may be in the near futurthat in the US female selection will be the norm.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by flyeater

A yes, Fox "so called" News. The bastion of fair, balanced and unvarnished truth. The same network that gave us 101 things removed from the human body" and Temptation Island. I'm certain there was no sensationalism in that story Celt.

Kill the messenger and ignore the message?

Where have I heard that before?

[valley]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Kill the messenger and ignore the message?

Where have I heard that before?

I believe you heard it from the scriptures, particularly the gospels, Lanny.

[LANMaster]

Must have been it, Val.

I also saw the segment last night on the Fox News Channel.

I support this gender selection. Same as I support altering genetics to prevent alzheimers, parkinson's and other nasty diseases from inflicting my offspring.

In China and Japan, they use abortion as a means of gender selection. Problem is, they are abortions AFTER HEALTHY BIRTH!

[pyritechips]

There is in the movie Rodger Dodger an interesting sort of barroom arguement as to how men in our culture are in fact superfluious and will soon be extinct So it may be in the near futurthat in the US female selection will be the norm.

Interesting point, as in a pre-industrial society the stronger male did the hunting and delivered the sperm. Neither task is a critical necessity any more. Males also cause 90% of wars, violence, murders, etc. I think that with an all female society there would be a sh!tload of lawyers, cops and soldiers out of work!

Dave: see above. Let's also consider that though the need for males has decreased, the emotional desire for them remains. But having said as much, I don't think a great preponderance of males would occur. As far as if gender selection is concerned I think it is the "Playing God" syndrome again. In such scenarios I feel that emotional considerations will prevail over practical ones.

[plschwartz]

PC
Well look at the rise of aggressive woman in movies. Remember when the little lady hunkered down in the corner with the gun two feet away while two men killed each other? No more. Now since I think Alien we have the rise of the Killer women. Violence is now Equal Opertunity. The two names of GIs out of the Iraq war I remember are Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England !
It was in the 1950's I think that Phillip Wylie was talking of American Momism; little did he know.
Is it much different in Canada? I guess that there are still more physical challanges up North so men may still have some value.

[angelize56]

Chris: I think people should just be happy with whatever sex of child they have...think of all the infertile couples out there who would love to have a baby of either sex...period! Take care! angel

[flyeater]

Kill the messenger and ignore the message?

Damn right. When a story or news event is slanted for sensationalism, read ratings and dollars, the messenger should be taken to task.
"Never let facts stand in the way of a good partisan screed"
If you prefer their brand of news that's fine but the distortion & theatrics should be recognized for what they are. You need only look at the management staff to see what direction they come from.
Why is it Fox sued Franken for using "fair & balanced tm" and not for calling them liars?
Truth be told I watch very little TV & don't even have cable. I prefer to mine a variety of sites from the Washington Times to the Washington Post & glean what real facts I can.
As to gender selection, people have been harping about this since before Henry the VIII

[celticsong22]

Originally Posted by flyeater

A yes, Fox "so called" News. The bastion of fair, balanced and unvarnished truth. The same network that gave us 101 things removed from the human body" and Temptation Island. I'm certain there was no sensationalism in that story Celt.

I'm surprised at you, my insect tasting friend! Just happened to catch Fox because the story caught my eye! Actually, I don't believe they were biased in their story, at all. It was just presented as what was going on in the world. The two adorable twin boys had their picture displayed and both sides of the coin were presented. It was fair enough for people to make up their own minds.
On the CONTRARY, most liberal stations I have watched seem to literally destroy anyone who attempts to oppose their views! This goes on in journalism, as well. Here in Daytona, the local rag, The Daytona Beach News Journal, is owned by a prominent, Jewish family with extremely strong Democratic and liberal ties. Almost everything that that paper does is tainted by predjudicial bias! They even tell their readers who to vote for at the polls! This is no business of theirs; it is their business to report the NEWS! When anyone does THAT and it isn't liberally slanted, they are accused of being sensationalist! I, personally, believe that news should be unbiased. The separation of church and state thing should apply to all. THAT means a liberal station or paper is just as wrong in asserting its predjudicial opinions as a conservative one is! Perhaps it is because liberals don't trust the general population with the truth because they believe they will turn from the "cause" if they get it!?
If Fox has done the same thing, and I'm sure it has, they are doing nothing that Turner and ABC and NBC and CBS haven't done already. Those with the money and the clout wield it like swords to control the minds of people who are easily led. I prefer to derive my OWN opinions, not because Fox News, or The News Journal told me what to think, but because, armed with the TRUTH, I can do it for myself!
As for this topic, I'm still open. Tell me why you think this is the correct stand, not why you think anyone who disagrees with you is worthy of sarcasm. Thanks. By the way, do you have a name? "Flyeater" is a rather yucky thing for me to call you, sorry! Chris

[angelize56]

Would "swatter" be better?