Choosing sex of a child

[arcticpenguin]

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

A British woman is pregnant with a twin girls. She had to travel to Spain to accomplish this in an in vitro fertilization procedure because using IVF to choose the sex of a child is illegal in Britain. The woman already has 4 sons.

"I have always wanted to experience the mother-daughter relationship, which is totally different to the mother-son relationship, and I feel as I can, then why not?"

Should society have any say in this?

[Markerian]

I don't think society can have much of a say in it unless many people do it and the ratio really gets skewed. At the cost involved that doesn't seem too likely.What is it right now naturally, 51% female, 49% male or something close to that. At least she chose to have females!

I know a little about this from working at the sperm bank. About 90% of the requests were for males. Most people already had a few children of one sex and wanted one of another. They weren't trying to design their family. Men always seem to want that boy, if for no other reason than to carry on the family name.

I'd like to do some research on the process she went through. As I remember it, which was a while ago, determing the gene for sex in the sperm always also killed it.

We used a process based on motility, assuming the female sperm moved more rapidly. That's the way we did our separation, but still asked for feedback to see what the results were. I never saw those results, but had to laugh when all of a sudden the director of the sperm bank changed the procedure. Now male requests were taken from the more motile region, against prevalent theory.

What a scam, and at $500 a pop no less. Maybe chances were increased a little, but still no guarantees.



.

[Yahweh]

I'm sure plenty of people will have moral issues against changing the sex of a child. As for me, I'm not for it. Reminds me of that Saturday Night Live sketch with the doctor who mysteriously delivered over 5000 baby girls.

[Denise]

Well, I think choosing the sex of the baby is much better than the alternative- killing the infant because it is not the desired sex. I'm thinking about places like China. I don't have a problem with people choosing the sex of their baby, I might even cosider it myself if I was in a situation like the woman having 4 boys and no daughter.

[Denise]

I found an interesting article about what's happening in China.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/19/china-usat.htm

WUHAN, China — Chinese traditions, a tough one-child-per-couple policy and modern medical technology have combined to create a demographic nightmare that threatens China's stability and endangers prospects for greater political freedom in the country with the world's largest population. Over the next two decades, as many as 40 million young Chinese men won't be able to marry, settle down and start families. There won't be enough wives to go around.

[bjornart]

Moral reasons, no. Social reason, yes. I'm glad Denise got the quote about conditions in China, cause I wouldn't have bothered looking for it. :)

Imagine the problems when every third male of a generation is unable to marry, or even date, because there are no women available.

No need to restrict the use unless there's an actual danger of it skewing the sex-ratio in a country though. (Or, depending on the size of the country, the ratio in part of that country.)

[Markerian]

I was talking to my Chinese neighbor over the weekend about the conditions in China. She visits a few times a year on business and most of her family is still there. She agrees with the link Denise posted, that the situation in the villages is worse. She said the desire to have sons is stronger there than in the cities. They do use ultrasound, so have abortions rather than killing girls after they are born. The poorer village men are at a disadvantage because the women want wealthy, better educated men.

She said there is a popular TV program where a group of men give there educational background, jobs, etc., and women in the audience get to pick them.

She also said they tease her nephew a lot about getting the best grades he can in college, and then a good job, or he'll never find a wife.

[Yahweh]

Who gave this thread a 1 star rating. This thread deserves far more than that. Whoever rated this thread so low should cram a drill bit in their ears then spin it really fast.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Who gave this thread a 1 star rating. This thread deserves far more than that. Whoever rated this thread so low should cram a drill bit in their ears then spin it really fast.
It was probably a single Chinese male. Poor sod.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It was probably a single Chinese male. Poor sod.
I'm going to assume this poor sod happens to have gender identity issues also.

[arcticpenguin]

It happens in India as well: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/07/07/india.infanticide.pt1/index.html

Sociologists blame such killings on a widely held Indian belief that girls are an economic drain because families still have to pay expensive dowries at the time of their marriage.

Authorities have said that over the past few years, more than 4,500 female babies in India's southern Salem district alone have been killed -- by their own parents.

Social scientists say the severity of the problem of selective abortions is so bad, the country's gender birth ratio shows there are 880 females for every 1,000 males

[Markerian]

Among Eskimos as well. However, in their case it seems to be done to keep the ratios equal.

http://students.washington.edu/intemann/Humequest.html

Infant girls are more readily disposed of because, first, in this society the males are the primary food providers – they are the hunters, according to the traditional division of labor – and it is obviously important to maintain a sufficient number of food gatherers. But there is an important second reason as well. Because the hunters suffer a high casualty rate, the adult men who die prematurely far outnumber the number of women who die early. Thus if male and female infants survived in equal numbers, the female adult population would greatly outnumber the adult male population. Examining the available statistics, one writer concluded that “were it not for female infanticide. . . there would be approximately one-and-a-half times as many females in the average Eskimo local group as there are food producing males.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Markerian
Among Eskimos as well. However, in their case it seems to be done to keep the ratios equal.

http://students.washington.edu/intemann/Humequest.html


They could export their excess to India and China...

[Markerian]

Sounds like a plan to me. :)

[juryjone]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

They could export their excess to India and China...

They wouldn't be wanted. As the article Denise listed says, Chinese traditions and the one-child policy has completely skewed the society. Traditionally, a female marries into the male's family - she is no longer a part of her family. Then, when the parents get old, there is no social security or 401(k) - they are supported by their family, i.e., their son and his wife. If they can only have one child, then "sound financial planning" requires them to have a boy.

Luckily, it is not all abortion and infanticide. Some families risk heavy fines by placing their unwanted girls in places where they may be found and taken to orphanages. My daughter was abandoned on the steps of the local police station. (See her story at my website.) At least some of these girls survive (although they don't change the statistics since they no longer live in China).

[Tez]

Why dont they just change the policy to allow couples to have children until they have a boy? That way no infanticide, and lots more girls right?...

yes, i know that logic is flawed...

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by Tez
Why dont they just change the policy to allow couples to have children until they have a boy? That way no infanticide, and lots more girls right?...

yes, i know that logic is flawed...
Well, I did a kind of rough calculation (summed up 10 terms on a calculator because I didn't feel like writing a program) and it looks like that would result very nearly in an average of 2 children per couple. I don't think that's what the government wants.

Edited to add: assuming my math is correct, even if all couples who first had 4 girls gave up after the 5th try regardless of the sex of the 5th child, that would still give 1.78 children per couple on average.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Sigh... I am now one who wonders about this.

I had two boys, and then we tried for a third, HOPING for a girl.

Well... out of about 3 other moms I knew who had two boys and tried for girl... I was the ONLY one to get the girl!

She has been more trouble than either of the boys!!!

She crawled earlier (3 months! which meant she took the tumble down the stairs...gate went up that night)!... walked earlier (AAGH! 10 months... NO!!! childproofing accelerated). To make it worse when the boys forgot to close the gate to the stairs I could hear her giggle as she went up them, and she was only a few months old!

She whines with more stridency!! She manages to wrap her father around her finger with finesse!! And her cuddles just melt my heart!

She is going into 4th grade this fall... and since she has always been a "boy-girl" (a term created by a girl hating kindergarten boy classmate who fell under her charms because my daughter due to the influence of two big brothers can play video games, basketball and other boy games like them)... she has a constant group of boys enamored with her. There are two other boys who want her as the only girl at their birthday parties even though they go to another nearby school (not counting the neighbor boy who goes to a private school... he invited her to his bowling birthday party where she was the only girl, and she won the first game).

I live with a mixture of fear and pride.

[Frankie]

Unless it is because of a serious medical problem that effects a particular sex, then nobody should be able to choose their child's sex. That is my own opinion on this matter.

[Tony]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Should society have any say in this?

No the state or "society" (nice euphemism) should not have a say in this.

[Suezoled]

I for one am tired of people who have one more kid just because they want that one boy or that one girl. If children are a blessing, what does it matter what sex they are? And what about those kids you have before you reach desired sex, if at all? Are they surplus? A second place prize? My biggest concern is, CAN YOU AFFORD THEM ALL? If a person can't afford to take care of the ones he has, and he makes more, who does it fall on to support them? Quite simply, society will give them a hand. So, while people are trying to get that one boy or that one girl that will make them feel complete, my tax dollars are going to support those surplus kids.

If a person needs kids to feel complete, instead of enriching their lives that are complete with children, than I will think there are more issues than a new baby can solve.

Okay okay! I'm thinking of only a couple people I personally know when I post all this stuff... but they pass chills down my spine. To them, it's definately a game of favorites.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Markerian
I don't think society can have much of a say in it unless many people do it and the ratio really gets skewed.

Society is what society is because the people living in it wish it to be so. If society has a vested interest in a 50-50 ratio of male to female then that will happen of it's own accord. No coercion is necessary. If the people in the scoiety decied that that isn't so desirable they will take the steps to make the appropriate changes, again with no coercion from above. Societies (cultures) don't get destroyed from within, they merely change.

Anyway it certainly looks like the future will be more "gender-labile" (hope that's the right term) and add in advances in reproductive and other technology (cloning, in-vitro gestation, etc) and I'll think you'll find that a 50-50 ratio is not by any means necessary and it will be up to our children to decide if it's desirable.

[Ove]

Why dont they just change the policy to allow couples to have children until they have a boy? That way no infanticide, and lots more girls right?...

AND a helluvalot more Chinese. I dont like the "One child pr family" policy either BUT it was instated because China was drowning in people. Overpopulation and hunger are a huge problem and the rigorous "one child" policy was a way to reduce the number of Chinese.

[mummymonkey]

If people want to choose the sex of their child so what? What's it got to do with anybody else? It's okay for me to have a dozen kids and live on benefits provided the sex of each child is chosen randomly but not to have one child of a predefined sex and pay for it myself? Utter madness. Neither the state nor any interfering busybodies should have the right to tell me how to go about the business of building my family.
Ooh this makes me soooo mad!

[Puppycow]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I for one am tired of people who have one more kid just because they want that one boy or that one girl. If children are a blessing, what does it matter what sex they are? And what about those kids you have before you reach desired sex, if at all? Are they surplus? A second place prize? My biggest concern is, CAN YOU AFFORD THEM ALL? If a person can't afford to take care of the ones he has, and he makes more, who does it fall on to support them? Quite simply, society will give them a hand. So, while people are trying to get that one boy or that one girl that will make them feel complete, my tax dollars are going to support those surplus kids.

If a person needs kids to feel complete, instead of enriching their lives that are complete with children, than I will think there are more issues than a new baby can solve.

Okay okay! I'm thinking of only a couple people I personally know when I post all this stuff... but they pass chills down my spine. To them, it's definately a game of favorites. I think I have to agree with you. Btw, I have two kids, one of each sex, so I am pretty lucky. But parents get tax breaks and other benifits, and schooling is provided free by society, so it cannot be said that a couple's decision to have children is entirely a private matter. Eventually, those investments are paid back (at least in theory - some people are exceptions) when the children reach adulthood and start contributing to society.

I used to vaguely think that reproduction decisions were nobody else's business, but becoming a parent has made me realize the very heavy responsibility. We are a couple with two young children, 7 and 1, and my wife is a full time mother/homemaker, but we still feel like we are at our limits of the responsibilities we can reasonably take on already. I know there are many single parents these days, but I can't imagine being one because it seems too me like too much for one person to take on. We've even told our daughter she can't have a pet for now, because quite frankly, we're at our limits. Anyway, I am afraid that children who do not get adequate parenting will grow up to be social problems.

So there are basically two ends of the spectrum on how society can view this, and somewhere in the middle is probably a balance. On one extreme, the stance is that reproduction and parenting is entirely up to individuals, but this means that society also has to live with some consequences when people make bad decisions - it would be nice if only people who make bad decisions have to live with the consequnces, but reality is not like that. The other is something like the China one-child policy where the state decides what is best for reproduction from the viewpoint of the common good.

So regarding the topic of the thread, I think that the state only has a legitimate reason to interfere in reproductive choices where it can be reasonably argued that those choices have a significant impact on socity as a whole. I think I agree with mummymonkey that the (adverse) social impact of say having a poor single mother with 12 kids is much more significant than that of a few people choosing their child's sex. Maybe that should be one criterion - if the activity subject to regulation has less of an adverse impact on society than another activity that is not subject to regulation, then it is not reasonable to regulate that activity.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by mummymonkey
If people want to choose the sex of their child so what? What's it got to do with anybody else? It's okay for me to have a dozen kids and live on benefits provided the sex of each child is chosen randomly but not to have one child of a predefined sex and pay for it myself? Utter madness. Neither the state nor any interfering busybodies should have the right to tell me how to go about the business of building my family.
Ooh this makes me soooo mad!

The problem is that if there is a cultural trend towards children of a single sex, as in China or India, you end up with a skewed male to female ration which then in turn has a score of negative impacts on the society (and the societies next generation).
This isn't about the individual, the entire culture is threatened.

Did you read those articles posted previously?

[patoco12]

My grandfather, an Irish Catholic, wanted a boy to propagate the family name (first, middle, last). Needless to say, my father has several older sisters and no brothers. :D

[Soapy Sam]

Society does have a say, or will. If sex ratios get seriously out of whack, society will alter to match the changed conditions. If women became really scarce, phenomena like bride-prices and the jealous guarding of women's virginity would return with it.

Anyway. It's a step forward. Let me know when we can select the species as well.

[llf_fpk]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I for one am tired of people who have one more kid just because they want that one boy or that one girl. If children are a blessing, what does it matter what sex they are?

In some cultures, it's not a blessing, it's an economic necessity or disaster depending on sex. I can't condem someone when whether they eat in the future depends on whether they have a boy or a girl.

The social problems are becoming apparent in China. Girls and women are getting kidnapped to be wives and kept under lock and key. Including getting kidnapped from one husband to serve a different one. Familiies are arranging marriages between close cousins and siblings. It's only going to get worse before it gets better.

Also, China is now promoting two children per couple as being ideal in less heavily populated areas (i.e. outside of major cities).

l

[Prospero]

Simply put, I have no desire to have a daughter. I'm a gay man, so it's not really going to be up to chance anyway, but that aside, I still don't feel as though I'd be as good of a parent for a daughter as for a son. That being the case, why can't parents choose that which they want and feel comfortable with as opposed to taking a chance?

[Darwin'sGoat]

Does the whole of humanity have the right to, for no reason other than ignorance, doom itself to destruction?

If it were limited to a small scale and posed no threat, I know that I would not have a problem with it. But we have already seen real life catastrophes because of a fault in the system, and ignorance on the part of the people involved.

To protect the rights of the people should the government have the right to seed the population with lab born babies of the appropriate genders to keep the balance?

Hypothetically, barring the prohibitive cost of such a project, what would people think if the Chinese government had direct control over the sex of children to maintain the ecological balance?