Chose your baby's sex?

[Raerae]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/...ZoBHNlYwM3NTE-

I was going to put this in the Childreen Yes or No thread, but thought it deserved it's own topic. We've heard about it, but this is a little more scientific.

What are your thoughts!

I'm totally for it. Ideally I really only want 1 child, however if my future hubby really wants a boy, I'd be willing to have 2 kids. But I really want a daughter. If he wasn't interested in having a son, I would want to do this for my first child to make sure that we had a daughter. However if he wanted a son, I would probably have a natural birth first, followed by a selected sex pregancy to even out our family.

Your thoughts?

I just dont wanna be one of those moms who has like 3 boys, and never had a daughter, but doesn't want to have a bazillion children.

 

[giz2000]

I always wanted a daughter...I have 2 boys (and love them to death!)...so if I would have another child (trust me, I am not having any more), I would want to chose the sex....or I'd end up like a friend who tried for a girl...6 boys later....still no girl!!

 

[caffn8me]

My feelings are that in cases where parents both carry genes which could lead to a harmful sex-linked genetic condition in their offspring then yes.

Otherwise I would say parents should only be able to choose the sex of a baby after they have already had one child naturally and they should only be able to choose the sex of one child in these circumstances.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by caffn8me Otherwise I would say parents should only be able to choose the sex of a baby after they have already had one child naturally and they should only be able to choose the sex of one child in these circumstances.

What about parents who only want one child?

Does it really matter if they guarentee themselves a boy or a girl depending on what the couple wants?

I'm even all for taking it a step farther and letting parents pick and choose the traits they want their kid to have. Hair color, eye color, height, etc. Why not guarentee your child will be attractive? If anything your doing them a favor.

 

[DaizyDeath]

im totally against it.

who knows the side effect of doing something like this to a fetus. I think whats meant to be is meant to be

Once you have a child you love it no matter what sex it is.


and thats all i really what to say on this subject

 

[DaizyDeath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Why not guarentee your child will be attractive? If anything your doing them a favor.

Thats completely wrong if everybody did that then attractive would become unattractive

plus the fact that you should want your child to have a piece of you a part of you which is the way you look

who says your child wouldnt be beautifull if left alone? so basically what your saying is before your child is even born its flawed

all that your doing is conforming to societys thoughts on what it "preety" or "handsom"

i dont think people that have that state of mind should have children
beacuse their obviously to weak minded to see that beauty is all skin deep and no amount of plastic surgery, genetic alteration or makeup can change that. You cant change an ugly mind and soul.

 

[Beauty Mark]

As long as it's fairly safe for mother and child (and potential problems are discussed), I don't see any harm in picking the sex. People who adopt get to pick their child's sex.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaizyDeath im totally against it. who knows the side effect of doing something like this to a fetus. I think whats meant to be is meant to be Once you have a child you love it no matter what sex it is. and thats all i really what to say on this subject

There are no side effects of picking the childs sex. All it is, is a part of invetro-fertilization, but they just test the embryo for XX or XY chromosomes. And implant the mother with only XX or XY embryo's if they decide they want a boy or a girl.

You say, "Whats meant to be is meant to be." So are you against the genetic screening of diseases and other problems that are already being screened for by proactive parents? Thats not very fair to a child, to bring it in the world knowing you could have prevented a extremely problematic disease by simply testing the embryo's and only implanting the ones that dont test positive. Life's hard enough w/out being born with a disadvantage.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaizyDeath Thats completely wrong if everybody did that then attractive would become unattractive plus the fact that you should want your child to have a piece of you a part of you which is the way you look who says your child wouldnt be beautifull if left alone? so basically what your saying is before your child is even born its flawed all that your doing is conforming to societys thoughts on what it "preety" or "handsom" i dont think people that have that state of mind should have children beacuse their obviously to weak minded to see that beauty is all skin deep and no amount of plastic surgery, genetic alteration or makeup can change that. You cant change an ugly mind and soul.

Everyone conforms to society's standards of beauty if they want to be attractive to that society. Beauty is skin deep, sorry. You can be the nicest person, but your still unatractive if your unatractive, no amount of positive personality is going to change that. You might be a very nice person, but attractive on the inside is not the same as attractive on the outside. The only people I've ever met who argue that beauty is whats on the inside, are typically plain looking people. They try to make up for their lack of looks, with their personality. We can't see your personality. If I'm sitting at a cafe on a corner people watching, all I have to judge you on is your looks. I can't see whats, "on the inside."

If everbody did it, attractive wouldn't suddenly becomes unattractive. Thats just silly to think that. You could have two women who look completely different, but their both beautiful (diff race, hair,eyes, whatever). Different people will prefer one over the other, but they will for the most part consider both women to be beautiful. There are aspects of beauty that are universal. As an example, symmetry is one aspect of beauty that is universal.

Not to mention, who's to say they child wouldn't still look like your child. If the genes used are from the parents, then your child will have a part of you. And yes, before a child is born it is flawed. Were only human, and to be human is to be imperfect. Nothing wrong with that.

I know this wont be a popular view with everyone, but it's my opinion. Vanity is my fav sin, and I see nothing wrong with valueing beauty. I also know I'm not the only person with an opinion like this. And just because someone prefers attractive individuals to unattractive ones, doesn't make them a bad person. There are plenty of nice beautiful people in the world. =P

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaizyDeath i dont think people that have that state of mind should have children beacuse their obviously to weak minded to see that beauty is all skin deep and no amount of plastic surgery, genetic alteration or makeup can change that. You cant change an ugly mind and soul.

Pot Kettel Black?

While I might prefer attractive individuals, at least I dont have the audacity to say that, "unattractive peolpe shoulnd't have children." Which is basically what your saying in this comment, the only difference is your choosing innerbeauty over outer. Which makes you just as vain as I am. Have you checked the color of your soul? It's not as white as you think it is.

 

[DaizyDeath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae There are no side effects of picking the childs sex. All it is, is a part of invetro-fertilization, but they just test the embryo for XX or XY chromosomes. And implant the mother with only XX or XY embryo's if they decide they want a boy or a girl. You say, "Whats meant to be is meant to be." So are you against the genetic screening of diseases and other problems that are already being screened for by proactive parents? Thats not very fair to a child, to bring it in the world knowing you could have prevented a extremely problematic disease by simply testing the embryo's and only implanting the ones that dont test positive. Life's hard enough w/out being born with a disadvantage.

First off this hasnt been around long enough for people to know how a child will be effected in the future from something like this.

Secondly screening for a disease is completely different then choosing the sex of your child or the way they look. Alot of diseases are caused by enviormental elements and other such man made factors. That was really twisting my words around.

Some people that would have been considered "sick" by embryo testing beacuse they had deformitys have grown to be very influential and insperational people despite their sicknesses

 

[DaizyDeath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Pot Kettel Black? While I might prefer attractive individuals, at least I dont have the audacity to say that, "unattractive peolpe shoulnd't have children." Which is basically what your saying in this comment, the only difference is your choosing innerbeauty over outer. Which makes you just as vain as I am. Have you checked the color of your soul? It's not as white as you think it is.

since when did i say unattractive people shouldnt have children?

i said people with a state of mind that dont want to have an "ugly" child and cant just love it the way it is in my opinion shouldnt have children.

If choosing inner beauty over outer beauty is considered vain to you then wow thats just really funny to me i mean seriously how does that make any sense to you?

And yes to answer your question id marry an ugly man that was kind hearted and loveing anyday over an attractive asshole.

 

[giz2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Everyone conforms to society's standards of beauty if they want to be attractive to that society. Beauty is skin deep, sorry. You can be the nicest person, but your still unatractive if your unatractive, no amount of positive personality is going to change that. You might be a very nice person, but attractive on the inside is not the same as attractive on the outside. The only people I've ever met who argue that beauty is whats on the inside, are typically plain looking people. They try to make up for their lack of looks, with their personality. We can't see your personality. If I'm sitting at a cafe on a corner people watching, all I have to judge you on is your looks. I can't see whats, "on the inside." If everbody did it, attractive wouldn't suddenly becomes unattractive. Thats just silly to think that. You could have two women who look completely different, but their both beautiful (diff race, hair,eyes, whatever). Different people will prefer one over the other, but they will for the most part consider both women to be beautiful. There are aspects of beauty that are universal. As an example, symmetry is one aspect of beauty that is universal. Not to mention, who's to say they child wouldn't still look like your child. If the genes used are from the parents, then your child will have a part of you. And yes, before a child is born it is flawed. Were only human, and to be human is to be imperfect. Nothing wrong with that. I know this wont be a popular view with everyone, but it's my opinion. Vanity is my fav sin, and I see nothing wrong with valueing beauty. I also know I'm not the only person with an opinion like this. And just because someone prefers attractive individuals to unattractive ones, doesn't make them a bad person. There are plenty of nice beautiful people in the world. =P

I value beauty as well...but not just physical beauty. That is, IMHO, shallow. I have worked with some physically stunning people that are absolute rot on the inside...they are vile and conceited, and that in itself, makes them ugly. I am not saying that EVERY physically attractive person is this way, just some that I have had the (dis)pleasure of working or dealing with in some way.

While I agree with you that society generally dictates the standards of beauty, it is for that exact reason that so many women have eating disorders, self-esteem issues, etc. I could go into a whole diatribe about how women should set their own standards, and break away from the "you must look like X to be considered beautiful" but that would be equivalent to me trying to cover the sun with my thumb.

That being said, physically beautiful people eventually grow old and lose their looks....just like everyone else! What do they have to go on then?

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaizyDeath First off this hasnt been around long enough for people to know how a child will be effected in the future from something like this.

It's been around since 1978, 28 years and over 100,000 IVF births in the US alone according to wikipedia, I'm sure if there were any super serious problems they would have been found already. If anything the biggest risk from IVF is having a multiple pregnancy. There is no conclusive evidence that IVF causes birth defects any more than natural pregnancies.

Quote:

Secondly screening for a disease is completely different then choosing the sex of your child or the way they look. Alot of diseases are caused by enviormental elements and other such man made factors. That was really twisting my words around.

The diseases they screen for are not caused by environmental elements or man made factors. They screen for inherited diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, etc. And I'm not twisting your words around. It all comes from the same science. There is no reason to say one is good and the other is evil. I woulnd't be all that surprised if in the future as they get better at reading DNA, they could tell you what your baby will look like. Allowing you to pick the embryo(s) you want to implant/disgard if you choose IVF.

Quote:

Some people that would have been considered "sick" by embryo testing beacuse they had deformitys have grown to be very influential and insperational people despite their sicknesses

And I'm glad they were able to overcome their disability. Doesn't mean I would ever want to have their life. Regardless of how influential/insperational it is.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaizyDeath since when did i say unattractive people shouldnt have children?

I didn't say you did. Re-read my statement. You said people with a ugly mind/soul shouldn't have kids. I said that would be like ME saying unattractive people shouldn't have kids. I would never say that, and find it rather amusing how you throw your morals and judgements around.

Quote:

i said people with a state of mind that dont want to have an "ugly" child and cant just love it the way it is in my opinion shouldnt have children.

Then i guess everyone should stop having children, since chances are if you asked any random couple if they wanted their child to be born ugly, they would say no.

Quote:

If choosing inner beauty over outer beauty is considered vain to you then wow thats just really funny to me i mean seriously how does that make any sense to you?

Vanity can come in many different forms, not just physical beauty. And who's to say you defenition of the ideal person is the same as anothers. Thats Vanity.

Quote:

And yes to answer your question id marry an ugly man that was kind hearted and loveing anyday over an attractive asshole.

The real question is would you choose the Ugly Nice guy over the Attractive loving guy.

 

[Raerae]

Quote:

Originally Posted by giz2000 While I agree with you that society generally dictates the standards of beauty, it is for that exact reason that so many women have eating disorders, self-esteem issues, etc. I could go into a whole diatribe about how women should set their own standards, and break away from the "you must look like X to be considered beautiful" but that would be equivalent to me trying to cover the sun with my thumb.

Considering the obesity epidemic in the USA, I think more women have overeating disorders, than are ana or mia. And women are just as responsible for setting standards as anyone else. So in essence were creating our own self esteem issues because women want to be attractive.

There will always be an underlying standard of beauty that is hard coded into our bodies by our DNA. Trends in how we modify our bodies might change, just like fashion changes based on what is popular, but the basics of beauty will always be there.

 

[DaizyDeath]

we obviously disagree so im just going to leave it at that

 

[caffn8me]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae What about parents who only want one child?

Imagine what would happen in China if parents were allowed to choose the sex of their first and only child. See here and here. It is precisely because of this issue that I'm opposed to selection for the first born child.

 

[giz2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raerae Considering the obesity epidemic in the USA, I think more women have overeating disorders, than are ana or mia. And women are just as responsible for setting standards as anyone else. So in essence were creating our own self esteem issues because women want to be attractive. There will always be an underlying standard of beauty that is hard coded into our bodies by our DNA. Trends in how we modify our bodies might change, just like fashion changes based on what is popular, but the basics of beauty will always be there.

I agree with your statement on obesity, but have to add that the reason a great deal of women overeat is to compensate for the fact that they will NEVER meet those "standards." If you are 5 feet tall, you will never look like Gisele...if you are naturally big-boned (built like a swimmer), you'll never look like Kate Moss...it's just not going to happen. So, women who are bombarded by images of what is "beautiful" get frustrated, thus giving birth to eating disorders (which
include overeating).

I disagree with your statement that standards of beauty are hard coded in our DNA. Standards of beauty vary from culture to culture...and they change with time. What was beautiful in the past (Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, etc...all super curvy women who wore size 12 and up) may not be considered beautiful today (MM would be considered overweight by today's standards). Some cultures in Africa and the Pacific value overweight women more than thin ones, because the heavier women are perceived to have enough money to feed themselves....

 

[Shawna]

I desperately wanted a girl, but I never would have picked the sex of my child. I think it is just up to fate to give you the child that was meant to be yours. As it turned out, I had a boy, and I also had complications. I cannot have any more children. Graham is the love of my life and I would hate to think that I missed out on this beautiful boy because I chose him to be a girl instead. I think it is ok when there is a genetic reason for doing so (ie haemophilia, or other inheirited genetic disorders) but otherwise I just think nature should run its course. If sex selection is allowed, then what is the next thing? Will people be able to genetically predetermine if they have brown or blonde haired children? The whole thing reeks of eugenics to me