Slashdot Mirror
UK Report Suggests Designer Offspring
chromakey writes "Several news agencies are reporting that the UK is considering allowing parents undergoing fertility treatment to select the sex of their unborn babies." Also covered in Q&A format by the BBC. From the article: "At the moment in the UK, sex selection is only permitted if there are strict medical reasons. This could be because there is a serious sex-linked disorder in the family, such as Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy."
Reminds me of the movie "Gattaca." Which by the way, is a great movie, and describes a very interesting world could possibly result from the furthering of this kind of technology.
(And yes, I know its not nearly the same, but still, you can easy see the similarities.)
Maybe there's no problem in developed countries like the uk, but I shudder at the thought of less developed countries using this and selecting male kids like crazy.
China already has a huge problem with a surplus of males, and they don't even allow you to choose.
Will code a sig generator for food
If you're doing an in vitro fertilization, your doctor likely has several viable fertilized eggs to choose from.
I don't necessarily see the problem with the parents choosing which one they want. My largest concern is this leading us down a slippery slope that ends on prospective parents going to www.amazon.com, clicking on the Baby tab and selecting every aspect of your new baby which will be shipped to you for free if you select a model over $25.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Philosophically speaking, what right does one individual (the State) have to *force* another individual (me) never to choose the gender of my child?
The only justification for forced intervention in others life is self-defence. This would include the defence of the unborn child (so for example if I *wished* my child to be born without arms, the State most certainly should intervene) but the *gender* of the child? I cannot see how this can be thought of as harming the child.
If I had a child, I would, once it were born, be fully responsible for its life; I would choose whether it learned French while young, or the piano, or karate, the flute...
If it's entirely up to me what my child is given to learn while it's young, why would it be wrong then also to choose the gender of my child? especially if I were having a larger family and might, for example, want a balanced number of boys and girls?
Certainly, on a practical note, the awful harm a lot of parents inflict on their children by their incompetence as parents is a far more pressing issue. How can we be worried about gender when so many parents are so awful at parenting?
I'd much rather parents had to be qualified as parents (some sort of mandatory exam to be taken and passed) than be concerned about whether or not they could choose their child's gender.
--
Toby
Could one apply the logic of free choice here?
I'm thinking of the abortion debate. One of the things people say (not the only thing, of course) is "There are differing opinions on the ethics of abortion. Some of these opinions borrow from religious teachings. We should allow abortion, since doing so allows people to decide on ethics (which may depend on religion) themselves." Thus, 'Pro-Choice'.
Couldn't the same apply here? Some people may disagree with 'designer babies' (in some cases for religious reasons) while others don't have a problem with them. That is, could one be 'pro choice' on designer babies? Does that make sense here?
I'm not saying designer babies are an idea I'm completely comfortable with, but it's an interesting point to discuss nonetheless.
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
This is how it starts...
It ends with two dstinct races of humans, those not genetically engineered, and those that are, super-intelligent super-fit blond blue-eyed products who won't want to mix their bloodlines with the inferior 'naturals'. It will also be an indicator of economic wealth because only rich families will be able to afford designer babies.
So the awful legacy is we now have another criteria that will be used as a weapon for racial and social discrimination, just like skin colour or religion.
The worst part is that this will be the first time there will be some scientific evidence that the physical differences are actually significant, which will make colour/religion-based predjudice look like a walk in the park.
The difference is that in China, you are strictly limited to the number of children that you can have by law. In the west, we are limited by economics and culture.
On the other hand, if you could only have one child and you were looking for that child to care for you in your old age, you would choose a girl. Women do, by far, the majority of elder care.
I suspect that most people would opt for a boy and a girl. The boy carries on the family name and the girl cares for the parents in their dotage.
However, notwithstanding the above, I still think sex selection should be illegal.
"if everybody decided to have a boy, then in the next generation it would be obviously convenient to be a woman"
Actually, it seems much more likely it would result in widespread rape and an active slave-trade. Also, if there still wasn't a way to birth children without human involvement, the social pressure to give birth would be frickin' enormous. Of course, if none of those hit you, it would be quite convenient.
The idea of a perfect machine is a strawman argument, as is the idea of a perfect man. Perfection is a sticky idea; who knows if we can even agree on what a perfect man or machine would be?
But replace "perfect" with "better" and suddenly your argument looks kinda ridiculous. We can build a car that eats fuel more efficiently, all other things being equal. We can build a CPU that eats less power, runs faster, and is cheaper to manufacture than its predecessor.
If we can build a better machine, why can't we built a better human?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Ok first off this is just my opinion. ,then where does it end, what disability is an unaceptable condition . .
,given this option would have taken it and deprived the world of such a brilliant mind.
Even if it is for medical reasons , if you for some reason decide that you wish or need to ahve a child of sex A or B to avoid an illness
As a person who has a Form of disability myself I find this highly unnerving.
if you so badly fear a child with a disability then please dont have children or adopt , there are plenty of children who are suffering in underfunded, understaffed orphanages
Take pick up a cleche here , Do you think Steven Hawkins parents
Alas i belive in peoples right and freedom to decide and i dont want to be a hipocrit, so if it was to come up in a ballet i would allow it , But i would certainly avoid it like the plauge and tell anyone who asks what i thought of it (self censorship that is , take note Politicians , we dont need views forced upon us)
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
>> This isn't about eugenics. This is about...being able to have some say if they child that they have is the boy or girl that they've always wanted.
But that IS eugenics.
eugenics
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
If you ask folks in mainland China, I think they'd have a pretty strong opinion on which is better, male or female.
But no, by "better", I meant healthier, hardier, less likely to keel over and die from Tay-Sachs before age ten. Which, actually, is what they're talking about doing in the original article.
Unless you're implying that there's no advantage to not dying of Tay-Sachs over dying of it.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"Philosophically speaking, what right does one individual (the State) have to *force* another individual (me) never to choose the gender of my child?"
What right do you yourself have to choose the gender of the child? Until medical developments in scanning technology, the only way you could tell a baby's sex was when it was finally born. Back then, the only "choice" you had was the choice to kill your newborn baby, try again, and hope for the other sex. Not a particularly viable option.
Even with medical advances, you'd a damn hard time getting a (legit) abortion just because your baby "was a boy/girl".
"If it's entirely up to me what my child is given to learn while it's young, why would it be wrong then also to choose the gender of my child?"
Because the gender of your child is chosen by chance, not by what you yourself consider to be appropriate. They are two compeltely different situations, and it's pretty stupid to compare the two (although I get the impression you were inviting debate, rather than subscribing to that view).
Technology wins today's wars
Tell that to the guys in Iraq who have been fighting an insurgency for a couple of years. Or the Israeli solders who have been fighting for decades.
I don't deny that technology is helping them, but it certainly is not winning wars for them, they are still getting killed on a regular basis, with no end in sight.
Never underestimate the power of those willing to die for what they believe, regardless of technology available to them.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
The part where they march on your country to conquer your women.
hmm, this rubs me as being quite racist.. and I'll explain why. A lot of the posts I've read on here are talking about the Chinese in their selection of gender due to the combination of China's One Baby policy along with the cultural view that males are a greater benifit to a household than a female. This is only talking about gender, not specific features.. but let's assume that "designer babies" are possible.. which is where your statement comes in.
The "universal concept of beauty primarily for white folks" being blonde hair and blue eyes is somehow being linked to Hitler and the Nazi reign of terror that occurred during the last world war. I find it very difficult to have a straight association with the color of your skin, hair, and eyes creating "perfect devils" in the sense that they will, because of their physical features, become sort of horrid hate-mongers.
I had always been of the belief that it's one's environment, especially when growing up, that will have the greatest impact on one's character and quality later on in life. To assume that because someone is white with blonde hair and blue eyes means that they will become a Neo-Nazi or some other sort of "bad person" seems very short sighted, racist, and full of anger.
I just don't understand these views now adays.. I had always hoped that people were passed that.. but I suppose not.
As a female with MD in the family, I'd jump at the chance for this.
My father has severe MD, my brother is mild at only 23. I get tested next month to see if I carry/have it. When my husband and I decide to have a kid, if there's a chance that I could pass MD on, I would seriously consider the choice. Since it is supposed to pass from mother to son easier than to a daughter, I'd probably try for a girl. I've seen how it can eat away at a person's body, and I wouldn't want my child to suffer like that.
This is nothing like the 'one child' law. There will be no over burden of too many of one gender. This is for people who already have problems conceiving (it's using IVF) to lower the chance of a desperately desired baby of being getting sick.
Hmm... The US population is a little under 300 million, the Chinese population is well over a billion. I'm too lazy to look up exact numbers, but China definitely has more manpower in their military. Who'd win in an all-out war? Anyone who thinks superior technology can't overcome a difference in numbers shouldn't comment on warfare. Numbers only matter if there's a ridiculous difference, or if the two sides have essentially the same technology.
When both sides have nuclear weapons, numbers mean nothing in an all our war.
Numbers really mean very little in any war, it is number you are willing to loose for the cause, that is important (see Vietnam)...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
"Doesn't that suggest that over two or three generations, incentives for having boys will diminish, since having girls will be more valuable?"
Not if they don't change the fact that men pass on the family name. As it stands, a woman doesn't carry on the legacy in China, and that matters a lot.
And, even if that does happen, that leaves them with 2-3 generations of increased crime and violence, as that's what tends to happen in societies with tons of unmarried men.