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.)
There's a very good reason for the ~ 50-50 split. 20 years from now, we're gunna have a bunch of British men looking overseas for mates. We CANNOT let this happen! Once women hear that accent, it's OVER. We don't stand a chance against their sexy sexy voices.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Designer babies, eh?
;-)
I want an Armani.
(With apologies to Kate Charlesworth of New Scientist...)
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
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.
last year I had a research assignment based on modifying our dna and transgenics, and it's quite an interesting subject, i won't be so arrogant as to link to that assignment, but I will post links to some of the articles i referred to..
u mans.htm l #transgenics , 1.html
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Today-Food-Tomorrow-H
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/1999/july.htm
http://www.ifgene.org/proscons.htm
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0317,baard,43560
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1640
and no, i did not RTFA.
Remember children, all generalizations are wrong.
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
It's hard enough for the average /. reader as it is, now we have to have a doctor's note?
In Soviet Russia, sex chooses you!
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
China already has a problem with this already. Due to their one-child policy, many families had sex-based abortions. In particular, since sons were much more popular, they would abort daughters. Now, China has about 120 men for every 100 women.
This might not seem like such a serious problem on the surface, but it really is. Among other things, China now has an extremely active underground wife selling system, in comparison to other countries, at least. Since there just aren't enough Chinese women to go around, men are willing to break laws and pay high prices to get a wives.
It seems like that the difference in population also makes discrimination more likely. There's no clear evidence on how the discrimination would work out, but discrimination is usually more common in disparate populations.
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
In developing countries, there is already a serious imbalance in male/female ratio, with about 800-900 females per 1000 males. Fortunately, the trend is a little bit reversed in developed countries. If the designer babies techniques come to developing countries, it will further push the female/male ratio down.
One would assume that with fewer women, the women will have additional power, but in male-dominated societies (in many developing countries), lower number of women may in fact lead to more oppression of women (they may end up viewed as "precious property").
It is very scary.
S
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.
"Think the dating scene is bad now. Think about how it would be if there were one girl to every three guys or vice versa."
I'm liking this vice-versa thing of yours. Let's put together a commitee and see if we can make something out of it.
People have been able to shift the sex ratio for years. All you need is a centrifuge and the appropriate density gradient. Since the Y chromosome is much smaller than the X, Y sperm are significantly more buoyant than X sperm (nearly a 10% difference) and can be separated from one another and used for artificial insemination.
The only difference here is that they verify sex by PCR so that it now works 100% of the time instead of only 90.
I'm no British law expert but the old method was probably perfectly legal as it would be difficult to mandate what one can do with semen (your disgusting imagination may be inserted here).
I can hear "Every Sperm is Sacred" now....
and banning it.
"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
"Several news agencies are reporting that the UK is considering allowing parents undergoing fertility treatment to select the sex of their unborn babies."
Choices apparently include everyday, three times a week, hard 'n fast, and special occasions only.
Think the dating scene is bad now. Think about how it would be if there were one girl to every three guys or vice versa.
I like the vice versa, actually. Haven't you heard the song "Two girls for every boy" by the California Beach Boys?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
But there are countries, or rather cultures where girl babies are given up for adoption until a son is born. Or the family just keeps getting bigger until a son is born. Or a woman who has not born any male children is divorced or disgraced. Those are societies where getting the gender you want on the first try would be a net benefit to all concerned. Aint technology wonderful? If it doesn't simply make our lives easier, it can at least make our stupidities less burdensome!
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
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 isn't about designer babies with parents choosing the colour of their offsprings' eyes, hair, etc. This is about parents who find it impossible to conceive naturally and who have limited opportunities to do so with the help of modern science being able to have some say if they child that they have is the boy or girl that they've always wanted.
We're talking about giving parents who might have dreamt about having a child of a specific gender the chance to have that dream come true. And we're not talking about giving that choice to everyone, we're talking about giving it to those who won't be able to try, try and try again until that boy or girl comes along. And, if it needs saying, most parents desperate for a kid won't care what gender their baby is, they'll be happy to let nature decide.
Remember also that IVF conceptions often result in multiple births, normally with non-identical twins or triplets, so the chances are that this sort of selection will only be necessary in a small number of cases. And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Lastly, I'd like to add that IVF treatment is provided for free by the NHS. Of course, not everyone needs it but at least those people who can't conceive naturally don't have to choose between trying for a baby and having a positive bank balance.
So, any chance of cutting down on the some of the knee-jerk, distopic comments now?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Look, suppose we end up with an excess of males in some generation. Then in that generation women will be scarcer and in effect more valuable and it will then become more desirable to have female babies. If left to choose we people probably wouldn't end up at exactly a 50-50 split but within a generation or two it would probably equilibriate at something reasonable.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
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...
Disclaimer: this post may offend some of you. I have no problems with children who have special needs and I respect their parents. However, I am willing to do anything possible to end up as one of those parents.
My girlfriend and I were talking about genetic selection of babies. She is a religious person and at first she did not approve the idea of selecting a child based on its genes. However, this changed right away after she started working some special ed. kids.
Let's call my girlfriend Ann. Ann is a therapist; she works for public schools in order to help kids with different aspects of education. Some kids need help with handwriting, some kids need assistance due to injuries, some kids need a little push when it comes to physical education. Ann helps them out. However, there is a growing number of kids with genetic disorders who need extreme help and who are in the school system. These are by-products of tobacco and alcohol companies, kids of ex-drug users or just unfortunate parents. Nobody wants them. Nobody wants to deal with them. Because our public schools are designed to accept everyone, these kids end up in an environment that can't really fit their needs. Parents drop them off and let Ann deal with all this shit. The same parents are ready to sue the living shit out of the school system if their kids do not progress. Moreover, not a single public school that I know is able to accomodate kids with special needs due to financial restraints. Would I want my kids to have a chance of living that life? Two words: fuck that.
After working with many special ed kids for years, Ann and I have concluded that we'll screen our potential babies for genetic disorders because we simply do not want to deal with a kid who has Down's Syndrome or something along those lines. If there is a possibility of a genetic disorder, why not eliminate it? I do not want to end up with a kid who acts like Timmy from South Park; the society can live without such a kid just fine as well. The school system where Ann works spends a lot of time on kids who can barely tie their shoes. Some of those kids will lose their skills and degenerate. It is so sad to see those poor souls... I would hate to have a child like that. A child that can't really understand, a child that can't be a part of the mainstream life, a child that will be always a second class citizen. As somebody who had a speech problem as a kid, I know what it feels like when everybody makes fun of you and I saw only the tip of the iceberg! I would hate to see my kid to go through numerous humiliations, classifications, doctors, special ed instructors and then endup earning minimum wage at some sweatshop or Burger King.
The bottom line is that this is up to you. I choose life, but life that is capable of living and not suffering. After what I have seen and heard from the people who do with special kids for living, I made up my mind.
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.
China doesn't have the one child law because of a gender imbalance; the one child law has resulted in a gender imbalance.
DNA just wants to be free...
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...
Actually, it's also because of inherent flaws in the Y-chromosome. Males are also more likely to die of things like hemophilia and other such predominently male diseases.
And actually, in modern countries with modern medicine, enough boys die by age 15 to even things out and after that, there are more females, which makes most populations have a female majority. (The US is about 0.97 males to each female overall, with about 5% more males being born. Over the course of a life, that's an 8% deficit.)
Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.