Re: *quite angry heidipina*ayeristheunsaneJune 20 2008, 05:32:52 UTC
remember the rise in popularity of ugly little rat dogs after hollywwod bimbos got them? or the rise in retarded baby names after celebrities got creative?
right. apply that logic to designer babies. no thanks.
also, for everyone else, i'm aware that this is extrapolating a lot from the article, it just happens to be another bone of contention for me
hmmm the thing you might want to consider is that currently whats being argued is the right to choose to do this not 'Have' to, that the media some times make out. It cost an absolute fuck load to make an IVF baby and normally couples that are going threw it don't succeed the first time.
In situations were a child is created via IVF, they do a lot of testing to see if a child has a certain diseases or not, selecting a health embryo that has a chance of implanting its self into the womb. In some cases they are actually sex linked ones.
Now take this example. A couple deciding to have children find out that they have a chance of there child being born with a genetic disease. That genetic disease if actually a sex linked one, with the mutation being on the X chromosome. If they conceive naturally there is a chance that there child, a boy in this case, could be born with the genetic disease.
Is it wrong to deny the parents the opportunity to sex screen a potential child so that they can minimize harm to that child?
no, not at all, but sex-determination in relation to sex-linked disorders is not what is being talked about. For starters, its already completely legal.
What is being talked about is offereing the parents teh chance to 'gender balance' their family, or say 'I want a boy because my ideal family is 1 boy and 1 girl'. the same way that in china, an ideal family is a boy child. oh wait, do you see where this leads?
Comments 5
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
right. apply that logic to designer babies. no thanks.
also, for everyone else, i'm aware that this is extrapolating a lot from the article, it just happens to be another bone of contention for me
Reply
In situations were a child is created via IVF, they do a lot of testing to see if a child has a certain diseases or not, selecting a health embryo that has a chance of implanting its self into the womb. In some cases they are actually sex linked ones.
Now take this example. A couple deciding to have children find out that they have a chance of there child being born with a genetic disease. That genetic disease if actually a sex linked one, with the mutation being on the X chromosome. If they conceive naturally there is a chance that there child, a boy in this case, could be born with the genetic disease.
Is it wrong to deny the parents the opportunity to sex screen a potential child so that they can minimize harm to that child?
Reply
What is being talked about is offereing the parents teh chance to 'gender balance' their family, or say 'I want a boy because my ideal family is 1 boy and 1 girl'. the same way that in china, an ideal family is a boy child. oh wait, do you see where this leads?
Reply
http://www.bioethics.org.nz/publications/who-gets-born-jun08/html/index.html
Reply
Leave a comment