Parents push for unnatural selection

The Daily Telegraph ^ | March 13, 2010 | Grant McArthur and Elissa Doherty

[myknowledge]

AUSTRALIAN couples may soon be able to choose the gender of their children for purely cultural reasons or just to balance their family.

Australia's health watchdog is about to begin reviewing its ban on gender selection technology, with many fertility doctors lobbying for the controversial practice to become widely available.

Professor Gab Kovacs - an IVF pioneer - is leading the charge, arguing that, at a cost of between $10,000 and $15,000, only the extremely determined would go for gender selection.

"If I am prepared to pay for it out of my own pocket I can't understand why that should be forbidden," he said.

[myknowledge]

Welcome to the Frankenstein world of IVF technology: Sex selection.

Countries with cultures with preference for sons such as China and India would like the technology, but at the detriment of the gender ratio and Mother Nature.

Mother Nature would not be kind to a lopsided male-female ratio population.

This must be an abomination upon God''s original creation.

[mrsmel]

I’m looking forward with interest to the day that the scientists claim they’ve found a “gay gene”, and all those who support baby-killing and support perversion, find themselves in a conundrum when prospective parents choose to kill the baby on the grounds of it having that “gay gene”. Which will triumph in the catalog of liberal causes-baby murder or perversion?

[Pontiac]

This must be an abomination upon God''s original creation.

I have fewer moral issues with IVF sex selection than how it is most often practiced now.

The present method much more grizzly and it is much cheaper to have a ultra-sound tech determine the sex of a baby and then abort the pregnancy if the baby is not the desired sex.

If we can avoid aborting babies by allowing IVF sex selection I am for it.

[GrannyAnn]

I think people in Western countries will choose to have one of each, a boy and a girl. That being said, I’m against this 100%. It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

[LearsFool]

...may soon be able to choose the gender of their children

Now hold on just a second...

I thought the reason we had to use "gender" instead of "sex" was because male and female are "merely social constructs" rather than hard-wired biological differences, right?

But if they're merely social constructs, then why wouldn't parents already be able to "choose the gender of their children"? And why would medical science be involved in something that has no basis in biology at all?

If these parents-to-be want "to choose the gender of their children", and if (as the genderites claim) "gender" is all in our heads, they ought to be consulting psychiatrists, not medical doctors.

[agere_contra]

IVF involves hyper ovulation and creation of multiple embryos. The unwanted ones (all but one or two) are culled in-utero.

IVF is like a machine for creating children only to abort them. It’s extremely grisly.