Posted on 03/12/2010 7:06:55 PM PST by myknowledge
Couples in Australia having fertility treatment could soon be able to choose their babies' sex.
Sex selection is only allowed in Australia when there is a risk that parents will pass on genetic diseases.
The five-year moratorium on the practice expires this year and the National Health and Medical Research Council is reviewing whether to continue the general ban.
But the Government is yet to be convinced it is the right move.
Dr Sandra Hacker, chair of the council's Australian Health Ethics Committee, says the review will consider all sides of the controversial and emotive issue.
She says previous consultations have found the majority of Australians are opposed to the practice being widely available.
"There is considerable interest from the general public about this," she said.
"But on the other hand, the idea that gender selection should be available for reasons other than genetic abnormalities seems to be one has a general disaffection within the general population."
Professor Gab Kovacs, the international medical director of Monash IVF, says if parents are willing to pay up to $15,000 for the technique, then they should be allowed.
"There are a small number of couples who are so determined they want a child of a particular sex, they're prepared to go for the cost and the difficulty of IVF to get pregnant, rather than just do it naturally," he said.
"I can't see any reason why it should be forbidden. I've seen a number of couples who have maybe three or four children of one particular sex and they're very keen on family balancing. That's the type of couple that most often ask about sex selection."
Professor Kovacs says some parents already travel to countries like the United States and Thailand to choose the sex of their children.
He says it is ridiculous the practice is not available here in Australia.
"If a couple are determined enough to want to go through IVF rather than natural pregnancy to have a child of one particular sex, then it's possible that if they have a child of the opposite sex, that child may not be as appreciated and well looked after, as if they were able to choose the sex they wanted," he said.
"So in fact it may have been in the best interests of the child to allow this to happen."
Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon says the Government has no plans to overturn the ban.
"I'm happy to see any review of the science and the arguments that people might want to make for and against the case," she said,
"But I need to flag that the governments had not set down the path because we want to make any changes, and at a personal level I'm very uncomfortable about the suggestions that a change might be made."
Welcome to the Frankenstein world of IVF: Sex selection technology.
It's so unkind to fool with God's original creation for man's selfish desires. Look at China and India, along with countries whose cultures espouse a preference for sons.
They would lust after sex selection technology. It is tantamount to gendercide.
Actually, poor families could have one girl, raise her, and marry her into a rich family for big bucks. The market would then equalize things until there were more girl babies.
Isn’t this effectively the same thing China does with it’s aborting of females...leaving a society that’s lopsided with males?
I think in a Westernized society you are more likely to see 1 of each, rather than a tilting towards all males.
I know a lot of families who keep trying until they have the other sex. 3 girls, then a boy. 4 boys then a girl. etc.
While I may not love the idea, not allowing sperm into a female is far different than abortion.
Yes. And I believe this is happening in India as well.
“then it’s possible that if they have a child of the opposite sex, that child may not be as appreciated and well looked after, as if they were able to choose the sex they wanted,”
If that statement is true then the people have no business being parents at all.
I totally agree.
"... I've seen a number of couples who have maybe three or four children of one particular sex and they're very keen on family balancing. That's the type of couple that most often ask about sex selection."
I had an uncle who fit that description. He really wanted a son. He got four daughters (or was it five?) before he got his son. But believe me he loved every one of those girls almost to a fault. Yeah, it was five I just can't remember one of their names.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Just because science can do something, doesn't mean it should do something. Technology is not God, nor a substitute for God. Morality must guide science.
The problem is that nature arranges to have a pretty even distribution of males and females. Messing that that natural balance always causes harm. That’s one of the effects on society.
There are effects on parents - seeing children as commodities, to “fit” my desires - wants - plans. Children don’t “belong” to parents, parents are protectors and caretakers, but not owners. God owns everyone. To have the mentality that “I can pick and choose what kind of child I want - male or female, or maybe brown eyed or blue eyed, whichever I like” engenders an ownership mentality towards children - as though they are merely objects to possess.
It’s like going to a store and picking out products or goods that suit my fancy. It’s seeing the child as an object, not as a soul who belongs to God, who is really loaned to me, to take care of and love.
So parents “choose” a boy or girl. Suppose the child has some defect, some chronic ailment, or is ill-behaved. The parents will likely have thoughts cross their minds - “We shouldn’t have picked this one! We should have chosen the other one!” etc.
Just because science CAN do something, doesn’t mean that it SHOULD be done. Some technological advancements are wrong and harmful. Just because the mind of man comes up with something, doesn’t mean it is inevitable and should be executed.
Right and wrong are more important than technological advancment. Science should serve right and wrong; right and wrong should not bend to suit science.
Isn’t it “nice” they can travel HERE for sex selection ....
IVF is all around bad. Every way. It is a perfect example of science that should not have been used. Science can do all kinds of heretofore unimagined things. Many of them are evil or have evil effects. IVF is one of these, for many, many reasons.
A marginally high male-female ratio (e.g. 110:100) would not be a problem. It is an advantage for every male-majority industry e.g. technology, engineering, and especially military (more troops on hand).
A marginally low male-female ratio (e.g. 90) would also not be a problem. It is an advantage for every female-majority industry e.g. fashion, banking, hospitality and business services, although with a small military disadvantage (fewer male troops on hand).
Before World War II, the United States, like many Western countries used to enjoy male-majority populations.
Now it's a slight female majority. Could synthetic chemicals e.g. PCB, be making this contribution?
Which demography would you prefer? A female majority e.g Russia, a male majority e.g. China and India? Or the status quo?
I prefer a natural God-made ratio. Human intervention in natural laws created by God have invariably bad results.
If there is now in the US a female majority due to chemicals, and I have read various things about the effects of certains chemicals on embryos, this is human malfeasance and is bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.