IVF -- Should sex selection be allowed?

[AngryAmish]

If there was a test for homosexuality should it be a crime not to select a "gay" embryo and have it destroyerd? Are there any permissible limits on test of embryos?

[whistle]

1. This sounds like the eugenics laws of the Nazi Third Reich

<snip>


III. ATTEMPTS TO BREED A BIOLOGICAL ELITE
A. LEBENSBORN

The most sensational accusation made against the Third Reich in this category is that it attempted a sort of positive eugenics program by the establishment of a "stud farm" institution known as Lebensborn (Spring of Life), where selected unmarried women of Nordic phenotype were supposedly mated with SS men, and the illegitimate offspring of these unions raised by the institution. Whether such an endeavor could ever legitimately be called a type of positive eugenics or not is irrelevant, since Lebensborn was nothing of the kind. To quote John Toland, the respected author of the most comprehensive biography of Hitler in the English language:


. . . To promote (his) racial policy (Himmler) established Lebensborn (Spring of Life), an SS maternity organization whose main function was to assist racially sound unwed mothers and their children. Thousands of children in the occupied territories were kidnapped and raised in special SS installations . . . Lurid postwar accounts describe Lebensborn as "stud farms" where SS men and suitable young women were mated to breed a master race. While Himmler's program did nothing to discourage illegitimacy, there is no evidence that he sponsored illicit sexual liaisons nor is there any proof that the kidnapping of children was done on a large scale. The fact that there were only 700 employees in n1 the Lebensborn homes casts doubts on such claims (Toland 1977: 1046n).
Eleuel (1974: 217,221) also exposes the "stud farm" myth:


Fantastic rumors surrounded the Lebensborn or "Fount of Life" association, not only during the Third Reich but even more so after its downfall. SS brothel or stud-farm, or a cross between the two--such were the sensational constructions placed upon it by each according to his particular flight of fancy. The truth . . . was far simpler and less lurid. Lebensborn was in fact a rather bourgeois institution founded in conformity with a conservative sexual code, serving to keep up an appearance of middle-class respectability and run in accordance with an almost monastic set of regulations.
. . . (M)en were strictly forbidden to visit the home except on special occasions. Male guests might then be invited to sip a cup of coffee, but any more intimate form of hospitality was taboo. The Lebensborn motto - "Every mother of good blood is our sacred trust" was puritanically followed to the <more>

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/3rdreich.html

[Xithras]

2. I personally don't have a problem with it.

It all goes back to the basic concept of "pro-choice". A woman has the right to determine what happens to her body. If she only wants straight males growing in her womb, it's her right...no matter how personally offensive the concept may be to you or I.

What we're really talking about here is the next stage in human evolution. As IVF becomes cheaper and tests become better, it's bound to become more common. You can take your chances and do it the old fashioned way, or go IVF and select the most intelligent, defect free child you are capable of conceiving. Generally, this will be a plus. Humanity will gradually become more intelligent and many diseases will vanish, but it does have some side-effects...like sex or orientation selection.

I don't think sex selection is much of an issue anyway, because opinions on the sexes are varied and the population will still remain generally equalized. Most modern American's define the perfect family as a generally even split between the sexes. The sexual orientation issue is a bit thornier, but I always fall back to the rights of the mother. That trumps all.

[AngryAmish]

4. Maybe in this country

but it is a real problem in India and China (or parts thereof).

[Xithras]

9. It does get sticky when combined with a one child policy.

The problem with those societies is largely nonexistant in the US. In those societies, parents are dependent on their children for care once they become too old to work themselves. Since women in those societies rarely make any substantial income, there is a lot of pressure to bear male children who will make enough money to support them. It's an even stickier issue in China where only a single child is permitted...they have to bear a "supporting heir" the first time around, or face a very questionable elderly life.

[TheWraith]

3. I'd find sex selection to be a little bit creepy...

Way too close to the way that some people insist on having a "perfect" child as an outcropping of their own self-centeredness. Screening for diseases, genetic conditions, etcetera would be fine, but when you start designing your kids, that's really rather unethical.

[Deja Q]

10. Since when is humanity ethical?

[JAYJDF]

5. I think that starts messing with the much bigger picture that we

understand so little about. There's a reason for the way unscripted things happen in life. The more we try to fk with it, the more we'll fk ourselves in the long run. Let's see... hmmm, like global warming.

[mcscajun]

6. For couples carrying known genetic defects, yes.

When a couple has been tested and knows they are carriers of a genetic defect that would result in serious or life-threatening disorders (not something as simple as color blindess) to a child of one gender over another, that would be an ethically acceptable use for sex selection, IMO. Few genetic disorders fit that criteria; most are equally damaging to male or female children.

[AngryAmish]

8. What about albinos?

on edit: I misread your post. Albinism runs in both sexes.

[LiberalFighter]

7. So bush & religious nuts would allow destruction or testing of gay embryos

[Bluebear]

11. Well, being gay has nothing to do with sex selection.

Gender and sexuality are not intertwined so it's kind of a false question.