Choosing your child's sex

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I read an interesting article in the WSJ (link for those with subscriptions) about the rise in popularity of nonmedical sex selection of children. I knew it was possible, but I didn't know that it was actually legal in the U.S. Personally, I have no problem with it, but it appears that I am among the minority of WSJ readers (nothing new here). What's your opinion on the topic?

A few quotes from the article, for those without WSJ subscriptions:

About one out of five couples who come to HRC Fertility, a network of fertility clinics in Southern California, doesn’t need help getting pregnant.

Instead, they come for what is called family balancing, or nonmedical sex selection.

“They usually have one, two or three children of one gender” and want their next child to be of the other sex, said Daniel Potter, medical director of HRC Fertility, which includes nine clinics...

Nonmedical sex selection is a controversial practice legal in only a few countries, including the U.S. and Mexico. Medical organizations and fertility specialists are split on the issue. No agency tracks the numbers of procedures performed...

In June the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a professional organization of fertility experts, issued a position paper saying practitioners are under “no ethical obligation to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection.”

But the ethics committee of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents women’s health-care providers, reaffirmed last year a committee opinion opposing the practice of sex selection for personal and family reasons.

[I'm a red panda]

I'm opposed to the idea of abortion as sex selection (though, I think abortion should be legal, so if they find out the sex earlier enough to still have one, well, I don't know how you could stop it without making it illegal for doctors tell people the sex of the baby.)

But I think implanting an embryo that has been sex-selected, I don't really even see that as a gray area.  But I don't think an unimplanted embryo is, under any definition, a person.

[GuitarStv]

I'm pretty pro-choice . . . but the idea of picking the sex of your child to satisfy your vague 'gotta have a full set of kids' notions via abortion seems awfully repugnant to me.

[gaja]

Very few cultures select for girls, most cultures where such selection is done (legal or illegal), they want boys. And in some areas, this has caused a massive overflow of males. Not the best idea on a species and social level.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/indias-man-problem/?_r=0

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I'm pretty pro-choice . . . but the idea of picking the sex of your child to satisfy your vague 'gotta have a full set of kids' notions via abortion seems pretty repugnant to me.

I apologize if it wasn't clear from the few snippets from the article that I quoted, but it was about choosing to have IVF with an embryo that has been pre-selected to be the sex you want - not about getting pregnant and aborting the fetus if it isn't the proper sex.

[aetherie]

I mean, I wouldn't do it personally, but: if the parents care enough about having a <preferred sex> baby to pay a fertility clinic to make it happen, isn't it better for them to get a <preferred sex> baby than to potentially end up with a <non-preferred sex> baby who would be less wanted/loved? Kids pick up on that. So for the sake of the babies in question, I think it's best to say "go ahead and select the sex if it matters that much to you."

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Very few cultures select for girls, most cultures where such selection is done (legal or illegal), they want boys. And in some areas, this has caused a massive overflow of males. Not the best idea on a species and social level.

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/indias-man-problem/?_r=0

Crap, this is the problem with quoting an article behing a paywall. This was addressed in the article:

Some fertility clinics that offer the services say they get more requests for girls than boys, or the requests are about even.

I doubt you'll see a strong trend towards boys instead of girls in Western culture. The predominant theme seems to be, get one of each. It was actually funny: we had a girl first, then a boy. I can't tell you how many times people said something like "The perfect family!" or "Now you can quit trying!" or something similarly presumptive.

[GuitarStv]

I'm pretty pro-choice . . . but the idea of picking the sex of your child to satisfy your vague 'gotta have a full set of kids' notions via abortion seems pretty repugnant to me.

I apologize if it wasn't clear from the few snippets from the article that I quoted, but it was about choosing to have IVF with an embryo that has been pre-selected to be the sex you want - not about getting pregnant and aborting the fetus if it isn't the proper sex.

Oh.  Meh, I don't particularly care one way or the other about that.

What I was referring to is kinda going on among some populations in Toronto . . . and some hospitals are hesitant to tell parents the sex of a fetus before a particular age because of it.

[brooklynguy]

I don't know, the slippery slope to eugenics seems pretty troubling to me.  The point made in the article that it's currently less feasible to create "designer babies" because the genetics behind other traits are more complicated really ducks the question of whether this is ethical to begin with.  If it's okay to pre-select the sex of your child, is it okay to pre-select the height?  Hair color?  Jawline strength?  Intelligence level?  All of the above?

[GuitarStv]

Eugenics got a bad name because of the way it has been implemented in the past.  Farmers have used 'animal eugenics' for thousands of years, and have helped to shape better produce and livestock.  Selecting an embryo based on identifiable characteristics is quite a different idea than sterilizing 'undesirable' populations.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I'm with GS on this one. Directing evolution by extinguishing human lives deemed unworthy is a different can of worms than selecting desirable traits in an embryo, I think. I don't find it ethically offensive.

[Cassie]

I don't think there is anything wrong with choosing the sex since it does not involve abortion. I am not against abortion either but would be for that purpose but as stated they are not doing it.  If this had been available 35 years ago after having 3 boys you bet I would have used it provided we could have afforded it which is a pretty big "if." 

[brooklynguy]

Eugenics got a bad name because of the way it has been implemented in the past.  Farmers have used 'animal eugenics' for thousands of years, and have helped to shape better produce and livestock.  Selecting an embryo based on identifiable characteristics is quite a different idea than sterilizing 'undesirable' populations.

Yes, it is, and it is one that likewise carries with it serious ethical and practical implications that should be considered before we start using it to "shape better humans."  Among other considerations, is it wise to go down the road of creating a separate class of ubermensch (which, after all, is just as accomplishable through selection of desirable elements as it is through anti-selection of undesirable elements)?

[matchewed]

I think it's just fine to select the sperm w/ y or x in order to have the sex of a child pre-determined. I think the slippery slope arguments hold little to no weight given the fact that sex is determined by a whole chromosome and other characteristics are determined by various genes in various areas that interact with the environment. The leap between the two is just too big.

[brooklynguy]

I think it's just fine to select the sperm w/ y or x in order to have the sex of a child pre-determined. I think the slippery slope arguments hold little to no weight given the fact that sex is determined by a whole chromosome and other characteristics are determined by various genes in various areas that interact with the environment. The leap between the two is just too big.

That may be true as a matter of practical reality, but as an ethical/philosophical question, how or where do you draw the line between acceptability of pre-selecting sex and acceptability of pre-selecting other traits if and when the technology exists to do so?  Maybe the answer lies in the level of intervention required to achieve that outcome, as (I think) your post alluded to.  Or maybe the answer is there should be no drawing of a line, as GS and Mud seem to be saying.  But that answer makes me uncomfortable.

[matchewed]

I think it's just fine to select the sperm w/ y or x in order to have the sex of a child pre-determined. I think the slippery slope arguments hold little to no weight given the fact that sex is determined by a whole chromosome and other characteristics are determined by various genes in various areas that interact with the environment. The leap between the two is just too big.

That may be true as a matter of practical reality, but as an ethical/philosophical question, how or where do you draw the line between acceptability of pre-selecting sex and acceptability of pre-selecting other traits if and when the technology exists to do so?  Maybe the answer lies in the level of intervention required to achieve that outcome, as (I think) your post alluded to.  Or maybe the answer is there should be no drawing of a line, as GS and Mud seem to be saying.  But that answer makes me uncomfortable.

That is one line; the level of intervention. Another line can be that the selection of sex provides no inherent advantage, while selecting for other traits may be able to. There is also the other side of the ethics debate with that being able to address congenital or genetic issues before they even occur. It takes the same level of technology to do so, and I'd be hard pressed to see the argument against doing so just because the technology could be used for things you find morally icky. Frankly we have several instances of technology which do good but have a flip side to it and can be used for morally icky things.

[forummm]

I generally don't care. But I think this kind of thing will always lead towards more male children. And I think that having too much of a sex imbalance limits opportunity for mating for all the "extra" males and is dangerous for the society (in part due to unrest over mating opportunities). So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

[matchewed]

I generally don't care. But I think this kind of thing will always lead towards more male children. And I think that having too much of a sex imbalance limits opportunity for mating for all the "extra" males and is dangerous for the society (in part due to unrest over mating opportunities). So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think that's a rather large leap (to be clear the always leads to more male children).

[I'm a red panda]

So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think it will be a VERY long time where it is even remotely affordable to do pre-implantation sex selection, so I don't think 'most' is coming anytime soon.

[forummm]

I generally don't care. But I think this kind of thing will always lead towards more male children. And I think that having too much of a sex imbalance limits opportunity for mating for all the "extra" males and is dangerous for the society (in part due to unrest over mating opportunities). So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think that's a rather large leap (to be clear the always leads to more male children).

True, it's not like there's any evidence of that, like say a country that actually saw tens of millions of extra males born under a policy where you were encouraged to only have one child.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118439/chinas-one-child-policy-may-be-making-country-more-violent

Males are pretty consistently seen as "more valuable" or "less of a problem" around the world. No dowries or worrying about them getting pregnant, etc.

So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think it will be a VERY long time where it is even remotely affordable to do pre-implantation sex selection, so I don't think 'most' is coming anytime soon.

Agree. But also because of health risks--those are more "expensive" than where the costs could end up theoretically.

[rufflina]

I'm fine with it. For certain families that feel strongly, it would be much more economical to do gender selection instead of repeatedly trying for another baby.

[EricP]

I'm fine with it. For certain families that feel strongly, it would be much more economical to do gender selection instead of repeatedly trying for another baby.

I'd prefer them to just go with Option 3: adopting the missing sex.  A High School friend was the first of 3 boys and their 4th was an adopted Asian girl.  I'll probably do the same if I have 3 of one kind and decide I want the other kind.

Regarding whether boys will outnumber girls, I think the case in China is pretty strong evidence that boys would outnumber girls and the other side needs to present some evidence for one to make the claim that it would continue being a 50/50 distribution if sex selection was allowed.

[gReed Smith]

Regarding whether boys will outnumber girls, I think the case in China is pretty strong evidence that boys would outnumber girls and the other side needs to present some evidence for one to make the claim that it would continue being a 50/50 distribution if sex selection was allowed.

It's pretty good evidence that boys would outnumber girls in China.  I can't imagine a critical number of American families choosing a disproportionate number of boys vs girls.  I think it's more likely that people would select for girls after having only boys than vice versa. 

I fully support a policy of two girls for every boy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPL5OXSBNE

[matchewed]

I generally don't care. But I think this kind of thing will always lead towards more male children. And I think that having too much of a sex imbalance limits opportunity for mating for all the "extra" males and is dangerous for the society (in part due to unrest over mating opportunities). So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think that's a rather large leap (to be clear the always leads to more male children).

True, it's not like there's any evidence of that, like say a country that actually saw tens of millions of extra males born under a policy where you were encouraged to only have one child.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118439/chinas-one-child-policy-may-be-making-country-more-violent

Males are pretty consistently seen as "more valuable" or "less of a problem" around the world. No dowries or worrying about them getting pregnant, etc.

Well it's more complicated than that as the one child policy dictated that families could have more than one if they gave birth to girls. So if the initial child was a girl then the other was also a girl there were terrible things which happened. But the disparity is as much because the initial wave of 50/50 boys and girls then those who have girls have a more biased towards males selection.

So it wasn't so much of an initial "always leads to males" but more that most couples accepted their initial birth regardless of sex and the second child, for those who had girls, were selective towards boys.

Furthermore this is more of a result of an artificial restriction on what you can and cannot have for children rather than an opening up of the selection. So it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison to say that because China has a disparity in male/female ration due to a social policy the government adopted then if people are able to choose the sex of their child they will inevitably choose males.

[forummm]

I generally don't care. But I think this kind of thing will always lead towards more male children. And I think that having too much of a sex imbalance limits opportunity for mating for all the "extra" males and is dangerous for the society (in part due to unrest over mating opportunities). So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think that's a rather large leap (to be clear the always leads to more male children).

True, it's not like there's any evidence of that, like say a country that actually saw tens of millions of extra males born under a policy where you were encouraged to only have one child.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118439/chinas-one-child-policy-may-be-making-country-more-violent

Males are pretty consistently seen as "more valuable" or "less of a problem" around the world. No dowries or worrying about them getting pregnant, etc.

Well it's more complicated than that as the one child policy dictated that families could have more than one if they gave birth to girls. So if the initial child was a girl then the other was also a girl there were terrible things which happened. But the disparity is as much because the initial wave of 50/50 boys and girls then those who have girls have a more biased towards males selection.

So it wasn't so much of an initial "always leads to males" but more that most couples accepted their initial birth regardless of sex and the second child, for those who had girls, were selective towards boys.

Furthermore this is more of a result of an artificial restriction on what you can and cannot have for children rather than an opening up of the selection. So it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison to say that because China has a disparity in male/female ration due to a social policy the government adopted then if people are able to choose the sex of their child they will inevitably choose males.

Fair enough. Interesting take on that. Thanks for sharing.

[brooklynguy]

Another line can be that the selection of sex provides no inherent advantage, while selecting for other traits may be able to.

I may be able to get behind level of intervention as a distinguishing line, but I don't know about this one.  As I think more about this, the process of selecting which sperm to use to fertilize the egg (or, for that matter, choosing which particular egg to be fertilized, for whatever identifiable genotype it may possess) is arguably just a difference in degree (and not a difference in kind) from the artificial selection we already do when we choose a mate.  We've always been able to choose our own sexual partner, so why shouldn't we be able to choose the particular set of individual reproductive cells to be combined (with the aid of technology to identify the characteristics of those reproductive cells) in a microcosm of the macro-level selection we are already doing?  Importantly, in drawing the line this way, technology's role is only to identify the existing characteristics of the reproductive cells, but not to modify them.

Using "absence of inherent advantageousness" as a distinguishing line seems more problematic (and, in any event, selection of sex arguably fails that test in society as it exists today).  In practice, essentially every trait that would conceivably be selected for is arguably inherently advantageous, or else people wouldn't be selecting for it.

[forummm]

Another line can be that the selection of sex provides no inherent advantage, while selecting for other traits may be able to.

I may be able to get behind level of intervention as a distinguishing line, but I don't know about this one.  As I think more about this, the process of selecting which sperm to use to fertilize the egg (or, for that matter, choosing which particular egg to be fertilized, for whatever identifiable genotype it may possess) is arguably just a difference in degree (and not a difference in kind) from the artificial selection we already do when we choose a mate.  We've always been able to choose our own sexual partner, so why shouldn't we be able to choose the particular set of individual reproductive cells to be combined (with the aid of technology to identify the characteristics of those reproductive cells) in a microcosm of the macro-level selection we are already doing?  Importantly, in drawing the line this way, technology's role is only to identify the existing characteristics of the reproductive cells, but not to modify them.

Using "absence of inherent advantageousness" as a distinguishing line seems more problematic (and, in any event, selection of sex arguably fails that test in society as it exists today).  In practice, essentially every trait that would conceivably be selected for is arguably inherently advantageous, or else people wouldn't be selecting for it.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is commonly used today as part of IVF for people who have a high likelihood of certain heritable conditions. So we already have cross the boundary where we select certain embryos for implantation and discard the rest.

[brooklynguy]

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is commonly used today as part of IVF for people who have a high likelihood of certain heritable conditions. So we already have cross the boundary where we select certain embryos for implantation and discard the rest.

Right, so perhaps that can be viewed as an early-stage analog of the anti-selection-by-abortion process discussed earlier upthread, but we're not actively modifying genetic material or "flipping genetic switches" on or off to produce desired outcomes.

[forummm]

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is commonly used today as part of IVF for people who have a high likelihood of certain heritable conditions. So we already have cross the boundary where we select certain embryos for implantation and discard the rest.

Right, so perhaps that can be viewed as an early-stage analog of the anti-selection-by-abortion process discussed earlier upthread, but we're not actively modifying genetic material or "flipping genetic switches" on or off to produce desired outcomes.

Yeah. But I have no doubt we will get there. I think the biggest barrier is not ethics but the fact that we aren't very good at genetics yet.

[brooklynguy]

Yeah. But I have no doubt we will get there. I think the biggest barrier is not ethics but the fact that we aren't very good at genetics yet.

Yep, and that's exactly why the public debate on these issues should start now.  I think the responses in this thread demonstrate the slipperiness of the ethical slope. 

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

Here's the big issue I see: It sets the kid up for impossible expectations.

I have two boys. I wanted a girl so bad. I still want a girl. Everybody I know on Facebook that has two boys, also has a baby girl. (Seriously, like 5 different people.) But Mr. FP was a definite "no" on a third baby.

Why did I want a girl? I want to buy adorable dresses. I want to play with dolls with her. I want to go wedding dress shopping with her and be in the delivery room when her babies are born (as Grandma FP was present for the births of all her grandchildren--well, mine were CS but she was with us in labor and in recovery).

To what extent would this hypothetical girl have actually met my expectations? Maybe to a T, and maybe not at all. If someone paid ten or twenty grand or whatever it costs to create a child of the preferred sex, would they feel subconsciously entitled to have their expectations met? Would they make their disappointment felt in thousands of tiny, not-obvious ways?

[Cathy]

For interesting discussion on the broader topic, see the opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61, [2010] 3 SCR 457. This case concerned a challenge to a piece of federal legislation that would have prohibited most genetic engineering practices, including ones that were not possible yet. The actual grounds for the challenge were technical and not applicable outside of Canada, but the opinions still contain tons of discussion on the broader issues and how they should be handled. (There are three opinions. The first group of 4 judges held that the entire Act was valid. The second group of 4 judges held that the entire Act was unconstitutional. The ninth judge held that certain provisions were valid and others were not; that opinion was the tiebreaker and decided the case.)

[okits]

Here's the big issue I see: It sets the kid up for impossible expectations.

I have two boys. I wanted a girl so bad. I still want a girl. Everybody I know on Facebook that has two boys, also has a baby girl. (Seriously, like 5 different people.) But Mr. FP was a definite "no" on a third baby.

Why did I want a girl? I want to buy adorable dresses. I want to play with dolls with her. I want to go wedding dress shopping with her and be in the delivery room when her babies are born (as Grandma FP was present for the births of all her grandchildren--well, mine were CS but she was with us in labor and in recovery).

To what extent would this hypothetical girl have actually met my expectations? Maybe to a T, and maybe not at all. If someone paid ten or twenty grand or whatever it costs to create a child of the preferred sex, would they feel subconsciously entitled to have their expectations met? Would they make their disappointment felt in thousands of tiny, not-obvious ways?

Yup.

People fall all over the spectrum of conforming to society's gender expectations.  Each person is an individual.  Wanting a certain sex presupposes what your child will be like.  Aren't we enlightened enough to love and value our children as human beings with unique personalities and aspirations instead of hoping they'll fill sex-specific gender roles?  (I know the answer to that question is generally "no", and that makes me sad.)

Also, to pre-select means one sex is more desirable than the other (lots of cultures with son-preference, though I have heard that in North America girls are more heavily requested.) Don't boy/girl children have equal value and potential to be wonderful people? Are we short-changing one sex by saying the other has more utility and value in society, so let's pre-select for that?  (Let's imagine a stereotype of hoping for a daughter who will be less unruly, get some nice university degrees, and maintain a close relationship with her parents in adulthood.  Doesn't the hypothetical son deserve the same chance to experience the world, benefit from education, contribute to society, and be involved in his family?  If these are the parents' values why can't a child of either sex learn them?)

[sheepstache]

I generally don't care. But I think this kind of thing will always lead towards more male children. And I think that having too much of a sex imbalance limits opportunity for mating for all the "extra" males and is dangerous for the society (in part due to unrest over mating opportunities). So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think that's a rather large leap (to be clear the always leads to more male children).

True, it's not like there's any evidence of that, like say a country that actually saw tens of millions of extra males born under a policy where you were encouraged to only have one child.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118439/chinas-one-child-policy-may-be-making-country-more-violent

Males are pretty consistently seen as "more valuable" or "less of a problem" around the world. No dowries or worrying about them getting pregnant, etc.

Well it's more complicated than that as the one child policy dictated that families could have more than one if they gave birth to girls. So if the initial child was a girl then the other was also a girl there were terrible things which happened. But the disparity is as much because the initial wave of 50/50 boys and girls then those who have girls have a more biased towards males selection.

So it wasn't so much of an initial "always leads to males" but more that most couples accepted their initial birth regardless of sex and the second child, for those who had girls, were selective towards boys.

Sure, but a pattern you see is an older daughter and then a younger brother who's quite a number of years younger. Because the parents were aborting all of the younger sisters.

If some families have one son and other families have a daughter and a son, the population still isn't 50/50 (or 49/51 girls/boys which I think is what it is naturally).

[matchewed]

I generally don't care. But I think this kind of thing will always lead towards more male children. And I think that having too much of a sex imbalance limits opportunity for mating for all the "extra" males and is dangerous for the society (in part due to unrest over mating opportunities). So if we moved to where most people were doing pre-implantation sex selection, it could be a problem.

I think that's a rather large leap (to be clear the always leads to more male children).

True, it's not like there's any evidence of that, like say a country that actually saw tens of millions of extra males born under a policy where you were encouraged to only have one child.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118439/chinas-one-child-policy-may-be-making-country-more-violent

Males are pretty consistently seen as "more valuable" or "less of a problem" around the world. No dowries or worrying about them getting pregnant, etc.

Well it's more complicated than that as the one child policy dictated that families could have more than one if they gave birth to girls. So if the initial child was a girl then the other was also a girl there were terrible things which happened. But the disparity is as much because the initial wave of 50/50 boys and girls then those who have girls have a more biased towards males selection.

So it wasn't so much of an initial "always leads to males" but more that most couples accepted their initial birth regardless of sex and the second child, for those who had girls, were selective towards boys.

Sure, but a pattern you see is an older daughter and then a younger brother who's quite a number of years younger. Because the parents were aborting all of the younger sisters.

If some families have one son and other families have a daughter and a son, the population still isn't 50/50 (or 49/51 girls/boys which I think is what it is naturally).

Totally agree. But the point was that a social program combined with people's natural tendency to want 50/50 for themselves is what generated it. Not that people naturally have a bias for male children.

[sheepstache]

Well it's more complicated than that as the one child policy dictated that families could have more than one if they gave birth to girls. So if the initial child was a girl then the other was also a girl there were terrible things which happened. But the disparity is as much because the initial wave of 50/50 boys and girls then those who have girls have a more biased towards males selection.

So it wasn't so much of an initial "always leads to males" but more that most couples accepted their initial birth regardless of sex and the second child, for those who had girls, were selective towards boys.

Sure, but a pattern you see is an older daughter and then a younger brother who's quite a number of years younger. Because the parents were aborting all of the younger sisters.

If some families have one son and other families have a daughter and a son, the population still isn't 50/50 (or 49/51 girls/boys which I think is what it is naturally).

Totally agree. But the point was that a social program combined with people's natural tendency to want 50/50 for themselves is what generated it. Not that people naturally have a bias for male children.

Oh I see what you were saying now.

My knowledge of the history isn't great, but I thought that part of the policy was added once it was realized how much people were selecting for male children. And among families that aren't limited by the policy or just pay the fines, an inclination to have a girl doesn't appear until they've had two boys if it does at all. (Just a random wikipedia citation on that one although my intuition about the whole situation comes from Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl.)

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is commonly used today as part of IVF for people who have a high likelihood of certain heritable conditions. So we already have cross the boundary where we select certain embryos for implantation and discard the rest.

Right, so perhaps that can be viewed as an early-stage analog of the anti-selection-by-abortion process discussed earlier upthread, but we're not actively modifying genetic material or "flipping genetic switches" on or off to produce desired outcomes.

Yeah. But I have no doubt we will get there. I think the biggest barrier is not ethics but the fact that we aren't very good at genetics yet.

Yep, and that's exactly why the public debate on these issues should start now.  I think the responses in this thread demonstrate the slipperiness of the ethical slope. 

My opinion is that - if we're going to accept that it's okay to do genetic testing on embryos to prevent children from being born with heritable medical conditions, then we're already meddling with nature. And it's been possible identify and abort fetuses with certain deformities and birth defects for a long time, which seems inherently more offensive, yet nobody except the rightwing right-to-lifers seem to have issues with that (and I've always found it curious how few of these people go around adopting children with severe birth defects). Where then, do you draw the line between a condition that's serious enough to abort - or, better yet, prevent altogether with pre-implantation genetic testing - and a condition that someone should just deal with? If we have the ability to prevent severe mental retardation through genetic testing, is that really so different from using that ability to have children born with exceptional intelligence instead of just normal intelligence?

[justajane]

I doubt you'll see a strong trend towards boys instead of girls in Western culture. The predominant theme seems to be, get one of each. It was actually funny: we had a girl first, then a boy. I can't tell you how many times people said something like "The perfect family!" or "Now you can quit trying!" or something similarly presumptive.

I said that to someone once and really didn't mean to offend. What I exactly said was, "Oh, you can stop at two if that's what you want." Or something like that. I can't remember. Later I thought about it and hoped I didn't offend. But this is coming from someone who has three boys. I don't think it's out of bounds to imagine that many families want at least one of each. Raising boys and girls is likely a very different experience, and it wouldn't surprise me if people wanted to experience both.

Having said that, many, many people said to me, when they found out that I was pregnant with my third, "Trying for a girl, huh?" I emphatically was not trying for a girl, since I just assumed I would have a third boy. I was actually kind of relieved when I found out it was a boy. Not at all disappointed. In a small house, it makes sharing rooms much easier. Plus the clothes, and the thought of having dolls on top of the all the other toys we have in our house? Egad!

So maybe the rule of thumb is that we shouldn't comment on these things at all.

[justajane]

I wouldn't say this in "real life", but I'll say it here. I am not a "right wing pro-lifer;" yet I struggle with aborting a fetus that has Down Syndrome. Maybe it's because I grew up with a girl with Down's and see how much joy they can bring to a family's life. I just think it's sad. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, but would I silently judge a couple if I knew they did it? Probably. I'm not saying this is right or not something I should work on being less judgey about. But it's my gut reaction.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

To be fair, I wasn't offended, I just found it amusing. I can see how someone more sensitive might take offense, though. My wife and I decided to have three, and we probably would have had three regardless of the configuration of their sex chromosomes.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I wouldn't say this in "real life", but I'll say it here. I am not a "right wing pro-lifer;" yet I struggle with aborting a fetus that has Down Syndrome. Maybe it's because I grew up with a girl with Down's and see how much joy they can bring to a family's life. I just think it's sad. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, but would I silently judge a couple if I knew they did it? Probably. I'm not saying this is right or not something I should work on being less judgey about. But it's my gut reaction.

I absolutely understand how you feel. I have a good friend whose second child has Down's Syndrome. His wife cried for months during the pregnancy when they found out. I think he's 3 years old now, and the joy that he's brought to their lives has been incredible.

My own son has a neural tube defect. 80% of babies with his defect are aborted. My wife and I chose to carry him, and we never even considered the alternative. But I absolutely wouldn't judge a soul who chose that alternative. The first year of my son's life was a living hell. He was like a limp rag, he cried constantly, he barely slept, and we were in the hospital as often as we were out of it. He hated me. Cried like a crazy person whenever I came home from work. Wouldn't let anyone besides my wife hold him. Whenever she left the room, he wouldn't stop crying. And I'm not going to lie - I hated him. And I hated that it happened to me, to my wife, to my son, to my family. I hated that I was spending tens of thousands of dollars on medical care for a creature that I didn't even like. I wouldn't wish a year like that on my worst enemy.

But then a funny thing happened - he started to grow up. He warmed up to me, to the point where he literally shook with excitement when I came home from work. He loves to be held. He is so much more cuddly than my busybody daughter. He is so sweet. When someone is upset, he gets upset right along with them. He wants to kiss all of your boo-boos. He loves to hold baby dolls. He loves to point at my wife's pregnant belly and say "bae-bae" with a huge grin on his face. He loves his grandparents and his big sister. He is a completely different kid than he was the first year of his life, and I can't imagine life without him.

But...When my wife and I were trying for our 3rd (and last) kid, we both agreed that if it had the same defect as our son, we would not carry the pregnancy. His first year nearly broke us, and we simply weren't prepared to go through it again. And besides that, I know what difficulties my son will face: He will never walk. He will always have to be cathed to empty his bladder (we do it 4 times/day). He will always need intervention to keep from getting constipated. He will probably always have learning disabilities, but we have no clue how severe at this point. I hope he'll be able to live independently one day, but I don't know that he will. My wife is far enough along that we know that our last child will not have the same birth defect, so we are thankful that we didn't have to make that decision. But living through it has certainly given us sympathy for those who do.

[totoro]

Opposed to gender-based abortions strongly.  Strongly in favour of sex selection for embryo implantation.  Looked into PDG extensively.  Would have done it had we had another child.

[boarder42]

how does everyone here think this is about gender based abortions..

this is about IVF being used to choose the sex of your kid.  i dont know if i would ever do it (doesnt that cost 20k or something along those lines)  also it feels a little wrong to me to do this.  But if people want to do it i see no issue with it.

[brooklynguy]

My opinion is that - if we're going to accept that it's okay to do genetic testing on embryos to prevent children from being born with heritable medical conditions, then we're already meddling with nature.

Yeah.  I definitely agree that a given conduct's status as "meddling with nature" or "playing God" should be not viewed as a barrier to engaging in it -- we're also "meddling with nature" when we administer antibiotics or polio vaccines or build brick shelters or artificial climate control systems.

Where then, do you draw the line between a condition that's serious enough to abort - or, better yet, prevent altogether with pre-implantation genetic testing - and a condition that someone should just deal with? If we have the ability to prevent severe mental retardation through genetic testing, is that really so different from using that ability to have children born with exceptional intelligence instead of just normal intelligence?

I don't see any principled method of drawing that line, and that's exactly why this issue troubled me so much.  If it's ethical to pre-select the sex of your child, then must it not also be ethical to pre-select any and all other genetically determined characteristics?  Would everyone be just as comfortable with the idea of a parent selecting to have a child with the genetic predisposition to have blue eyes, blonde hair, high cheekbones, tall stature, athletic ability and exceptional intelligence?  If it were possible to do so merely by identifying the particular sperm and egg that would combine to produce that result, I might not have a problem with it (but I haven't really made up my mind).  As I said above, it can be viewed simply as a micro-level extension of the macro-level selection process we've always engaged in when we select the pool of genetic material to be used in creating our offspring based on the phenotype of our sexual partners.

Selecting among pre-implanted embryos and post-implanted embryos for desired genotypes, which in either case involves discarding embryos possessing undesired genotypes, is a different category, and arguably the two cases are in different categories from each other (if you believe the implantation of the embryo makes a meaningful difference).

I'm not really sure how I feel about any of this, but I think the potential ethical issues are serious enough to warrant public debate, especially before we reach the next step of actively modifying human genes to produce desired outcomes.

[totoro]

There are loads of surplus frozen embryos in the US.  Hundreds of thousands.  Not so many in Canada. 

What happens to the unused ones?  There are some donation programs - donating to other parents or for medical research.  There is a national database for this.  You can also keep paying for storage fees for freezing, but a lot of embryos are just thawed/disposed of.

I have no problem with sex selection of embryos or screening for genetic issues.  I haven't really thought about it because it is not currently a reality, but screening for other physical characteristics is probably going to happen in the near future in the US.   Many countries do not permit screening for sex selection and are unlikely, imo, to permit it for non-medical reasons within my lifetime.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I'm not really sure how I feel about any of this, but I think the potential ethical issues are serious enough to warrant public debate, especially before we reach the next step of actively modifying human genes to produce desired outcomes.

Oh, I agree that it warrants public debate, and that reasonable minds could come to opposite conclusions. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em, and I don't personally have a problem with it.