To say why not use IVF to choose the sex of a baby?

[Poppycattlepetal]

If people could save up for the IVF required, just don't see who else's business is it if they have a boy or a girl baby, really?

It seems U that we are not legally allowed to try for this in Britain. Clearly, we'd not all choose boys. See this mother of five sons in the Indy today: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ban-on-sex-selection-of-ivf-embryos-is-not-justified-says-ethicist-8683940.html

It is allowed in US to do this, and you don't hear of a population imbalance over there. Just what seems like an incannily high proportion of celebrities who have twins, one of each!

I do get the issues about things being very different in other countries where there can be a cultural pressure to have sons of course. And i'm only talking about methods used before pregnancy begins. And obviously this would have to be genuinely freely chosen. Just feel that as the majority in the UK doesn't share any particular preference, why not let the people who do really mind, have the choice?

emmeline, but if the only bit of their child they want to decide on is their reproductive organs, why do it?

Trills " I believe that having had the opportunity to choose the sex of the child will encourage them to believe that they were "right" in wat they wanted and that the child must therefore perform the role they have designated for them."

But it's just a belief. Sex selection is available in the US - we should look to see if there is evidence this actually happens before we ban people from doing it.

I would have no problem with a ban if there were evidence it caused harm to the children born or to the public at large. I have no problem with saying it shouldn't be available on the NHS. But I really baulk at the state making something illegal and taking away individual sovereignty without a good reason and especially on the basis of basically not trusting people to make their own decisions, even though there is no evidence the things people would decide to do would hurt others. I see this as an issue of autonomy.

Exactly Emme so all parents who want it will raise their dc in a sexist way but every other parent and parents of several of the same sex on a crusade to get both won't.

Going by that logic methinks an awful lot of other things hold be banned too eg almost all clothes aimed at young girls,pretty much the entire contents of most toy shops,nearly all comics etc,etc

The fact remains the vast majority couldn't afford it anyway.

No - unless there is an overriding reason, for example a devastating genetic condition affecting only one sex

Sexism is not the issue.

The issue is that parents would be doing it with the false impression that this medical procedure would enable them to determine the kind of child they might have.

Clearly parents do all sorts of misguided things already.

However, it is wrong for a doctor to support misguided beliefs.

There is no need to wait until some 30 year old in America sues their parents for psychological damage because they resented the fact that the girl they 'bought' preferred to go by the name of John. (Although as anything is possible in America, I suspect that somebody somewhere will do that...and probably John is a girl's name in America anyway...).

We can tell that it is nut jobbery now.

Merry that is ridiculous.Parents have wanted particular sexes since Stone Age.Wanting both doesn't mean you will rise your child in a sexist way any more than the vast maj of parents who hope for a particular sex every single day already.

On the surface I think why not, but then you look at certain religions and cultures- that's a whole can of worms

If you look at china, there's a massive lack of unmarried men, women with a husband and bil comes with the package.

I personally don't have a problem with it.

Plenty of people do various things to try and up their chances of a child of a particular gender - Shettles method for example - does that make them bad parents?

Many, many parents do have a preference - doesn't mean they reject their baby if it turns out to be the other. I had a preference for a girl, DH didn't mind. I was convinced I was having a boy and when they said girl at the scan I was almost momentarily disappointed I'd got so used to the idea of a boy.

My IL's have 4 boys - I know FIL would have loved a daughter... instead he's now got 7 grand-daughters and not a single grand-son. I know my MIL worries about saying the wrong things to her DILs (she never does - she's the MIL of one's dreams) and admits it would have been nice to have had a daughter although she adores all her sons.

The Ingender Forum, has many women who go there to deal with their gender disappointment in a safe space.

I have several friends who have struggled with coming to terms with their family only having children of a certain gender - they don't love their existing children any less, they just feel that they wouldn't have another if they couldn't guarantee the gender.

One friend lost her daughter very tragically at 39 weeks - she's since had 2 little boys, but openly admits that she would have loved another little girl. Not to 'replace' the child who died, but because she had certain dreams and hoped for a relationship like her own with her own mother.

Obviously children come with their own personalities and you can guarantee nothing. I was a total tomboy and have got a pink princess who likes all the toys that I would have hated as a child, but I rather enjoy indulging her!

Many parents hope for eventual grandchildren and their children decide not to have any - doesn't make it wrong for their parents to have that desire though.

merry you have no evidence for the claim that parents inclined towards sex selection would be more inclined to psychologically damage their child. You may be unable to imagine someone having a preference for their child's sex without them being wedded to an inflexible stereotype, but that really is your shortcoming. The thing about people is that though they frequently go with the crowd, they are diverse and adaptable.

Pyrrah

My heart goes out to your friend who lost her daughter as baby. Her reasons for wanting a daughter, whilst understandable, are about her and not the child. She wants a particular relationship but even if she had a daughter that relationship might not materialise.

My DM was seriously ill for part of my childhood and died when I was a teenager. I do wonder what it would be like to have a daughter (I have sons) and to have a settled mother/daughter relationship into adulthood because I have never experienced it. However, this is 100% my issue and I think it would be a heavy burden to place on a child to select them by sex to fill a gap in my own experience.

I think parents who want to select the sex of their child really to need to look very closely at what is driving this desire and if they are actually using the child to fill a void or fulfil dreams that belong to the parent.

Again it's not about sexism. It's about accepting the child that you have. What if your child has mental health issues? What if they have a disability?

It is one thing vaguely thinking you might like a boy or a girl because you attach certain traits to each sex but accepting that its out of your control. It is quite another thing thinking that you can choose your child's sex and have that control.

I agree that parents have preferred one sex or the other throughout history, and I could give you many, many practical explanations for this. There are even practical reasons for why you might want one sex over another in countries outside the UK.

These reasons do not apply in the UK in 2013.

Still nobody has been able to given a good reason for actively choosing the sex of their child, beyond avoiding genetic disorders.

You may be unable to imagine someone having a preference for their child's sex without them being wedded to an inflexible stereotype, but that really is your shortcoming.

No, it is because nobody has been able to give a reason that does't involve a stereotype.

doesn't

And nobody has given evidence that a couple raising a sex selected child would raise it any differently than a couple who wanted a particular sex and got it naturally( which happens every single second of every single day).

Bizarrely I wanted my IVF twins to be boys(having only had a sister) but woud have been overjoyed after 7 years of trying with whatever I got.
I fell pg naturally by mistake with dd and thought I'd love to see what a girl is like sooo again got exactly what I wanted if I could have chosen.If dd had been made with gender selected IVF she wouldn't have been raised any differently.

People get what they want day in and out.

We'd like to think boys wouldn't be the preferred choice but, I'm sorry, the cynic in me says they would be. I suppose we'll see statistics bearing this out in future years, should this become an option.

A form of Eugenics, surely?

Why is eugenics always wrong?

All I'm able to summon up from general knowledge is that Nazis were in favour, so that means we have to be against it.

Mussolini is claimed to have made trains run on time, by the same logic we should oppose railway punctuality.

Why is eugenics always wrong?

I should point out that there's no easy answer to this. A particular bad consequence that isn't preventable by regulation would not be a good enough reason to be against. You have to weigh up all the potential harms against all the potential goods, after assuming a particular regulatory environment.

Eugenics is an attempt to deliberately mold the genetic composition of populations, allowing parents to choose the sex for their baby doesn't do that.

Our attempts to relieve genetic conditions through IVF screening could be a form of eugenics if done on a wide scale, as the intent and effect would be to remove those particular genes from the gene pool.4

Eugenics is an attempt to deliberately mold the genetic composition of populations by removing "undesirable" traits, simply allowing parents to choose the sex of their baby doesn't do that.

Our attempts to relieve genetic conditions through IVF screening could be a form of eugenics if done on a wide scale, as the intent and effect would be to remove those particular genes from the gene pool.

Sorry for double post.

Its all very well to say we shouldn't allow it because its all about the wishes of the parents and not the children but that absolutely applies to having kids full stop. We have children because we want a child. We want that love, that bond, that experience. Having children is, 90% of the time, a selfish act.

Most of what Ive read on this thread is the same sort of arguments that were given against IVF when it was first introduced. They all sorted themselves out and did not cause an epidemic of children with severe disabilities as was often suggested would happen due to bypassing natural selection.

I have 2 girls and 2 boys so it doesn't affect me either way but I love the experience of having both boys and girls and even though all 4 are very different, it is a different experience parenting girls and boys.

I have 3boys- each one is a different parenting experience.

The only reason that anyone as given outside of gender stereotyping is the number of bedrooms- but that means 2 children of the same gender- apparently the 'ideal' is one of each.

I am still waiting for a list of - I want a girl because .......... Or I want a boy because..........

Yes, I'm not sure how reasonable it is to suggest that the family with 3 healthy happy sons who just happen to also want a daughter,
a)Love their sons any less because they are boys
Or
b)Will not treat any subsequent girl exactly the same as they treat their boys ie bringing them up in a loving home environment.