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?

I also pointed out that having DCs of the same sex would be easier from a schooling perspective. and would likely be easier from an activities perspective.

I can't really see how, in a gendered society, it could fail to be different to parent boys and girls. I can see how others' expectations of my daughters because they are girls impact my experience of parenting.

I have had 2 thoughts
Isnt it remarkable that by "nature" each and every country has more or less equal numbers of boys and girls.

The other thought. Do people in this country currently have abortions if it is not the sex they want? [aside from medical reasons]

Emmeline, my DDs are as far apart nature wise as you could imagine. DD1 is academically gifted and will probably never be content in life as she is crazily competitive at everything she does from school work to sports to board games. DD2 on the other hand is academically average or maybe slightly above this year. but she is the most content, happy, chilled out child I know. She is also very girly whereas DD1 most certainly is not. DS1 and DD2 are far more alike in nature. So as far as my girls go, neither their academic needs nor their leisure activities are remotely similar despite them being the closest in age of the 4.

It isn't easier from activities if you have 3 boys who like entirely different things. It really doesn't follow 'he is a boy so he will like the same as his brother'. Most schools are mixed- if they are not it can be a huge advantage- it is terribly difficult if a child is a enrage and following a very talented sibling- much better to be in different schools.

Sorry - child is average following a talented sibling.

Oh I haven't sent them to different schools as im hoping the same school can cater for their differing needs. DS1 is also at the school and he sort of sits between the girls academically and tbh, DD2 never shows any sign of being in her sister's shadow as she seems inherently happy to be her. I think it's a fantastic trait and will serve her well in life.

I was just commenting that having two of the same sex close in age is not always going to be an easier path.

yamsareyammy the gender is given at the 20 week scan in this country.The cut off for abortion for "social" reasons is 24weeks.2 doctors need to sign a form for any termination to proceed.
I don't think there are many who would be comfortable doing this after 20 weeks just for gender.
I don't have any facts but my guess is no,very few terminations are done for gender alone in this country.

Most schools might be mixed, but the ones near me aren't. And there is no real school choice in my area, you basically get into your nearest or you're out of area, which might also be single sex and would in any case be inconvenient. You might think it generally an advantage not to go to the same school, but I do not.

I know interests aren't guaranteed, and later on I would think different interests would be better. But I am hoping they can be persuaded to try out similar things until they can make there own way places, otherwise their activities are going to be limited. Since they live in a gendered society, with a sadly limiting impact on what activities they are likely to want, they are more likely to be happy with sharing interests if they are the same sex. I'm keen on Guides because they take a firm stand on providing a counter to a lot of the sexist messages girls constantly get about their looks, but if I had a boy that wouldn't really work as a shared activity. If we could change society to be less gendered, the sex of a child would not impact this sort of aspect of family life.

Well on Sat mornings, DD2 does ballet whilst DD1 plays hockey. DS1 has piano and DS2 just needs to be carted around to all this. DD1 boaked at the idea of ballet whereas DD2 couldn't wait. They both started rainbows. DD1 also hated that as apparently it is very indoorsy with lots of craft stuff going on. She changed to beavers and loved it but didn't want to continue onto cubs as peer pressure started to come into play. DD2 loves Rainbows as it's right up her street. And you're right, they do challenge stereotypes but I also found that they do tend to concentrate on what many/most 5&6yr old girls want, which is girly stuff.

DS2 has SN so we'll be entering a whole new ball games when it comes to educating him!

Emmeline I guess, if you're in the UK, you're talking about secondary schools? Mine are all still at primary. I think DS1 (who hated beavers) may have far preferred rainbows but of course, he knew it would be social suicide. It's a shame that society dictates such things.

Rainbows don't take boys so he wouldn't have the option.

Choice of school depends on the child- the best for one is not necessarily the best for another- they may even be prevented from going to the same one if it is selective.

How do rainbows justify not accepting boys then? Dd1 had no problem joining beavers. They already had another girl there and they welcomed her.

We are looking at a selective but not super selective independent secondary for ours. I do have the option to put dd1 forward for the entrance exam at the super highly selective girls school but I won't be going down that road. I feel it would be too narrow and academic and I can just see them and her suggesting 6 a levels or something equally as ludicrous. I know she's super bright but I won't an environment that will stretch her in other directions. I'm not interested in paying for results in that sense.
I'm also not sure how you logistically get all your kids to different schools. Ds2 looks like he'll need something different.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent.

I think the reason isn't about stereotyped ideas on gender. It's the fat that we would be allowing selection of embryos for reasons that have nothing to do with the health of the incoming baby.
So IVF for infertile couple - fine.
Chromosome selection for health screening - fine
but chromosome selection for non life threatening issues - NG.

This is an ethical dilemma. Is it OK to let people go through IVF and select the sex when they could have had a baby 'normally? IVF babies have more health problems, there is a also a higher rate of abnormalities etc etc. Is that Ok to 'create' a baby with a higher risk of health issues?
What would be a good enough reason to take that risk?

I know some people, actually all are women, who carried on until they had a girl after a string of girls. And other that decided to stop at 2 because 'they had one of each' but would have had 3 otherwise (in an attempt to have a boy/girl). I do get that this can be a real issue for some people. But surely, supporting the parents instead of creating a baby as they would like him/her to be isn't the solution?

exotic the vast majority of parents in this country use the state system which in reality, barring exceptional circumstances, can give little real choice in regard to which school a chld attends. I might well think one state school suits one daughter better than the other, but I won't have any effective means of ensuring they got into the 'best' school for them. And that would presuppose I thought the advantages of being at their individual 'best' school was greater than the advantages of them being at the same school.

All of which nicely illustrates how parents should be allowed to make their own choices because they are the ones that know their own circumstances best.

Mary like adult clubs, children's clubs are allowed to serve just boys or just girls. They don't have to justify. Scouting became co-ed in order to boost falling numbersand so improve the Scouting experience for all. Girl Guides did not think that move would serve their members well and position themselves as providing a safe space for girls to gain the sorts of leadership experience and the like their research shows girls are often crowded out of in co-ed spaces.

So resting if it's all about health, are we not to allow parents to choose anything that is not in keeping with statistics on healthy babies? Should elective c-sections be crimminal? Should formula become perscription only?

That is simply not true! In our area you had to have your DC down shortly after birth to get a place in Beavers and the cubs, scouts etc were full. They were pressurised to take girls because many girls wanted to join, thinking it more exciting. Guides didn't take them because many cultures would not want their girls in an organisation that took boys. Boys wouldn't want to join anyway.

I take the point about schools but the majority of state secondary schools are mixed.

Can we quit the anti IVF scaremongering. IVF babies do not have more health problems,what rot.

Think there was a study that found an increase in 0.1. % of multiple births.That is almost negligible.New techniques are reducing multiple births.

Actually, I found that beavers 'crowded out' my ds1. He didn't seem to fit because it was full of sports loving, physical, testosterone fuelled boys who wanted to run wild. Dd1 fitted right in to that environment but not ds1.

And it's a shame if Guides feel that they offer a safe place by only allowing girls at rainbows and then fail to offer anything but sedate activities which ironically would have suited my son.

All depends in the leaders MaryKatherine- not so in ours at all, we were very good at special needs, didn't do sports that they did elsewhere and they most certainly didn't run wild! Every beaver group is different.

Yes, luck of the draw I suppose! Much like the children you get!

MaryKatherine, you said "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."

I don't think it is an issue about the wishes of the child or the wishes of the adult it is what is is of benefit to the child. If you choose to create one child over another because of sex selection it cannot possibly be in the best interest of the child you do not create - although conversly it is in the best interests of the child created! Since each child is completely unique.

The article I linked to before www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/03/sex-selection-babies contains the phrase...

"But the Gunns got a third boy.

They are, of course, thrilled. But, Susan says, "I got sick of walking down the high street past BabyGap and seeing these delightful little girl outfits in the window and just getting this pang."

I do wonder how much people are imagening what they think a boy or girl will be like, a girl in floaty dresses, a boy good at sports etc. It isn't always like that. I really don't blame people for wanting a baby or wanting a baby who is a boy or a girl. We had lots of fertility treatment to try and have a second child. It doesn't always work! It's very invasive and expensive and it can take over your life. I don't blame people who want to chose the sex of the child but I do agree it should not be allowed. Since to choose means to choose not to, and although baby girls seem to be flavour of the month in the west at the moment that is not the case globally. Much better for all children to be valued I feel.

PS I wasn't implying you or anyone did not think all children should be valued! It just strikes me as difficult to be able to choose such a significant thing, to select life based on gender. For to not be that desired gender means not to be able to live.

I was very reluctant to wade into this thread as there seem to be so many black and white views. But here is my situation: husband and I wanted 2, maybe 3 kids. I had no real gender preferences, though I vaguely imagined a mix. I was taken by surprise at the overwhelming joy I felt when I found out our first would be a girl, do I guess on some level, maybe it was important to me to have a girl. I would say I am lucky to be a daughter in a very close relationship with an amazing mother, and I suppose my joy partly was a reflection of hopefully being able to mirror that in the next generation. My husband adores our daughter, but I think had similar feelings about wanting to emulate his father-son relationship, or even hopefully surpass it, as his father was at times a bit distant.
So when the time came to try for number 2, we timed intercourse to the day of ovulation in the vague belief it might slightly shift the odds in favour of a boy. Actually I had a MC, I sometimes wonder what he/she would have been like, as most women who have miscarried naturally do.
We are now expecting identical twin girls. Hugely excited about it, and we will both love them dearly, though my husband wonders if he'll still feel a bit of a gap having imagined life with a son. Time will tell.
I think it is unrealistic to suggest parenting both sexes is the same - not so much when they are children, but in the relationships you will have with them as adults. I find it offensive that it would seem most posters on here would assume us to be sexist, wanting identikit mini-us children if we considered a 4th and used gender selection to have a boy. Our girls are firmly adored and cherished to do and become whatever makes them happy.
Ultimately, I suspect we'll stop at 3; we are priveleged to have our lovely daughter and two more coming, and we don't for a second underestimate that privilege. My main reservations about ivf for so called "gender balancing" are the risks to me of the process and the destruction of "spare" embryos, as well as the cost and hassle of the whole process and having to do it overseas. I don't know if the feelings (mainly) my husband has about it are a good enough reason to investigate further, and indeed, neither does he. We'll have to re-evaluate in a few years time. But to suggest we are sexist and bad (not fit?) parents to consider it is frankly ill informed and offensive, in my opinion.