Comments on: Select-A-Spawn

By: That Girl

That Girl — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:16:41 +0000

Thanks, Ms. Kate - although I see the slippery slope arguement toward eugenics and designer babies, I also see an equal arguement for the slippery slope sliding my vagina into someone else’s control.
If I wanted another child I would certainly consider this procedure as my children are prone to a Y-linked trait that causes severe defects.
Even if we are talking about aborting fetuses rather than letting embryos die who would I have to convince that I was aborting for medical/fear reasons rather than medical ones?
I do agree that if you eliminate patriarchy you eliminate the “frenzy” but not the occaisional necessity/want not related to patriarchy.

By: Twisty

Twisty — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:18:06 +0000

This is what I’ve been trying to say. How anybody can look at “sex selection” and not see “value judgement based on arbitrary patriarchal custom” is sort of beyond me. Eliminate patriarchy and you elminiate the frenzy for sex selection.

By: Nin

Nin — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:41:46 +0000

No the argument is really about patriarchy/sexism - if girls and boys were valued equally and birth control were free, easy to use and more fun than not using birth control, then abortion would truly be rare and sex selection would be weird (but whatever) (I’m not into controlling someone else’s life, just making them think about their values and thought processes). Taling about this like it is about abortion just sidelines the real challenges we all face in facing and defeating patriarchy.

By: Delphyne

Delphyne — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:06:23 +0000

Don’t you think it would be better to do away with sex selection in the first place?

By: BritGirlSF

BritGirlSF — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:41:45 +0000

There’s a fine line to be drawn between cultural sensitivity and thing which simply should not be tolerated, anywhere. Example? I’m very into Japanese pop culture, but a little creeped out by the prevalance of the slutty schoolgirl stereotype in said pop culture. However, this I can ignore as long as it is not being used as an excuse to harm actual scholgirls (I can also avoid all movies etc that feature the slutty schoolgirls, which is in fact the way I deal with it - don’t give money to the people who promote this obnoxiously patriarchal idea). However, I have had people try to justify the practise of female circumcision in Africa and the Middle East on the ground of cultural sensitivity and respect for “tradition”, and I’m not buying it. The minute we’re talking about actual harm being inflicted upon actual people, to hell with cultural sensitivity, it becomes a human rights issue.
That probably didn’t make any sense to anyone but me. This really is a tricky subject, isn’t it?
RE Designer babies, I think it’s a slippery slope leading to eugenics. As has been pointed out, however, in this country it has very little to do with abortion. The argument is really more to do with how much tinkering with embryos we consider to be ethical, and how far we as a society are willing to go down that path. If we allow parents to select for gender, how about height, or intelligence, or eye color further down the line as the technology improves? How about if they were able to select for sexual orientation - are we going to allow that? Where is the line to be drawn? That’s the ral crux of this issue, the fact that the technology has the potential to be used in very creepy ways as it becomes more sophisticated.

By: Hattie

Hattie — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:49:06 +0000

You said it so well, Liz. My kick-ass daughters exploded all the stereotypes, I’m glad to say.

By: Ms Kate

Ms Kate — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:32:24 +0000

The idea that sex selection means fewer children is an interesting arguement. But we need to examine WHY a family seeks to have a certain mix and I personally think they need to submit to both psycological and genetic counseling before they do so. But I also think that IVF couples should be expected to do the same AND offered comparable adoption benefits.

That said, this is a valuable service to those with fatal x-linked traits. A childhood friend of mine watched her brother die of hemophelia, knowing her own sons might suffer the same fate. There are other x-linked traits that are fatal or make for a very difficult life. Selective pre-conception work would be of great benefit, as there IS no abortion involved - and thus no five months of stress and then a medical procedure for mom.

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:50:49 +0000

Sure. there’s a high enough value placed on baby girls in this culture to avoid the China syndrome. Little girls are valued because they’re ornamental. They’re so cute and malleable, just like little dolls: you can dress them up in chic little outfits, and play with their pretty hair! There’s an appealing expectation that girls will be quieter and cleaner, more convenient and more sociable than boys, and while boys go out and have their rough and tumble adventures in the dirt, girls will stay close to home, providing companionship for mom and a sweet little flirtbox for daddy. And in the end it’s daughters not sons who take care of the elderly parents, driving them to doctor appointments and changing their Depends.

Just because there will always be an equal demand for girls in this culture doesn’t make it RIGHT.

By: Yeah, but

Yeah, but — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:33:05 +0000

Even the most heartfelt blamer can support sex selection. I am totally supportive of sex selection (and beyond pro-choice, admittedly pro-abortion for whatever reasons I breeder should choose) for these two reasons: one, that in the U.S. parents who express a preference are split about 50/50 on whether that preference is for a girl babe or a boy, and two, that having two children of the same sex increases doubly the chance that a breeding couple would choose to have a third child. And that “trying for a __” reasoning for bringing forth life I am opposed to. I’m not sure if we can blame the patriarchy for parents wanting to experience parenting a child of each sex. But I hear ya, Twisty… in the absence of difference, “one of each” means nothing.

By: AyMayZed

AyMayZed — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:14:08 +0000

Can you sheet home the anger of enquirers in your anecdote to their not being given sex information during your gestation?
There are a few other reasons for anger at your not sharing your knowledge that I can think of; exclusion from priveleged knowledge, whatever the substance, is one.
Perhaps your example was too shorthand and there is a firmer basis for your including the anecdote.

I’ve no argument with the main thrust of your post, however I read nothing about abortion in either the original post or the linked article.
The sex selection is getting done in vitro.
Discarding unwanted blastocysts isn’t abortion. This has already been emphasised a couple of times in the comments and I’m amazed at how the abortion definition refuses to get out of the way.