gabi_menashi
Ian Ayers recently blegged you about boy-specific or girl-specific Happy Meal toys from McDonald's.
But forget about toys; when was the last time your doctor asked if you'd like to choose your child's sex?
The Wall Street Journal reports on a Los Angeles clinic that will soon let parents choose the sex of their unborn children. Their designer options also include physical traits including hair color, eye color, and even skin color.
This raises a mountain of questions, ethical and otherwise. But what might the unintended consequences be? Dubner and Levitt have written about how sex-specific abortions in Asian countries have created a huge gender gap in countries like India, China, and Pakistan. Would a designer-baby boom create a gender gap here -- and in which direction?
If your doctor gave you the choice to customize your unborn child to your preferences, would you take it? And what would you choose?
I wouldn't choose the sex or skin color, but is it possible to add a flight option? Adamantium claws, perhaps?
ResponderEliminarWhy leave this in the hands of parents? I smell an awesome field experiment!
ResponderEliminarWhat, no mention of Gattaca?
ResponderEliminarAnyone seen Gattaca?
ResponderEliminarThis is a bad idea.
My youngest child is 14, so this is in hindsight. I would have probably chosen to have male children just because I relate to them better. Not knowing that at the time, I probably would have gone for a millionaire's family (boy first, then girl) because that is the epitome of a perfect family. That being said, I don't think that choosing gender should be allowed, and the fact that I said I would have done it is enough reason. I would do it because I was able, not for any other good reason, and that reason isn't good enough at all. I'm not sure I agree with people having ultrasounds to find out the gender, let alone having the power to choose it.
ResponderEliminarAs for choosing hair and eye colour - a little bit vain isn't it?
There are plenty of sci-fi's out there that depict a world of genetically engineered people, and from the ones that I recall, it never really turns out the way it was intended.
How about hermaphrodite? I've always wanted a kid who will have a hard time adjusting socially.
ResponderEliminarOnly if it allowed us to have both a boy and a girl.
ResponderEliminarHow about avoiding unwanted genetic conditions that my child would otherwise be subject to - cancer, high cholesterol, hair loss, those kind of things.
ResponderEliminarIf I were going to choose, I would choose a boy. I imagine a lot of other people would as well. Why would any parent want their child's skin color to not match their own? Isn't one of the draws of procreating to have children that carry your physical traits? Every father I know is proud of the fact that his son looks like him.
ResponderEliminarA little correction. Pakistan has more women than men. Population distribution is about 51% women and 49% men. Data is about 10 years old. Not that my country is in good shape or we don't have discrimination against women but I don't think we have abortions because of baby's sex. Most people are not even able to afford an ultrasound that would tell them the sex of baby.
ResponderEliminarWould it be useful if we can choose what extras NOT to have?
ResponderEliminarCertain conditions or deceases that we might inherit from generations a go like hearth decease, predisposition to diabetes and any kind of cancer would be the first ones to remove.
Knowing what you do not want makes room for more joy in your life. Imagine if we can control this; what would be the health insurance premium rate of this
My wife and i already have a son, who is 18 months old. We had always planned to have two kids, and wanted both a boy and girl. I think we would seriously consider being able to choose the sex of a second child.
ResponderEliminarI can't say if we would choose any of the physical traits, but I am not vehemently opposed to the idea.
The article says that there were 137 clinics in the US offering the service of gender selection, so data ought to exist on preferences. Whether a gender gap would be created also depends on the cost. If very few can afford the service, the effect would probably be negligible.
@C. Larity Adamantium claws? That's just silly. Everyone knows that those aren't controlled by genetics. You'll have to put the baby through a special surgery after the birth for that option. However you may want to go ahead with the genetic option of regenerative healing factor though, otherwise the child may not survive the surgery.
ResponderEliminarCan I have a genetically perfect child please. And make every other child genetically perfect. Then we can all be exactly the same. That would be fun right? All the same? Like robots?
ResponderEliminarThere would be some incentives to form coalitions between doctors and wives or doctors and husbands. I'd try to bribe the doctor to make me a dog. And when my wife would discover that, it would be already too late... Picture the conversation to go something like: honey, I know you are allergic, but what are you gonna do now? Its our baby!
ResponderEliminarOr maybe I'd ask him to get me a motorcycle. Can they do this?
If I were going to have a third child, and if I'd had two boys or two girls previous, I would be tempted to choose the sex of the third child (so as not to have the same sex as the others). As it stands, I have "one of each" so I wouldn't bother to 'spec' the third child. I would not be comfortable with choosing hair color etc.
ResponderEliminarI would probably select a boy first then a girl... but I would never actually pay for such a service. Its one thing to pay for IVF treatments when you're unable to conceive, its quite another to order a kid to spec.
ResponderEliminarIf the potential parents are Freakonomics fans, there would be a bias toward male children by people who wanted their marriage to last.
ResponderEliminarI think that if I were still of child-bearing age, I would choose to have a child of a particular sex, in this case a girl, because I already have two boys. In some cultures, there is pressure to have children of a particular sex, but I think that in the USA at this point, the goal is to have an even mix of boys and girls. Certainly there is no consensus among my friends as to one sex being preferable to the other.
ResponderEliminarAs to choosing hair color, eye color, etc., sorry to break this to you, but we already do that in part when we choose our boyfriends and girlfriends. I don't know anyone who didn't at some point ponder, "Would I want to have a child who looked like that?" And if we don't think this ourselves, our mothers will do this for us.... All this would do is eliminate a small level of guess-work. (This is also pretty much an entirely Caucasian concern. Hmmm....)
Rather not pick, but if forced, I'd pick a boy. Cheaper and no need to intimidate every teenage boy a daughter might know.
ResponderEliminarPerfect opportunity for the rich to get richer - they can genetically engineer themselves to be better and more capable than the poor.
ResponderEliminarI suffer from rather severe disorders (ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, and psoriasis). All of these conditions can be traced to a single defective gene. It just so happens that this gene is far more prevalent in males than in females. Since I wouldn't want my worst enemey, much less my own child to go through what I've gone through, I'd much prefer to have a daughter than a son. Whether that preference is enough for me to play God in that decision-making process is a different story. Fortunately I have a few years to figure it out.
ResponderEliminarA medical professional in Canada once told me it was illegal for them to tell parents the sex of a baby during an ultrasound, to prevent selective termination. She did say that if it was obvious the parents weren't going to do that, they'd 'let it slip'. Can anyone confirm that?
ResponderEliminarThere's an interesting book about this topic, Babies by Design.
ResponderEliminarThe "market" will sort out the gender issues, because everyone wants their child to be "special", once there are too many kids of one gender, the pendulum will swing back the other way. The key difference between the US and the countries mentioned in the post is that in the US, women are as capable as men of making a living and supporting their family, and we don't have the same cultural biases about the values of having children of a certain gender.
@Julie: "Why would any parent want their child
ResponderEliminari think it's interesting how negative the reaction is on this blog, but how common it will be in time. it's like home depot or walmart - no one wants them coming in and changing small towns, main streets, local shops etc, but everyone just loves shopping there. and most dont even feel bad about it any more; they're getting a deal!
ResponderEliminarslowly it will become a standard option to select if your kid will need glasses, or his approx hight, or sex, or whatever else doctors are able to offer. it will be as acceptable and common as learning about your baby's gender is now. why would you NOT act on your preferences? and where neither parent has a preference, leave it to chance. but you get to CHOOSE what to leave to chance.
THAT BABY ONLY HAS 8 TOES.
ResponderEliminarThat being said, i'd go for boy-girl if i could. But my wife has a fear of needles so it'll never happen.
As the first comment I've seen from a parent of a special needs child, I see this as a slippery slope. I know Chris (#14) was being sarcastic but once you run into people that believe your child is less than human because they aren't genetically perfect, your use of that kind of sarcasm ends pretty quickly.
ResponderEliminarI wouldn't change my son for anything. To me and everyone that knows him, he is the best little boy he can be and that's all that matters. He may never get to participate in most things that people consider to be part of a "normal" life but he's happy and he brings enormous joy to everyone he meets. How anyone could want to say they didn't want him because of his genetic deficiency is an absolute wonder to me.
Even though Chris was being sarcastic, there are too many people in this country that actually do believe anything less than perfect is not worth having. To give people the choice of anything, even something as seemingly benign as hair color, would send the message to the rest of society that anyone different than that is unworthy. And that's the best of the negative consequence I can think of.
I also can't think of anything positive that can come out of this. At least not as our society is right now or in the foreseeable future.
Would it be possible to program a child to skip the teenage years? If so, sign me up.
ResponderEliminarI would not take the option to select gender.
ResponderEliminarHowever, I WOULD want to know the result. (Frankly, I don't understand people who don't want to know.)
But if I HAD to make the choice, I know what I would choose. Their are lots of traits that I know what I would choose, if I had to make a choice. Heck, their some that I would take advantgae of, if given the option (e.g. height, body type, handedness). Not that this last group are most important to me, but rather they are things that I society cares about and I would like give the kid a better shot at being happy and accepted.
But there are a bunch of really important traits that I would love to be able to select, but can't forsee ever having such an option. Intelligence, compassion, charisma, coordination, judgement.
I don't care much about gender, eye or hair color (and with my fiancee we don't have much of a pallet to work with as far as skin color goes) but hopefully their genetic screening includes excluding congenital defects which sounds good to me.
ResponderEliminarRealistically, cute blond babies w/ blue eyes get a lot of attention and interaction from relatives, teachers, and parents of other kids. One can argue that all this attention translates into a better developed baby. Boys , even in this country, have more opportunities comparing to girls. So a rational choice in this society would be to go for a fair-skinned boy.
ResponderEliminarI just want an owner's manual to come with my kids...... :)
ResponderEliminarMy third child, I probably would have picked him to be a girl if I had had the choice because i already had two boys. Now when they are all grown, I am glad I never had the choice. I loved living in an all male household much of the time, after being raised in an very female household. it made me different to a gal who hangs out in a just us girl club and made me realize how funny females are at times.
ResponderEliminarI will tell you this if you are female wanting only sons ( are there those left in America?): a mother does lose her sons when they marry in our present society, moreso than a daughter. But that is quite alright, it makes for independent moms, plus makes for less competition in the son's marriages. Gotta take my word on that or learn by doing. I won't say learn the hard way.
learning is learning. hard or easy doesn't matter.
I think the reason that we all cringe at the possibility to engineer a "perfect" child is because a person looking for a perfect child is essentially unfit to be a parent. No child is "perfect". All children are lovable. If you can't love whatever you're given, then you shouldn't become a parent.
ResponderEliminar@ru: Nonsense, the baby has 10 toes. On both feet, the "ring" toe is mostly obscured by the "pinky" toe, and it is hard to see the separation because of the bright lighting on the feet.
ResponderEliminarwhat's wrong with engineering? Remember John Watson- there is a problem here- choice- My parents wanted a boy- got a girl- they never let me live it down- cause it was not what they wanted- what's wrong with being unwanted. I should not have to answer this question- I learned this from a wise soul- be happy with what you get- IF you are fortunate to have a child- BE HAPPY!
ResponderEliminarDon't we subconsciously do this anyways when we pick a mate? Probably the reason why I think Prince Harry is cute is because I want red-headed babies.
ResponderEliminarAfter reading Steve's comment (#28) this all seems to be a little selfish and silly.
ResponderEliminarYou'd probably see a wave of foreign couples, especially Indian and Asian, going to the clinic for boys. They would be at least upper middle class in order to afford such service. It could widen the gender wealth gap.
ResponderEliminarOn the other hand, many couples would have fewer children if they have the choice. (You see a lot of Chinese parents with 4 or 5 daughters and finally 1 boy at the end and they stop there. They would have stopped at 2 children if they had just 1 boy) It could mean that the few children will receive more resources and better care.
By the way, you might want to stop linking to the Dubner & Levitt write up. Oster's paper has been completely refuted. She even has a paper out admitting it and there are serious ethical questions that haven't been resolved about the whole process.
ResponderEliminarI don't think we should get to play GOD and pick how our children turn out, I believe its the luck of the draw, and has to do partly with Karma. Besides what the point, the world would not be interesting without its uniqueness, if everyone got to decide it would be a world full of perfect people, WHATS the FUN IN THAT?
ResponderEliminarwhatwouldyoudo-if.blogspot.com/
I think the reason so many people respond so negatively to this is it's hard to imagine what the impact will be. Nature following nature's course so far has seemed to be generally ok for our species, while interfering has uknown consequences.
ResponderEliminarThere have been several people who have said "I would have chosen ___ but I'm glad I got ___." Part of the problem is what we think is really important to us or what we think is best may not always be what is best. On a less personal level, even avoiding certain genetic disorders (while even I would probably do it if I had the choice) might have unintended side effects. People with sickle cell anemia have a better resistance to malaria, and a lot of auto immune disorders present in people of European decent (an overactive immune system doesn't hurt during a plague).
I wanted a girl because I was afraid a boy would inherit his father's ADHD. Instead, I got a girl with ADD. My dream is for the real estate market to crash to the level where I can afford my own pied a terre, preferably one with a calming ocean view.
ResponderEliminarWith respect to comment 23, not sure of Canada. But, in India, it is illegal to ask or tell the gender of the baby during ultrasounds. Female infanticide and abortions have been a consistent problem in pockets of rural India.....so, all this talk about selection hits a little closer to home. I think it is a terrible idea - but then, arent we still debating whether a single mom can still have 8 kids after an earlier collection of 6?
ResponderEliminarI'm a natural redhead, and I hope that my child will be, too, but I would never "design" it that way--there's nothing special about red hair if you can just go out and buy some for your kid. (Don't talk to me about dyes--they haven't made a real-looking red dye yet, and it ain't coming.)
ResponderEliminarThe Nazis tried doing something like this once. Besides their much more notorious mass murder program, they also tried to purify the Aryan race with a breeding program for blond haired, blue eyed Germans.
ResponderEliminarAs I understand it, the people who were products of this program were indistinguishable from the rest of the German population.
The real harm was that the people who came out of this program had to grow up with a horrible stigma. Any parent who makes a designer baby could be subjecting the child to something similar if/when attitudes towards eugenics revert back to their Nazi associations.
@23,
ResponderEliminarDon't know about Canada, but the rule exists in India (for the same reason). Also, it is true that the doctor would 'let it slip' if they are sure the parents were not going to discriminate.
But then, people always find ways around the rule.
The evidence I've seen for Western countries is that preferences for boys and girls are pretty even. There is strong evidence that parents would like at least one boy and one girl. Couples whose first two children are boy and girl are less likely to have a third child. However, the likelihood of having a third child is much the same for boy-boy and girl-girl pairs.
ResponderEliminarI find it interesting that many posters are arguing that male children wouldn't be selected preferentially. I actually think it possible that female children (might) be selected more often. This is based on an article I half remember reading which claimed that blue eyed blond girls are the children most quickly adopted, which might suggest that gender preference would actually be FOR girls.
ResponderEliminarI think this is a great idea, and I can't wait until other traits can be subtracted (inherited health problems and so on) or added (musical talent, athletic ability, being able to change the way skin looks in real time like a cuttlefish, etc). These other advancements won't happen unless the technology that's available now catches on, so we should all support it!
ResponderEliminarMost excitingly, this is a chance for us to control our own evolution!
An interesting point to note here is that until now , only roxanne has given a girl as her first preference.
ResponderEliminarMy two cents are as follows :
Choosing a gender is a major decision , but would you like to make it yourself - or leave it to mother nature to decide ? Families which might be better equipped to handle a girl , may very well be swayed by popular opinion to choose a boy instead (or vice versa) , which - given the technology becomes commonplace , is very much inevitable that we would see a rise to skewed sex ratios , amongst other things.
People are not cars to be constantly customized to their liking , but I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in the number of sex change operations in the future generations of such experiments. What if the child was MEANT to be girl ? One thing's for certain though , we would be tampering with the natural flow of things , and more than often do they end in disastrous consequences.
Take Genetically modified crops as an example.
Irregardless of the ethical questions that such a procedure raises, the fact that this could be an experiment gone wrong is a misunderstatement
ResponderEliminarI suppose I'd order the freakon gene
ResponderEliminarmost of the problems in this country can be attributed to bad parenting, so why give the parents even MORE choices (read: opportunities) to prove how bad they can be?
ResponderEliminarI thought the craze of giving kids unusual names and/or unusual spellings of normal names was the ultimate act of a parent's self-indulgence....why should the parent care - they are not the ones having to live their life constantly having to correct people.
But, I was wrong....letting the parents choose their sex, and other "options" is now the most self-indulgant act.. This is a sad commentary on society....we are going downhill fast.
More interesting than having individuals post their individual preference, is to think about a nation's policy preference in a global context.
ResponderEliminarThere are at least two frameworks that seem applicable. The first is that of VM Hudson and AM den Boer "Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population" The argument boiled down is that an excess of males leads to domestic and international violence.
The second framework is your neighborhood bar. Ask the policy makers (ie: bouncers) what gender ratio is optimal.
Also, I agree with an earlier post. If Oster has disproved her own theory, why is the freakonomics blog continuing to trumpet the earlier faulty work?
See: blogs.ft.com/undercover/2008/05/emily-oster-recants/
I am not a parent myself but the whole idea reminds me of buying a puppy! The breed you want, the coat colours you want.
ResponderEliminarI hope prospective parents realise that they are having children and not fashionable pets.
A friend of mine who works for social services told me that she had had parents returning adopted children (that is AFTER they have adopted and been granted with full parental rights and responsibilities) because they realised they preferred a child of another sex or without a certain health condition.
Either you want to be a parent for the sake of having children or not! It's that simple to me. If you want something to match your preferences and taste, get a dachound.
What makes us human?
ResponderEliminarIs there a point in the approaching future when we will be "post-human"? This seems like a step towards it.
I would opt for not! I just heard a story this past week on This American Life. The child was transgender. He/She thought that he/she was a girl, but had male anatomy. The mother took the path of supporting this Childs feelings and the father didnt. Not only does this Child suffer from the normal verbal and physical abuse that his/her classmates inflict, the Child also suffers from a broken home as the parents divorced due to the difference in view as how to handle the situation. As we know from common sense and Freakonomics, that alone is a recipe for failure.
ResponderEliminarAlso, say you changed the sex of the child externally, wont it still have whatever chromosones internally that was originally predicted by the father???
I didn't read every comment on this post, so excuse me if someone else already pondered this thought:
ResponderEliminarIf we develop disease-free humans through selective genetic engineering, wouldn't there be some unintended consequences? If Americans still retired around 65 or 70 years of age, but then lived on average to about 110 or 120 instead of 80-85, then wouldn't that destroy social security and defined benefit pension plans? Wouldn't inheritances, and thus the need for estate planning attorneys, be greatly diminished as people need to continue withdrawing from their nest eggs for several additional decades.
I'd be interested in seeing a blog post about this tangent I've wandered off onto. There must be other consequences if humans were suddenly and quickly able to add decades to their life expectancies.
Fraternal twins - one of each!
ResponderEliminarIf I was asked to choose I would also ask for a 2 year warranty.
ResponderEliminarIf I could have had more control over my youngest before birth I would have made him healthier and fixed the issues he still fights with, every day.
ResponderEliminarGender? Don't care.
Skin colour? De nado.
Cleft lip and palate? I would choose to take that away from him in an instant.
This idea has another name: eugenics.
ResponderEliminarWe can use euphemisms like "choice," we can talk about genetic engineering instead of selective abortion, but in the end it comes down to this: some children are valued more than others. This is supposed to be counter to our basic American principles about equality.
Let's be careful.
So.. would we have to stick with the normal one-or-the-other gender options, or could we get creative and invent some new ones?
ResponderEliminar