shape
carat
color
clarity

Designer Babies.....ugh, this is scary.

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

MaggieB

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
646
Oh man, this is tough, tough, tough.

I had an IVF baby, so I had to give a lot of thought to the possiblity of genetic testing. I ultimately refused everything, even the triple screen test, which is pretty basic for pregnancies. I definitely don''t "recommend" what I did - or not recommend for that matter - it was just my personal decision. The path to having a child provided enough stress for me, and due to my history of miscarriages, I thought that pregnancy would be stressful enough too - without the added stress of knowing that my baby carried some disease.

Experiences within my family definitely lead to my decision. We cannot, no matter what test or precaution we take, have children without risk. My cousin had a trouble free pregnancy with a genetically perfect baby. But he got caught in the birth canal, lost oxygen for an extended period, and he is severely mentally handicapped. My aunt gave birth to a beautiful, healthy baby boy, took him to a PTA meeting at her older children''s elementary school, and as he was walking around the lunchroom, a lunchroom table that had been propped against the wall fell and killed him instantly.

On the flip side, my co-worker gave birth to a beautiful baby girl that died of Krabbe disease before the age of 2. Genetic testing showed that she and her husband had a 75% chance of any future children they had also having and dying of Krabbe disease, so she chose to have IVF and to carry a fetus without the gene. If I''d had HER personal medical history, I would have chosen to do this as well.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,490
Date: 3/4/2009 11:02:47 AM
Author: trillionaire

It is interesting that you bring up the expense of the procedure. While I agree that this will probably never be a huge portion of the population who can afford to do these types of procedures, it can play out like a class divide. Those with the most money would be the 'healthiest', by self selecting out of disease and disability, and could potentially be selected for distinguishable phenotypic traits. (ugh, are we back at eugenics???) I see this being less of an issue of what people look like, per se, but perhaps an emergent class stigma to certain diseases and disabilities?

And what if we weren't determining eye color, what if the design concept was to short circuit genes that lead to tendencies for mood disorders, psychoses or obesity? What are we okay with? And what are we saying to communities of affected people when their unique character traits are being willfully expunged from the gene pool?

My thoughts exactly. While I can see it being beneficial, it'd become too complicated too fast. Where would we draw the line when it came to eliminating certain disorders/diseases?

A bit OT: Has anyone noticed all the sets of twins born to Hollywood mommies? Not all by chance, I'm sure- not by a long shot. (They aren't Pricescopers, for one!
3.gif
) I'm speculating, of course, but I highly doubt all of these women had trouble conceiving. If women are taking fertility drugs/paying for IVF for the sole purpose of multiples (and the publicity they bring?), is it up the same alley?
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/4/2009 11:17:28 AM
Author: neatfreak
Date: 3/4/2009 11:06:52 AM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/4/2009 9:04:36 AM


Author: Lynnie




Side note - I agree that this subject and abortion are two different animals. No where in the OP did the word abortion come up. The morality of ''designer babies'' is a different discussion than the morality of abortion, or the morality of doctor-assisted suicide, or the morality of sex before marriage. All are apples to oranges, IMO.



Actually, that''s the farthest thing from the truth. Unless you look at it from a purely relativistic point of view.



Morals don''t ''change'' according to the circumstance. That''s the whole point, actually. A moral code is a compass-a standard-by which we choose to live. Keep changing the ''morals'' or apply different ones to different circumstances and before you know it, anything and everything is right and nothing can ever be considered wrong.



Thus, my original response. I choose to view eugenics, cloning, designer babies and abortion under the same light. To me, the standard by which to judge one is the same for all the above.



So yes, relativistically speaking you ''can'' change the morals according to the experience. But then you have nothing to use as a standard by which to judge even your own behavior. At that point you must also come to terms with the fact that any opinion on the subject is just as right,or just as wrong as yours.



Personally, I choose not to live with that ambiguity over my head.


Well lets at least try to stay on topic here. Eugenics and Designer Babies.

Neat,
My above post was simply to point out that my original response to "designer babies and eugenics" was indeed, on topic. I didn''t intend it as a thread jack at all. Just clarifying my end of the discussion and why I feel the way I do about these subjects...
 

neatfreak

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
14,169
Date: 3/4/2009 11:38:11 AM
Author: EBree
Date: 3/4/2009 11:02:47 AM

Author: trillionaire


It is interesting that you bring up the expense of the procedure. While I agree that this will probably never be a huge portion of the population who can afford to do these types of procedures, it can play out like a class divide. Those with the most money would be the 'healthiest', by self selecting out of disease and disability, and could potentially be selected for distinguishable phenotypic traits. (ugh, are we back at eugenics???) I see this being less of an issue of what people look like, per se, but perhaps an emergent class stigma to certain diseases and disabilities?


And what if we weren't determining eye color, what if the design concept was to short circuit genes that lead to tendencies for mood disorders, psychoses or obesity? What are we okay with? And what are we saying to communities of affected people when their unique character traits are being willfully expunged from the gene pool?


My thoughts exactly. While I can see it being beneficial, it'd become too complicated too fast. Where would we draw the line when it came to eliminating certain disorders/diseases?


A bit OT: Has anyone noticed all the sets of twins born to Hollywood mommies? Not all by chance, I'm sure- not by a long shot. (They aren't Pricescopers, for one!
3.gif
) I'm speculating, of course, but I highly doubt all of these women had trouble conceiving. If women are taking fertility drugs/paying for IVF for the sole purpose of multiples (and the publicity they bring?), is it up the same alley?

Yes, I do think it's up the same alley. And as a mom of twins believe it or not a few people have asked me if I "tried" to have twins. How the heck does one TRY to have twins besides choosing IVF when you don't need it? As much as I LOVE my babies and wouldn't give them up for anything I also wouldn't wish a twin pregnancy on anyone. Too many complications possible for both mom and babies.
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
If we have to do all of these things to have the babies we want, rather than random assortment, are we sending a social message that babies are now a luxury? I mean, the term "designer babies" certainly evokes that impression...

like all of these designer puppies... Puggles and what not...
 

JSM

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
802
You don't have to have IVF to 'try' for twins, right? Don't drugs like Clomid increase ovulation and therefore raise the risk of multiples?



Date: 3/4/2009 11:02:47 AM
Author: trillionaire



It is interesting that you bring up the expense of the procedure. While I agree that this will probably never be a huge portion of the population who can afford to do these types of procedures, it can play out like a class divide. Those with the most money would be the 'healthiest', by self selecting out of disease and disability, and could potentially be selected for distinguishable phenotypic traits. (ugh, are we back at eugenics???) I see this being less of an issue of what people look like, per se, but perhaps an emergent class stigma to certain diseases and disabilities?


And what if we weren't determining eye color, what if the design concept was to short circuit genes that lead to tendencies for mood disorders, psychoses or obesity? What are we okay with? And what are we saying to communities of affected people when their unique character traits are being willfully expunged from the gene pool?


I would argue that there is already a class divide in health, at least in America. Those that have money and good insurance can afford to pay for good food, gym memberships and sports, and medical treatment for common (and less common) diseases. They are the ones that can afford to screen embryos for diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis. Designer babies could hypothetically potentiate that, but I'm not sure how much further it could go.

You are also going into Nature versus Nurture here. Obesity is partly genetic, part not. Aggression is the same way. You can have the Her2 gene but not get breast cancer. You can have alcoholic parents with the tendency for addition, but not be an alcoholic. Unique character traits are not only dependent on what is encoded on your chromosomes.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I think you bring up great points. I just really love discussing these issues!
 

neatfreak

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
14,169
Date: 3/4/2009 11:52:42 AM
Author: jsm
You don''t have to have IVF to ''try'' for twins, right? Don''t drugs like Clomid increase ovulation and therefore raise the risk of multiples?

You''re right, when I say IVF I mean fertility treatments but I should be more general. I still think that falls under the same category personally (if you are taking the drug simply to try for multiples, not because you need it.)
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
Date: 3/4/2009 11:52:42 AM
Author: jsm
You don''t have to have IVF to ''try'' for twins, right? Don''t drugs like Clomid increase ovulation and therefore raise the risk of multiples?




Date: 3/4/2009 11:02:47 AM

Author: trillionaire




It is interesting that you bring up the expense of the procedure. While I agree that this will probably never be a huge portion of the population who can afford to do these types of procedures, it can play out like a class divide. Those with the most money would be the ''healthiest'', by self selecting out of disease and disability, and could potentially be selected for distinguishable phenotypic traits. (ugh, are we back at eugenics???) I see this being less of an issue of what people look like, per se, but perhaps an emergent class stigma to certain diseases and disabilities?



And what if we weren''t determining eye color, what if the design concept was to short circuit genes that lead to tendencies for mood disorders, psychoses or obesity? What are we okay with? And what are we saying to communities of affected people when their unique character traits are being willfully expunged from the gene pool?



I would argue that there is already a class divide in health, at least in America. Those that have money and good insurance can afford to pay for good food, gym memberships and sports, and medical treatment for common (and less common) diseases. They are the ones that can afford to screen embryos for diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis. Designer babies could hypothetically potentiate that, but I''m not sure how much further it could go.


You are also going into Nature versus Nurture here. Obesity is partly genetic, part not. Aggression is the same way. You can have the Her2 gene but not get breast cancer. You can have alcoholic parents with the tendency for addition, but not be an alcoholic. Unique character traits are not only dependent on what is encoded on your chromosomes.


By the way, I''m not disagreeing with you at all, I think you bring up great points. I just really love discussing these issues!


I agree with you completely, I should have put more emphasis ''gene tendencies''
1.gif
Do you know much about genomics? I know that we have ''mapped the human genome'', but not much more than that. What does that even mean? I''ve also heard about ''turning off'' certain genes or genetic markers. Is this what we would be doing in designer babies? It is so incredible what we can do, scientifically. I am constantly in awe.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,490
Date: 3/4/2009 11:52:42 AM
Author: jsm
You don't have to have IVF to 'try' for twins, right? Don't drugs like Clomid increase ovulation and therefore raise the risk of multiples?

That was my question. I don't know much about IVF but I believe it's a final option for women who've had trouble conceiving using other methods (Clomid, IUI, etc.). For example, women whose partners have very low sperm counts would need IVF. It's quite costly and not something the average Joe and Jane would be able to afford to increase their chances of having multiples...but do celebrities take advantage? I've noticed so many sets born to Hollywood actors and actresses in the last five years, and when you look at the chance of twins occurring naturally (apparently anywhere from 3 to 5 percent, depending on age), you've got to wonder.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,490
Oh, okay- I see what you're saying. Couples do have an increased chance of having multiples on Clomid, but they aren't as good as with IVF. When I took Clomid for a single cycle, my doctor told me I had a five to ten percent chance, and I was already ovulating naturally. Apparently, multiples occur in 25 to 40 percent of IVF pregnancies.

ETA: Source

ETA 2: My initial stats for naturally-occurring fraternal twins was off- it's more like 1 in 60, or around 1.7 percent. The 3 to 5 percent chance factors in families who've used fertility drugs.

(Sorry for all the edits!)
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
Date: 3/4/2009 12:03:16 PM
Author: trillionaire




I agree with you completely, I should have put more emphasis ''gene tendencies''
1.gif
Do you know much about genomics? I know that we have ''mapped the human genome'', but not much more than that. What does that even mean? I''ve also heard about ''turning off'' certain genes or genetic markers. Is this what we would be doing in designer babies? It is so incredible what we can do, scientifically. I am constantly in awe.

Largely driven by technical developments over the last decade, personalized medicine is becoming a real possibility given the impact of rapidly increasing throughput and decreasing cost of data for whole genome sequences. Successful utilization of this data will lead biomedical science into a new era of genomic medicine, where individual genome sequencing underpins research to understand disease, enable effective diagnosis, and personalize treatment of all diseases.

It is an exciting time to be alive.
 

Italiahaircolor

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
5,184
For many families, this will be an answered prayer. Just like IVF was many years ago. But, it's absolutely my belief that regardless of the original intent of this...there will be people who will abuse it.

As someone who struggles with infertility, I am very interested in learning more about this...and am highly offended by the one comparison to abortion that was made here. I am trying to start a family, and I will do whatever is necessary to see that goal met. If, down the road, I opt to explore this option, I am not "play God"...I am trying to have a baby. Period.

And you know what...since both my Mother and paternal Aunt had breast cancer, I may opt to screen and eliminate that from my potentional children. Does that make me a "mad scientist Mother"...or does that make a "plain old Mom" trying to spare her child pain when she can?

There are a million places this can go...and I hope that it stays positive and helps impact the families that need this service.

Do I believe in a womans right to choose? Yes...but that's a seperate issue...and should remain that way.
 

steph72276

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
4,212
I think this could be an amazing thing for preventing disease, however these advancements could in up in the wrong hands and not used responsibly....like Octomom''s doctor or similar doctors with little to no ethical standards.
 

Italiahaircolor

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
5,184
Date: 3/4/2009 2:48:51 PM
Author: steph72276
I think this could be an amazing thing for preventing disease, however these advancements could in up in the wrong hands and not used responsibly....like Octomom's doctor or similar doctors with little to no ethical standards.
As much as I hope this is untrue...I am sure in time, this luxury will be abused. I mean, when you consider what simple, good natured things people abuse -- such as organ transplant/donation by way of black market trade...or...foster care parents who only take in children to supplement their income as opposed to really opening their home for the right reasons.

This development could mean wonderful things for people who otherwise faced brick walls...and I hope that it is highly regulated, that only certain doctors will be licensed to perform this procedure, and that we do watch over this closely so that we avoid genetic mayhem.
 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
My DH is a genomic researcher, I asked him about this last night because of this thread and he first of all questioned my source, and then said "yeah, that is a vast oversimplification and yet exaggeration. We can''t actually do that yet and it is a long way off." His explanation of why was very tedious and I pretended to get it, but he was getting into how previous attempts at tweakage of code just result in cancer. Both of us being jews I just had the battery of tests to see if we could pass along some terrible diseases, so I asked him what could be done if it turns out we were both carriers. He said "adopt a nice little girl from China."

He is sending me some links to journal articles so KSinger can get her nerd on. Hmmm, I''ll see if they attach or just link and if you have a JSTOR password you can read them? Sorry, that isn''t very helpful of me at all.
 

Rhea

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
6,408
I think scient must be simplified so that it can be debated and a decision made by those who don''t have a scient background or think in that way. I do wish I understood more about it.

Like everything, the greatest and hopeful things in life have the most potential to be abused. I have mixed feelings on all of this. I see Italia''s and Maggie''s points, but also feel uncomfortable knowing that it could go too far. I hope that this type of thing is far enough away from happening that the general public can be made aware and it can be researched and debated properly for law making purposes.
 

JSM

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
802
Date: 3/4/2009 3:02:47 PM
Author: swimmer
My DH is a genomic researcher, I asked him about this last night because of this thread and he first of all questioned my source, and then said 'yeah, that is a vast oversimplification and yet exaggeration. We can't actually do that yet and it is a long way off.' His explanation of why was very tedious and I pretended to get it, but he was getting into how previous attempts at tweakage of code just result in cancer. Both of us being jews I just had the battery of tests to see if we could pass along some terrible diseases, so I asked him what could be done if it turns out we were both carriers. He said 'adopt a nice little girl from China.'


He is sending me some links to journal articles so KSinger can get her nerd on. Hmmm, I'll see if they attach or just link and if you have a JSTOR password you can read them? Sorry, that isn't very helpful of me at all.

I have access to all the big journals, I can paste some sections if there are particular ones you have in mind!

Your husband makes a very good point. I saw the video and highly doubted this would be widely available in 6 months, but the guy who Fox news talked to was a PhD, so...

Remember when Dolly was cloned? That was over 10 years ago, and even now animal cloning is a very inefficient, expensive process. Sure, it is done, but not on a wide scale and it isn't very accessible if you aren't in the business.
 

JSM

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
802
Date: 3/4/2009 12:03:16 PM
Author: trillionaire

I agree with you completely, I should have put more emphasis 'gene tendencies'
1.gif
Do you know much about genomics? I know that we have 'mapped the human genome', but not much more than that. What does that even mean? I've also heard about 'turning off' certain genes or genetic markers. Is this what we would be doing in designer babies? It is so incredible what we can do, scientifically. I am constantly in awe.

I know a little, but I won't pretend to be an uber-scientist.
2.gif
I work mostly on the molecular level, and have done some cloning, but I work with microbial life forms and cellular transporters, not human genetics!

I'm uncertain exactly as to how it would work. Unfortunately things like eye color, hair color, and skin tone have multiple genes and it's far more complicated than the stereotypical Mendelian genetics.

The screening process would be very fairly for existing embryos, a few PCRs with known primers and the allele could be known. It would be a little more complicated to add or change genes that already existed. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about that could contribute more to the discussion.

But, again, SO many changes could happen during development that even if you gave your kid a gene for blue eyes, maybe some recombination occurs and that allele is changed, or even deleted? It really is truly amazing what science can do, but life and how that happens is even more amazing IMO! There is SO MUCH we don't know yet. It's the catch 22 - the more we discover, the more we discover what there is to learn.
 

zhuzhu

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,503
Date: 3/4/2009 2:48:51 PM
Author: steph72276
I think this could be an amazing thing for preventing disease, however these advancements could in up in the wrong hands and not used responsibly....like Octomom's doctor or similar doctors with little to no ethical standards.

Actually in Octmom's case, her doctor's action is considered "ethical" if you ask pro-life advocates (he did not eliminate the embryos that she can not possibly afford to raise). However if you ask tax payers who end up having to raise her large pool of kids, her doctor is "unethical" and "thoughtless".

As everything else debated in science, morality is all relative.
 

steph72276

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
4,212
Date: 3/4/2009 4:33:15 PM
Author: zhuzhu
Date: 3/4/2009 2:48:51 PM

Author: steph72276

I think this could be an amazing thing for preventing disease, however these advancements could in up in the wrong hands and not used responsibly....like Octomom''s doctor or similar doctors with little to no ethical standards.


Actually in Octmom''s case, her doctor''s action is considered ''ethical'' if you ask pro-life advocates (he did not eliminate the embryos that she can not possibly afford to raise). However if you ask tax payers who end up having to raise her large pool of kids, her doctor is ''unethical'' and ''thoughtless''.


As everything else debated in science, morality is all relative.
Actually I am one of those pro-lifers and I still think what he did was unethical to agree to do IVF in the first place on a single woman with no job and six small children that all live in her mother''s house that is in foreclosure.
 

CrookedRock

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,738
Interesting discussion. I''m not a fan of choosing physical attributes of my future children, something isn''t "natural" about that. I am actually excited to see how our kids look, it could be a big hit or a huge swing and a miss. We joke about it all the time.
Disease prevention... Well if we had some awful gene and we had the ability to change the potential course of our childs life for the better, I would probably be ok with that.

How would you feel though about choosing just the sex of your child and leaving it at that? This is something I have considered, and I would be interested on your thoughts...
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,490
Date: 3/4/2009 6:21:04 PM
Author: CrookedRock

How would you feel though about choosing just the sex of your child and leaving it at that? This is something I have considered, and I would be interested on your thoughts...

Not a good idea, IMO. An -almost- equal amount of males and females exist on this planet for a reason, and I can''t imagine any good coming of messing with that balance.
32.gif
 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
Date: 3/4/2009 11:34:06 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
Date: 3/4/2009 11:02:47 AM

Author: trillionaire

Date: 3/4/2009 10:15:38 AM


Author: jsm


This is a pretty tough subject, but I don''t see this happening on a huge level.




1) Even if the method were perfected, they are either a) selecting for traits by sifting through a number of different embryos, or b) altering genes in the early embryo, neither of which will really guarantee anything. So many genetic changes occur during development; who is to say those genes for blonde hair won''t be silenced during embryogenesis? Mutations can occur spontaneously. Hell, even during life! I had dark hair my first 4 years of life, blond the next ten, then it got darker again. Environmental factors, weather, food intake, nutrients, all will alter phenotypes. There are NO guarantees.




2) Yes, IVF is required, and is going to be a VERY expensive procedure. I''m going to guess that most people are still going to conceive the old fashioned way.
3.gif





Scientists do a great deal of genetic manipulation for a lot of animals. Assuming you aren''t messing with essential genes, in most cases mice, C. elegans, drosophila, sheep, etc, life normal lifespans. It hasn''t been done in humans but who is to say there won''t be consequences there no one anticipated? Unlikely, but possible. Humans are complicated but do not by any means have the most complicated genetics or the largest numbers of genes. I think screening for debilitating diseases may a great way to get some harmful and deadly genes out of the population.




But, like so many things, just because we CAN doesn''t mean we should. It''s a very slippery slope.




I''m not someone who has a problem expressing genes from one organism in another (I''ve done it, actually). It''s all just amino acids coding proteins. But something doesn''t sit right with me when you want to select blue eyes or dark hair. It doesn''t seem right.



It is interesting that you bring up the expense of the procedure. While I agree that this will probably never be a huge portion of the population who can afford to do these types of procedures, it can play out like a class divide. Those with the most money would be the ''healthiest'', by self selecting out of disease and disability, and could potentially be selected for distinguishable phenotypic traits. (ugh, are we back at eugenics???) I see this being less of an issue of what people look like, per se, but perhaps an emergent class stigma to certain diseases and disabilities?



And what if we weren''t determining eye color, what if the design concept was to short circuit genes that lead to tendencies for mood disorders, psychoses or obesity? What are we okay with? And what are we saying to communities of affected people when their unique character traits are being willfully expunged from the gene pool?


Aryan race anyone??

I forced DH to watch the Fox news clip, yeah, I owe him big time. He said the same thing as jsm. It would have to be IVF, if you have black hair, your child could not be "manipulated" into a blonde; it is just if one of the fertilized eggs happened to have the characteristics of hair or eye color that you wanted, it COULD be selected. So interestingly in this totally hypothetical situation, you would pay tens of thousands (and an uncomfortable procedure with hormone injections and all) to pick one of your criteria, but might not be able to select both. It just depends on how the dice is rolled. Remember doing punnet squares as a kid in biology classes? If it ain''t happening for you statistically, you wouldn''t find it in that petri dish.

So, essentially this is a sensationalism of what already does exist for profiling/selecting for disease already. It is not at all difficult to ID eye or hair color from extracted DNA. However, it is not yet possible to manipulate an existing human (or large mammal) zygote to exhibit particular characteristics. DH wondered if there was really any point to trying, first of all, people would have to want to pay enormously, these bio-tech firms that profile your genetic background for a grand are not doing well. Most of all, there are decent chances that like Dolly, your child would die at an early age of unusual cancers. People are weird, but THAT is just criminal to risk over hair color.

So, perhaps the only lesson here is to take anything on Fox News with a grain of salt.

FYI: jsm, it is illegal to post copyrighted materials, so don''t post anything from a journal of that nature. Anything in the public domain is fine of course, but PS could get in trouble and you would be fined for doing posting it. But I think the admins would pull it first and remind you of the copyright rule.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,490
Thank you for the information, jsm and swimmer. Very interesting!

Date: 3/4/2009 7:17:28 PM
Author: swimmer

So, perhaps the only lesson here is to take anything on Fox News with a grain of salt.

Well, we already knew that.
2.gif
 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
Date: 3/4/2009 6:55:12 PM
Author: EBree
Date: 3/4/2009 6:21:04 PM

Author: CrookedRock


How would you feel though about choosing just the sex of your child and leaving it at that? This is something I have considered, and I would be interested on your thoughts...


Not a good idea, IMO. An -almost- equal amount of males and females exist on this planet for a reason, and I can''t imagine any good coming of messing with that balance.
32.gif

Ditto EBree (as usual), China is about to illustrate that for us when all those boys (whose sisters somehow disappeared) can''t find wives.
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,083
Date: 3/4/2009 7:35:54 PM
Author: swimmer

Date: 3/4/2009 6:55:12 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 3/4/2009 6:21:04 PM

Author: CrookedRock


How would you feel though about choosing just the sex of your child and leaving it at that? This is something I have considered, and I would be interested on your thoughts...


Not a good idea, IMO. An -almost- equal amount of males and females exist on this planet for a reason, and I can''t imagine any good coming of messing with that balance.
32.gif

Ditto EBree (as usual), China is about to illustrate that for us when all those boys (whose sisters somehow disappeared) can''t find wives.
Now THERE is a birth control strategy. And I''m not saying that flippantly. I read an interesting article about that very thing and some of its possible implications some years ago.

Now, what have men traditionally done when the available females were limited. Hmmm....war and plunder anyone?
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
te:[/b] 3/4/2009 9:25:26 PM
Author: ksinger

Ditto EBree (as usual), China is about to illustrate that for us when all those boys (whose sisters somehow disappeared) can''t find wives.
Now THERE is a birth control strategy. And I''m not saying that flippantly. I read an interesting article about that very thing and some of its possible implications some years ago.


Now, what have men traditionally done when the available females were limited. Hmmm....war and plunder anyone?[/quote]
polyandry.
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,083
Date: 3/4/2009 9:37:30 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 3/4/2009 9:25:26 PM
Author: ksinger

Ditto EBree (as usual), China is about to illustrate that for us when all those boys (whose sisters somehow disappeared) can''t find wives.
Now THERE is a birth control strategy. And I''m not saying that flippantly. I read an interesting article about that very thing and some of its possible implications some years ago.


Now, what have men traditionally done when the available females were limited. Hmmm....war and plunder anyone?
polyandry.


NOOOOO!!!!! One is QUITE enough, thank you very much! LOL!
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
Date: 3/4/2009 9:44:58 PM
Author: ksinger
Date: 3/4/2009 9:37:30 PM

Author: trillionaire


Date: 3/4/2009 9:25:26 PM

Author: ksinger


Ditto EBree (as usual), China is about to illustrate that for us when all those boys (whose sisters somehow disappeared) can't find wives.
Now THERE is a birth control strategy. And I'm not saying that flippantly. I read an interesting article about that very thing and some of its possible implications some years ago.



Now, what have men traditionally done when the available females were limited. Hmmm....war and plunder anyone?

polyandry.




NOOOOO!!!!! One is QUITE enough, thank you very much! LOL!


lol, see, now you have me thinking. I was opposed to designer babies, but a designer hubby would be quite a different story! Genetically modified to LOVE cooking and cleaning (well), and loves to buy me pretty baubles!
31.gif


I'll take it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top