Skip to comments.
Wesley J. Smith: I Have a Right to a Baby Girl! Using IVF for Sex Selection
First Things/Secondhand Smoke ^
| 7/9/10
| Wesley J. Smith
Posted on 07/11/2010 9:47:51 AM PDT by wagglebee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
Increasingly, IVF is not about treating infertility, but about reducing reproduction to a crass consumer activity akin to choosing a breed of dog or model of flat screen television. This was ALWAYS the goal.
1
posted on
07/11/2010 9:47:56 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser
2
posted on
07/11/2010 9:48:54 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; ...
3
posted on
07/11/2010 9:49:59 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
People just have zero morals anymore. Their rights trump all else I guess. Whatever happened to just keep trying for a girl if you wanted one that bad?
To: wagglebee
What a gluttonous woman! "Give to me, Me, ME, ME!"
5
posted on
07/11/2010 10:02:47 AM PDT
by
mlizzy
(Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ...)
To: wagglebee
What about parents being able to determine the sex of their child is, in and of itself, immoral?
6
posted on
07/11/2010 10:15:07 AM PDT
by
Durus
(The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
To: wagglebee
You are either for IVF as a medical procedure, or not.
If you are not, so be it.
If you are for IVF then sex selection should be an option. Couples must select which embryos to be implanted. So why not choose by sex? Some embryos can be sex selected at the time and method of fertilization.
She doesnt want a designer baby, a dog, or a TV. She wants a daughter. And medical technology can help her have one.
Beats aborting, killing or dumping unwanted females (r males) by a long shot.
7
posted on
07/11/2010 10:21:57 AM PDT
by
silverleaf
(Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
To: Durus; Coleus; narses; Salvation; NYer; Dr. Brian Kopp; xzins; P-Marlowe; trisham; metmom; ...
What about parents being able to determine the sex of their child is, in and of itself, immoral? There is NOTHING inherently immoral about WANTING either a boy or a girl.
However, the very act of IVF necessitates playing god. It is an attempt to place the ability for creation in the realm of science.
Moreover, there are typically multiple embryos created during IVF, those that are not implanted are destroyed, this is destruction of human life.
8
posted on
07/11/2010 10:33:36 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: silverleaf; Coleus; narses; Salvation; NYer; Dr. Brian Kopp; xzins; P-Marlowe; trisham; metmom; ...
If you are for IVF then sex selection should be an option. Couples must select which embryos to be implanted. So why not choose by sex? Some embryos can be sex selected at the time and method of fertilization. She doesnt want a designer baby, a dog, or a TV. She wants a daughter. And medical technology can help her have one.
Beats aborting, killing or dumping unwanted females (r males) by a long shot.
In NO WAY does this "beat" abortion, the "unchosen" embryos are destroyed.
9
posted on
07/11/2010 10:35:42 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
IVF wasn’t my question. What is immoral about parents being able to determine the sex of their child. If a male could take a pill that would cause any child born that could determine the sex of a child would that be immoral?
10
posted on
07/11/2010 10:47:55 AM PDT
by
Durus
(The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
To: Durus
What is immoral about parents being able to determine the sex of their child. If a male could take a pill that would cause any child born that could determine the sex of a child would that be immoral? It is still man's attempt to play god.
11
posted on
07/11/2010 10:53:53 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
12
posted on
07/11/2010 11:02:20 AM PDT
by
silverleaf
(Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.)
To: wagglebee
I have no problem with gender selection in this type of scenario (multiple children of one gender at home), but do take issue with destroying embryos- whatever the reason.
13
posted on
07/11/2010 11:06:14 AM PDT
by
Reddy
To: silverleaf; Coleus; narses; Salvation; NYer; Dr. Brian Kopp; xzins; P-Marlowe; trisham; metmom; ...
you have no idea what they will or will not do with the unused embryos Unused embryos are destroyed; this is not my "idea", it is a FACT.
But again, your argument is against IVF, not against sex selection
No, it's against both.
14
posted on
07/11/2010 11:08:21 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee; Durus; silverleaf
Increasingly, IVF is not about treating infertility, but about reducing reproduction to a crass consumer activity akin to choosing a breed of dog or model of flat screen television. This is objectification pure and simple. When we believe we are entitled not just to a child but to the kind of child we want, it strikes a body blow against unconditional lovebecuase [sic] by definition, it isnt. Good grief, wagglebee, your threads really bring them out.
The pro-death crowd will hide behind any rationalization to justify their position.
15
posted on
07/11/2010 11:10:38 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom
There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between discarding embryos of the unwanted genders during IVF and aborting the fetuses of unwanted genders after an ultrasound. They are two different medical procedures to produce the same morally indefensible result.
16
posted on
07/11/2010 11:15:34 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
Another logical scenario from the designer family cultural syndrome. The real story here is that for once the desired child is a female. This might be the only case of a family trying exclusively from a female child. Usually the girls are treated as trash.
What ever happened to allowing nature to take its course?
17
posted on
07/11/2010 11:26:01 AM PDT
by
Gumdrop
To: Gumdrop
Because then we don’t get what we want.
*Pout, pout* >:(
18
posted on
07/11/2010 11:29:14 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: wagglebee
Your position doesn’t make much sense. There are certainly arguements to be made again IVF, exspecially in a case like this, but that aside I don’t understand your position on sex determinism. If someone can determine the sex of their child without taking an innocent life it’s not “playing God” it’s science.
19
posted on
07/11/2010 11:43:25 AM PDT
by
Durus
(The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
To: metmom
Did you just call me part of the Pro-death crowd?
20
posted on
07/11/2010 11:46:40 AM PDT
by
Durus
(The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson