Choosing the baby's sex

[iNow]

I think that might be the same article we're discussing over here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32461

[pioneer]

Choosing the baby's sex is connected to human vanity, the constraints of social peer pressure, or free market enticement, none of which are natural selection. This choice does not guarantee any form of human induced natural progression, analogous to picking certain food plants to improve the overall species. The choice is really for the parents and for the free market.

 

The analogy is sort of like having to choose between two food plants, for forward breeding. One decides to choose the one with prettier flowers because your neighbors will think more of you and you get to enjoy the flowers. The choice stems from an imaginary fantasy projection. It may reflect the limitations of the parents, with them better able to pass this on. There is no genetic logic that suggest this is the best choice in terms of evolution. I would think nature, who has been making these choices for eons, may have its own logic worked out. If you wish to go green, one can't chose the unnatural even if science is able to allow synthetic. This is part of the liberal irrationality. Don't genetically mess with our food but we will allow you genetically alter our children

 

One possible spin-off, since this science is empirical, is the only thing that is fully genetically altered is the physical sex. I am not passing judgement, but if we don't also alter all the genes, including those relative to psychological sex, we may start to create an artificial shift toward gayness. It is sort of placing a Ford Mustang body on a Chevy chassis and drive train. To make it a full Ford Mustang, one may have to do more genetic tweaking than just a body change. Maybe there needs to be a study to see if the Mustang bodies on the Chevy chassis and drive train, makes this a mustang, a chevy or both. Maybe we are unknowingly evolving the beginning of human hermaphrodites eventually able to self pro-create. The ball is in science's court, so it can help dispel this reasonable genetic concern. It may be sort of cool, but then genetics gets stuck and goes backwards.

 

Let me give a reasonable scenario of putting the mustang body on the chevy. Females have this gift of natural maternal instincts. So we turn a boy into a girl, physically, but don't also include this brain software, we may start to get females who lose parts of their maternal instincts. So science needs to come up with another mop or two to clean up the mess. This is perfect for the free market since it creates mop jobs.

[stingray78]

Is this true???? It's ****ed up

[iNow]

Is this true???? It's ****ed up

 

Stingray,

 

No. Pioneer's post is his personal speculation, and I'd encourage you not to put too much effort into it. He has some interesting ideas, but many (if not, most) of them are rooted in mistaken premises. As we all know, conclusions rooted in false premises are themselves false.

 

It's a fun read, but if you want to learn how things actually work, I'd encourage you to look to the posts of others.