[Carl]

look at it this way, people:

if someone wanted to change your gender without your permission, should they be allowed to do it? if you vote yes in this pole, then that's exactly what you're voting for. think about it.

[Drew]

Originally posted by PhReAk
as long as they are adults and the taxpayers aren't paying for it...

i agree. a child being given the right to change his sex is just...wrong. Adults should be given the freedom of the choice but kids...just... no.
anyway, how can a dude turn into a girl; a dude is still a dude no matter how much he changes his behavior or how many body parts are cut off. He was still born concieved with a XY chromazone (did i get that right?)

on the second point; im gonna have enuf taxes to take care of when G Bush's new Medicair taxes are take effect (or are they already). If a child was given the "right" to change his sex and his parents didnt want to. it would: A. 1 more step to destroying the institution of the family B: would make someone else pay for it; mainly the taxpayers.

EDIT:

Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
...why do we want to **** with nature? People confuze me.

yes, ppl can be irrational somtimes

Originally posted by Carl
if someone wanted to change your gender without your permission, should they be allowed to do it? if you vote yes in this pole, then that's exactly what you're voting for. think about it.

hmmm... that is a good point....

[StratComm]

Woah, I'm not going to quote you Drew because that's a little more than disturbing.  We're talking about this happening at the embryonic stage, not some little boy saying "mommy I want to be a girl."  In response to Carl, it's not quite like that, because the embryo/fetus isn't actually altered in any way.  In other words, if your parents had undergone this selection when they concieved you, and wanted you to be a girl rather than a boy, there is a 0% chance that the mass of cells that you started out as would ever have left the test tube.  The choice is not whether to make a baby a boy or a girl, it's choosing whether you want your offspring to be male or female.  There isn't technically a sex change, it's [simply] choosing to implant a viable embryo of a desired gender rather than one at random (as in natural fertilization).  Now this is all the more disturbing from the pro-life camp, because to actually make this choice multiple embryos have to be fertilized and incubated to a certain point, at which time all but one are disposed of.  From the perspective that life starts at conception, you're killing off several dozen (maybe even hundreds, depending on the scale of the incubation project) "unborn children".  I personally see this argument as being very stupid, but there are a lot of people who see it this way.

As for "sex change" operations; these are only half-truths.  You don't actually turn a man into a woman through any operation in any way other than cosmetic; the genetic structure is preserved in its entirety and all reproductive functions are permanently lost.  A man who undergoes a sex-change operation is still a man (from a cellular sense and in many ways a hormonal sense as well) and vice-versa, despite what proponents of the procedure would have one believe.  It's basic biology; we can't do full-scale genetic replacement (nor would we want to) nor can we reproduce the different configurations of organs (between male and female) as they develop naturally over the course of aging.  The whole argument about legalizing it/making it illegal is more a legislated morality issue than a scientific one.

EDIT:  My thoughts on the whole messing with nature business are mixed too; [no one hit me for this] the whole Women's Rights movement (as in freedoms, specifically the freedom for a woman to control her own body) has pretty much f***ed the natural order anyway.  So from that standpoint, why not throw in the towel.  At the same time, I don't really trust the institutions that are making these services available to do as good a job as mother nature (and besides, it really defeats the purpose of sex, something that in truth should never have left the realm of reproduction to begin with), and I really don't like the idea of "test tube babies" because of that.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Natural selection is there for a reason. If this goes through and suddenly (for whatever reason) everyone wants a boy - what are you going to do, force people to have girls to keep the species going?

I'm against it unless there is a good medical reason.

Exactly - look at China; their one-baby-per-household policy means that boys outnumbering girls at an ever-increasing rate.  So either China is going to conquer Asia with a 200 million strong army within 20 years, or they're going to die out from inability to breed.

[StratComm]

I think population dieoff is exactly what China is going for though.  They're overcrowded, and the land is broken up too many ways.  Forcing families to merge rather than continually fracturing is something the higher-up in that country have been aiming at for years.  (Yes, I know China is communist.  But they still have some issues with land ownership and the tradition of at least passing on the family name, thus the problem of no one actually wanting girls).  However, it would create quite a problem if in, say, 50 years, China has a population crash of monumental proportions; I don't think any government could hold out under the strain.  What'll happen, though, is children born before this rule went into effect will age to realize that there are far too many men in China and have daughters, or the government will give it's birth-control policies up as futile.

And that was completely OT

EDIT:  And I'll quote this too

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Natural selection is there for a reason. If this goes through and suddenly (for whatever reason) everyone wants a boy - what are you going to do, force people to have girls to keep the species going?

It's not really about this "going through"... this sort of thing is (and has been) legal for quite some time.  This law is more important because it sets the precident for a government to regulate reproduction, in which case I'm against it (no matter what the law happens to say, for or against choosing the sex of a child).  This falls under the realm of "mind your own business" as it's one of those things that starts a ball rolling from the top of a hill.  It's an unstable equlibrium, once it starts to move, it will never stop.

[neo_hermes]

i believe it should only be done for medical purposes. there's more but what i have to say has already been said.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Goober5000


Exactly - look at China; their one-baby-per-household policy means that boys outnumbering girls at an ever-increasing rate.  So either China is going to conquer Asia with a 200 million strong army within 20 years, or they're going to die out from inability to breed.

This is OT but oh well... if youv ever read Orwells 1984; Communism would kill to be able to control birth and the creation of human beings.  Communism strips away intividuality and forces unity of a group by law. If a person was "grown" instead of born, he would have almost no identity for himself, ex. no family history. He would only be another person serving Government... its a scary thought....

BTW, if youv never read 1984, you should.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Carl
look at it this way, people:

if someone wanted to change your gender without your permission, should they be allowed to do it? if you vote yes in this pole, then that's exactly what you're voting for. think about it.

Dunno about you, but I've already been born.

[Black Wolf]

o way. There'd be trends, it'd be unavoidable. Population balance'd be skewed, and it'd be a downward spiral form there. Medical reasons would be probably the only loophole because there are sex specific genetic diseases, but ideally (in this case anyway) cure'd be better than prevention.

[Stryke 9]

You are aware that, given modern technology and politics, by all rights we should be disparate clouds of heavily irradiated vapor somewhere in the stratosphere right now? Give humanity some credit; we're dumb, but not a billionth as dumb as the techno-alarmists would like to pretend.

Me, I don't see the problem. With exactly two options there's no way you'd see "trends" ("Ooh, male children are, like, so in this month!"), and even if that were even a remote possibility, this isn't exactly something every pregnant woman on the planet is gonna have access to. Hell, half of 'em can barely get inoculations and hospital treatment for their babies, and that's in the rich countries- do you really think the urban poor are suddenly going to start modifying their fetuses at will? You think even the average middle-class suburbanite will be doing this sort of thing? This will, at most, be something the stupid rich do because they can and something that'll go over big in China because it beats hell out of killing your girl children after going through all the effort of giving birth to them. And if the stupid rich die out- what could be more in tune with natural selection? I don't think there's a chance in hell of the Chinese dying out any time soon. Any rational basis for banning treatments like this falls flat at the slightest examination, and all you're really left with is the same half-baked moralization and same tired fear of new things we've seen in bureaucrats from time immemorial. Why we pay a bunch of fat old assholes to sit around and tell us what's wrong and evil and we absolutely can't do for no readily available reason is beyond me- hell, I wouldn't let 'em pay me for the privelidge.

Me, I can't wait 'till the day I can get a baby with spikes. And maybe acid blood or something, I dunno.

[Setekh]

I voted yes. To be sure, I personally don't think it should be done; but to make it illegal would go against the progress this world is making in giving the next generation unparalleled choice. Whether the ability to choose has been good or bad is debatable, but humans will always seek for it. I think it ruins many good things, but go for your life if that's your choice.

[aldo_14]

I guess the question was a bit  isleading RE:  changing you sex (i.e. transexuals) vs selecting your childs'.  For point of referecne, I met the latter (selecting your childs sex before birth)

I'm firmly against it except in the case of hereditary defects affecting male / female children.  

Firsly, because I think it sets a dangerous precedent - the next step could be selecting facial appearance, or changing skin colour, etc.

Secondly, because it seems to trivialise the whole issue - I think a parents love for a child should be unconditional, regardless of what sex, colour, appearance or defects they may have/be born with.  If a set of parents are only prepared to accept a male child (for example), they shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Thirdly, i think it risks encouraging (or facilitating) sexual descrimination with certain ethnic / religious / social groups.

[karajorma]

I'm not particularly worried about gender imbalance as a result of sex selection being allowed. In fact it would be quite darwinian if such a trend did get started.
 Lets say that a certain ethnic group likes to have male children because girls have to have a dowry when they marry (there are several cultures that do this so it makes a good example). So everyone starts having boys. Anyone who chooses to have a girl instead has got it made. When the girl reaches marrying age the father can set a dowry of 1 penny and he'll still have millionaire families trying to get their sons married to his daughter because they have no other choice within their ethnic / religious / social group.
 Seeing this more people whould choose to have daughters. Basically evolution would favour those people smart enough to go against the gender imbalance every single time.

I agree with Aldo that it sets a dangerous precedent and that's why it should be stopped.

[Bobboau]

I don't see any problems with it, if the technology is there and you don't use it then you still selected not to change the gender, so you still have a choice and you decided to make your kid, whatever. as far as the whole, "oh no, people will start electing the color of ther childerens skin" bull, if there that concerned with that what are the chances that they are going to select for a mate someone who's skin color is diferent from there own, think about it.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Shrike
Lesbians are only amusing for eyecandy, and that's if they're hot.  But the entire point of lesbians is that they won't date you.  

No. That's the fun in lesbians. They're like a hurdle on your way to declaring yourself the Ultimate Stud™. You must cure at least 3 lesbians before you can claim the much covetted title.


As for the sex-selection thing, if people choose to have sex with their ki......*is informed by lackeys*......Oh, right. Err.

In that case, as things are in other areas of genetics, I am wholey against it.

In everything regarding genetics you should be forced to go either fully for it or fully against it. Either legalise it all and let people go wild making super-people and super-crops and super-cars and ****, or outlaw it all and stick to nature.

You can't decide to allow people to choose the sex of their children and say it's right; Then deny a farmer the right to modify his cows so they're more healthy and tell him it's wrong.

I'd consider choosing a male baby to avoid hereditary disease to be using genetics to make a stronger and healthier baby. And if that's the case, then why not go full-hog and totally re-engineer it's genetic structure.

[J3Vr6]

You guys ever see  the movie "Gattaca" ?  It was about gene engineering.  Honestly, I think it could very well get to that.  Perhaps not as exxagerated as the movie but close.

I don't agree in genetic engineering except for medical reasons.  And even then I'm a little hesitant.

I'm sure the Church is having a field day w/ this...

[Krackers87]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Also, you could get some psycho dictator guy building a massive army for his take-over-the-world bid in 20 years' time.

(OK, not very likely, but you know what I mean)

Knowing some people in this world, pretty likely....

[Gloriano]

Natural selection is only way

[an0n]

Originally posted by J3Vr6
I'm sure the Church is having a field day w/ this...

The church could never be THAT retarded.

If they start making a ruckuss, all anyone has to say is "Wow, I thought you guys woulda been all for this. I mean, the parents would be guaranteed a healthy, happy, supple, tender, sexy, little boy"

[aldo_14]

Um (this is sort of a summary) - normally I'm actually pro genetic stuff (for example, where a plant can be engineered to grow in very arid conditions and thus help relieve famines), provided it's not done solely for profit.

But in the case of 'cosmetic' modification on humans (and I include gender selction in this), I think it's better just to let nature (or God, depending on your relative beliefs and soforth) take it's course.

Another point that just occured to me is that, by giving an ever-increasing amount of control to the appearance (etc) of a child, you risk them being regarded as 'products' by future generations.

And in most (if not all cases) the people I've seen who want to select their childs' sex are doing so to fill some sort of percieved 'gap' in their life - for example, the loss of a child, or several same sex children (i.e. a large family of boys).  In many cases, I reckon that these people believe this is a sort of 'quick fix', and that they will become resentful if the child doesn't fill this perceived hole in their life.