A Commons Science and Technology Committee just put forward it's recommendations on reproductive technology; and whilst most of it is obviously controversial, there's one recommendation in particular that's grabbed the headlines. They've suggested that parents undergoing IVF should be allowed to pick the sex of their child.

Go debate.

Well, why not? If they can do it, without significant added risk to the child's life, where's the harm?

OK... just because, during the process, the sex of each embryo is established in advance of implantation does not automatically mean that parents should have a right to know the sex of any embryos, unless there's a known serious medical condition that affects one gender of offspring in preference to the other - this is already established in British law (laid out, if memory serves in the 1990 Human fertilisation and embryology act.)

In the vast majority of cases, there is no inherent risk with having a child of either sex, therefore the pregnancy should be treated as if it were entirely natural by any other means - If a couple conceives naturally, the sex of the baby is never predetermined; therefore the sex should not be predetermined during regular IVF treatment.

Allowing people to choose the sex of their offspring through IVF would set a legal preceedent - eventually someone'll spot a loophole in the system that would open the door for "elective IVF". The result would be that (rich) couples who want a child of a particular gender could pay to opt into the IVF programme so they could engineer their families - this would clog up the system and prevent those who are physically incapable of having children by any other means from getting the treatment.

This whole concept opens the door to further "progeny engineering", eventually resulting in a society that runs along the lines of those laid out in GATTACA.

IVF should simply remain a process that mimics natural conception - not mutate into a system by which children can be designed at the whim of the parents.

EDIT... typos...

I'm going to also have to say that parents under going IVF should be able to chose the sex of their child as long as their is no increased risk to the baby. When I grow up(heh Im 18 and I still say that) and marry I would like a daughter more than a son and if circumstances force my wife and I to visit a IVF clinic then it would be nice to have that option.

However, I can see the whole can of worms that can be opened by this, especailly with that religious cult that believes in cloning and thinks that we all came from alien DNA (Railens i think?). They would use this as leverage to try to get cloning legalized or have more options available to them through IVF(Eye color, height, hair color, etc) and that would be scary.

That would slowly erode the value of a human being as doctors and IVF companies would stem to make a huge profit out of this and would no doubt charge insane prices for it to occur, and knowing desperate parents, they would gladly pay.

i think the comparison to GATTACA is relevant to this discussion. The movie revolved around a society wherein there were two classes of people. One was freely conceived and born, and the "Genetic Elite" were reprogrammed in the womb to be stronger, faster, and more genetically "perfect."

This sort of Ivf genetic programming, freely available, would open doors that would be very hard to close. First off, you choose sex... then eventually you'll be able to choose hair color and eye color... then as the tech becomes further refined, skin tone, height, weight, muscle tone, metabolism, bloodtype, etc... etc... etc...

As soon as the "genetically superior" becomes commonplace a new prejudice is born.

As it stands, I too have a preference to have one sex over another as far as offspring goes, but my choice should not be allowed to influence the gender of my offspring... You get what you get... My wife and I are expecting our first child in a little under three months, and half the excitement at the moment is waiting to see what we get... we've turned down all offers to find out what gender our baby is - whatever the sex of the baby, it will be loved the same, and no matter whether they're male, female, goth or hairdresser, they'll be our baby...

Nobody NEEDS to chose the sex of thier baby (unless it is medically prudent to do so) - its just a case once again of people wanting to "because they can"...

Anyway... Example time...

Apparently 75% of young couples in Japan would prefer a girl over a boy for their first born. Allowing the choice through IVF if the split is that significant would result in a massive population imbalance on top of it all, Japanese families currently have an average of 1.29 children.

The maths makes for serious reading... If we assume that this goes ahead and all all japanese families get to pick the gender of thier first born, 75% pick girls, and the rest have boys - thats a 3:1 ratio established there...

If we then go on to assume that the remaining 0.29 is evenly distributed female and male, we get the average japanes family comprising of two parents, with 0.895 girls and 0.395 boys... that's a 70:30 split.

In 50 years time the effect on the balance of poulation, especially if the situation compounds itself with a second and third generation, could be astounding...

sure - but that's already happening in China using low-tech methods, and has been happening in large parts of the world for probably as long as people have been people. You just abort the sex you don't want. If that's not an available option, you leave the baby out on a hillside somewhere. It's cruel, yes. I don't pretend to know any "right" answer, but in general I prefer to leave options available unless there're powerful reasons to restrict them. Here, I just don't see them - sure there can be problems down the road; unbalanced sex ratios may lead to social stresses; Brave New Worlds may become dystopias, etc. I'd let it ride and see what happens before I would make a decision, though - perhaps it will end up transforming society the way the Interstate Highway system did in the US - some unforseen problems and costs; some useful benefits.
Oh, and on a personal note, I never understood why people were anxious to know the sex of the baby in the first place. Call me old-fashioned, but I preferred to find out the traditional way. Still, there it is: different strokes and all that.

I agree wholeheartedly...

I'm referring to my wife's bump as "the kinder surprise"...

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all :D

Of course, we'd have to legalize polygamy...

I think there are already some clinics that do this. But most of them have some sort of guidlines such as,

-the couple has to already have a child(ren)
-they want a child of a sex that they do not currently have a child of
-the parents have to have a relativly stable environment.

Also this IFV gender differentiation could help families where there is a sex linked trait that is more likely to affect the male children.

This system is in place and functioning in the UK as it stands, and has been since the mid-1990s if memory serves... In fact, we've gone a little further insofar as we have had legal perceedent allowing selection of "saviour siblings" - children selected to be an exact tissue match to a previous infant who is in need of an organ or bone marrow transplant...

I have a few quarms about this (personally I feel its a little ghoulish, but I wasn't in the courtroom) but now its on the statute... my issue is that people should not be able to choose "just because they want a girl / boy"...

The difference must be etablished between "want" and "need" in the law... savour siblings could be argued to border on a "want" if you ask me... the child is selected to merely act as a vessel for tissues to "save" an elder sibling...

Free choice for the sake of it is definately disallowed by law so far and, IMHO, should remain so...