Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yikes. This smacks really hard of modernists doing something because "they can". In fact this is a problem with modernism in general. The lack of moral consideration. We are not equipped by God or nature to make such decisions. This is the kind of technological thought that leads or works with things like China's birth policies, inspired IVF (which usually kills some babies), etc. It is an anti-life, and anti-God act, even if those involved in it don't understand it. We need to back off of this sort of nonsense. Science should be put to work on cancer, hearing, blindness, etc. Instead we went gonzo with micro electronics and made amazing computers that we carry in our pockets and double as phones, but have destroyed interpersonal communication, manners, privacy decency and serenity, but also puts pretty much all of mans knowledge at our fingertips, so that we no longer use our brains to think. We can read all the great philosophers, (but we still don't ;-)), yet we're hard pressed to know how to carry through on a philosophical thought as intellectual exercise or to understand and form world views. Look....I mean, I'm NOT anti-tech, as this may come off. This post itself is high tech, being done on a computer, and avoiding facial expression, tone, etc. which all normally help us in conveying intent and emotion in communication. It's just that we've reached a point where we CAN do most everything. We now need to spend a LOT more time deciding whether or not we SHOULD do each new thing that we come up with. Look at impacts on all aspects of human community, with some important exceptions for life saving and certain treatments for diseases and immunology, I am generally against elective medicine and genetic sciences. We're starting to take steps into areas of science not really intended for man. We've outstripped our universal roles. I shouldn't and don't worry about it too much, because the Lord and nature will eventually correct whatever is wrong, I just don't relish the correction that will be doled out. At least I'm in my sixties, but I do have grandchildren etc.. In some ways we're leaving a good place for them, but I think we may have messed up more that we have solved in many areas. I'm happy to hear that those in school are a least discussing these things.
Historically, before abortion was available, many babies were killed either because they were the wrong sex or just because the parents couldn't afford them. These babies were typically "exposed" -- thrown outside and left to die. It appears that no one wanted to just kill them outright, which would have been more merciful (in my opinion). One of King Saul's children was "lame in the feet" supposedly because he was left to die, but someone rescued him.
Today of course, that's "infanticide" and prosecuted as a form of murder in nearly all countries. Abortion is considered a "lesser" form of murder and is mostly legal today. The use of the new technologies to select gender is a *much* less evil method, and certainly ought to be considered ethical in some cases, though I find it troubling in general.
So, I am reading psychology for my class. And did you know that people can actually go and choose the gender of their child if they wanted to? I don't know where they go and do this, but they can. If someone wanted a boy, they can go somewhere and have maybe a scientist or a doctor, (I don't really know) by inactivating a Y or X chromosome before conception. That is weird.
So, my question is, do you think that is morally wrong to do something like that? We are reading about this in my Psych class. And I just want to know what you think. This is illegal in 36 nations, but it is not illegal here in the U.S.
Do you think it should be illegal?
My advice is don't get medical advice from a psychology text book. There are no x/y sperm inactivation methods
Do I think we should make something illegal that doesn't exist? I think there's more pressing matters to consider.
What if something goes wrong with it?
What if a birth defect results from this interference?
Whether or not scientists have found a way to perform such, obviously it's being thought about.
I'm not and I've never heard of Minority Report.If you're looking to make thinking about stuff illegal, I would say you have watched Minority Report a few too many times.
There have to be some kind of consequences to monkeying around with that.Thank you for answering. I agree with you.
I'm not sure how the technique works. (It could have its own ethical considerations.)
Barring that, it is selective contraception. Contraception does not violate the Bible as long as it is not abortifacient. (You can't kill somebody who is not yet alive.)
(My wife & I are Quiverfull, so we eschewed medically unnecessary contraception as a rule. We don't expect others to do that apart from their own personal conviction.)
IUD's eject a completed zygote. Hormonal contraception can do the same thing (as a side effect).If a sperm and ova have already joined to produce a zygote, the gender selection is not contraception.
In theory, gender selection occurs before conception. This is done by stationing a "bouncer" at the doorway to turn away all male (Y) or female (X) sperm. Mom's ovum is always X.If a sperm and ova have already joined to produce a zygote, the gender selection is not contraception.
I agree.It is still not contraception if a sperm and ova conceive because the woman gets pregnant.
That is one ethical issue. Implanting seven zygotes with the intention of aborting [the least successful] six is certainly another.The ethical issue, if I am correct, is instead of using a husband's sperm, scientists get sperm at a "sperm bank" so often nobody knows who the father is, including the parents.
Are you saying that a plan that requires subsequent abortions can be ethical...?Then there is Octomom, whose doctor had his medical license revoked after letting her have 14 children - all as a young single celibate.
Are you saying that a plan that requires subsequent abortions can be ethical...?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?