Bentley Little

I was watching 60 Minutes and they had a segment on how couples could choose the gender of their baby with IVF (In-verto fertilization). It involves extensive medical procedures and only a handleful of doctors nationwide know how to do it properly.

My question is this: Are we playing God when we have the ability to chose the gender of our baby or our we just using the skills God gave us to do what we do as humans?

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

brianna

I don't feel that we are playing god, though i do question the practice in general -- i hope that we might look to china and learn from their mistakes in the area of gender selection. When a society that is rooted in sexual inequality is given the option of choosing the gender of their children (or as is the case in China reproduction is limited) gender diversity is often sacrificed.

Sp0rAdiC

I don't feel we are ever "playing god" because we are just furthering our knowledge and using it how we want. I don't think that the term "playing god" can really be applied to anything today, or anything in the near future. I think people use that term a little too loosely, because playing god would mean doing something that only god could do, which is basically things we don't know, so... bleh I'm rambling. Anyways, I think it's fine, as long as it's not abused, and I don't believe in a god or all powerful being. Science is the answer, and what we have here, is science.

orphen

Yeah, it's not "playing God"

we've been doing things like this in a macro scale for a long time. it may be different regarding your religious belief but if you believe animals are creations too, then we have been breeding dogs for centuries. the point is human has long been known to take traits they like and don't like, through scientific process "choose". of course it's quite different in the scientific sense as we directly alter a human's trait (the sex) but the fundemental idea of altering traits for ones own preferences has been done for a long time. i don't think it's playing God as much as playing "nature" for being the "selection factor" or if you study eco. for driving the "directional naturual selection".

CSflim

Well I think that you are asking entirely the wrong question, and it is for that very reason that I am firmly of the belief that religion and god should be kept entirely out of ethical discussions and politics (ha! yeah right! as if! Silly naive Flim!)

To show this, imagine I answered your question with "Yes. It would be 'playing God'; so what!?"

The questions we should be asking about matters like this is "should be allow parents to choose the gender of their child? If so, why? If not, why not? What are the potential pros and cons. Is a future going down such a path a desirable one or not?" We need to tackle the situation head on, based on its merrits not through a useless conduit of "god".

These matters are indeed vital and should be discussed in depth, without the need to resort to mystical "gods". This is too important to allow religion to mess it up.

__________________

orphen

i like where you stand CSfilm but don't you agree science does need moral in a fundemental level? (i'm an atheist..) I frankly agree with you that religious dogmas/ rules SHOULD be left out of science but i still believe scientists need to be trained in ethics (yes, it does require training at times) or else the world may be quite dangerous with all these mad scientist threatenting to change our weather pattern. well maybe not that bad, but I think some ethics is needed only merely for perpetuating human existance and utilitarian happiness as long as the end result of good, i believe breaking a few laws set my this god fellow isn't such a bad deal. of course one may argue by breaking laws of god, you are bringing doom/misery to the human kind. now that's a point of stalemate for both sides of the arguement~ i think

CSflim

Absolutely orphen! Nowhere in my post did I suggest that science should not be subjected to ethical considerations. But my point was that we can only get anywhere by asking the correct questions. Those involving god are not the correct questions.

__________________

StormBerlin

If you would consider that "playing God" then something as cheezy as taking an aspirin for your headache would fall under "playing God" as well. All the aspirin does is mask the headache, it doesn't help you figure out why you have the headache in the first place. If you weren't supposed to have a headache, then you wouldn't. a lot of people would argue that your headache is a message that there's something wrong with your body. Forgive me if this is all broken up, I've had a drink or two. If there are any question, I can clarify

__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane

orphen

I completely agree. the notion of playing God is not that new in this sense. If you ever read Angel and Demon you might remember one scene in which one of the characters with relgious parents would not allow him to recieve antibiotic for his disease. they said God will decide the outcome of you ailment; all you need is faith and all that. Although the debate here is on a radically different scale but hte foundation and advancement of medical science is giving human more power over his/her own life.

Thus depending on your religious belief, what "playing God" is can be defined very differently. As I posted before, I personally believe control over our own life should not be tabooed due ot religious reasons.

Techno

Are we neatly sidestepping the issue of whether the foetus is sentient* or not here? 'Cause IMO it's where the action's at. Ethically speaking, if you believe the foetus is human, then it's a form of child abuse.

But, to answer your question: how are we playing god? I'd argue manipulating the gender of your child isn't divine. There's very little miracle to it, simply scientific rituals. Making an infertile person fertile is closer to biblical examples of god dabbling in midwifery, and deeply more miraculous.


*For my own ethical purposes, I only place moral value in sentience. You may say "human" or "a person", you get the idea?

__________________
"Don't take any guff from these swine"

Seer666

Of course we are. We were made in His image. We're just learning the tools of the trade that we are to inherit.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

ARTelevision

Since there isn't any "god" it's not about playing god.
I think abortion is a better thing to do than have children but if one absolutely must have children there's no reason why one shouldn't choose traits, as possible. Perhaps that will cause people to like them a bit more more and care more about them and perhaps even take better care of them - given the supremely egoistic and self-centered thing parenting is. Who knows.

__________________
create evolution

Bentley Little

That's an interesting angle...something to think about.

__________________
That is my 2 cents.

kirth gersen

I think there is nothing wrong or unethical about wanting to select the gender of one's child. There would be something wrong with someone else (like the gov't) selecting the gender one's child. FYI- the topic is discussed at the national level here -http://www.bioethics.gov/