What if you decide after maybe 4 years you don't like a girl. Wouldn't be awesome if you could change it!!!!
Sigh. It was bound to happen. (not surprisingly, I have ethical objections to this for so many reasons... though I won't go into detail on that right now) I wonder what gender people will prefer, if either. Needless to say, this could throw the natural balance off. Remember, if you're conceiving naturally, you always have the same (roughly) 50/50 odds. No folk remedies or family history will change that. It's like flipping a coin. (by the way, imagine how your parents would explain your conception... "well, you know about sex by now. But it wasn't that. See, we wanted a [boy]. So Mommy had her eggs harvested, and Daddy was sent off to a private room with a magazine to provide a sperm sample, and they mixed you up in a petri dish. Be glad they picked you and not one of the other embryos, or you wouldn't be here.)
Did you not pay attention in biology?!?!?!?!! Women far outnumber the men in this world. Percentage-wise it's not THAT much but it is still significant. Every human is female first, as I'm sure you know, and it can either develop into male or remain female. I can't find good data online to back my **** up, but yeah.
Actually, more embryos start out male than female. But males are thought to be more vulnerable to various defects, more likely to miscarry, etc. The actual live birth rate is right around 50/50. The reasons women outnumber men in this world (and trust me, I'd rather it be the other way - those aren't good odds): - Tend to live longer. - Not involved as frequently in violent conflict (from wars to inner-city drug/gang murders). - Less chance of heart attacks at early age, etc. Used to, women risked their life substantially every time they gave birth. Of course, they don't give birth as often now, and the procedure is much safer. There's really not that much to reduce our numbers, compared to yours. and, from the point of view of a straight female, the odds get even worse... -there are more gay men than women -there are more men than women who are in prison or just crazy or violent... -and then there are all those priests. (I was relieved to find out there are far more nuns than priests and monks combined.) In other words, there's not quite one of you for every one of us. Our odds of finding men are not good, especially as we get older (or have kids/ other "strikes" against us). Who knows, maybe that's a lot of the reason we tend to stay with the man we have, whether we like the circumstances or not. (by the way, about being female first... no, male characteristics don't develop until the Y chromosome kicks in and does its thing. But it will. You can't change DNA. In fact, I have trouble truly accepting "sex changes" unless the person can change his/her (what pronoun to use?) genetic makeup.)
BORING. What we really need is a eugenics program. That is what will give America a competitve advantage heading into the space age.
Makes you wonder why women are so damn picky then. (My alternate joke was going to be: "See, when men cheat, it's only because there aren't enough men to go around" or something to that effect) I swear I saw a statistic the other day that said the opposite of what you were saying, but in my quest to find it again, I looked at the US Census site, and their data backs up the general population breakdown you mentioned.
Actually, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. And, if you go back to pregnancy, there are 120 boys to every 100 girls. The thing is, boys have a higher mortality rate than girls, so it could very well be that humans have evolved to produce more males so that they even out. Women also outlive men on average and they marry men who are 2 to 3 years older than them. Fascinating stuff.
Ok, I can actually speak from experience on this subject. The article is referring to a test known as PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis). My wife and I actually have gone through this, but not because we wanted to "pick" the sex of our baby. I have a genetic condition which makes having children naturally almost impossible. Because of this, we have to do in-vitro fertilization (IVF) along with PGD. This way they can determine what embyros are genetically normal (none were in our first try) and only put those back. I have heard of people wanting to use PGD for gender selection alone, but the vast majority of doctors will not perform the test based only on that. When used for a known medical condition, it is actually a very effective test because it will prevent couples from going through multiple miscarriages and dealing with that emotional and financial loss. The PGD test in our case cost $3,000 (in addition to the $12,000 that in-vitro alone costs). We never asked what gender our embryos were, and they never told us. If we are succesful with this someday and my wife actually gets pregnant, then I still wouldn't want to know. I think the test is great for diagnosing genetic conditions, but it should be left at that. Just wanted to give my $.02 . Having been through this, it is obviously a subject I'm very interested in and know alot about.
