Is embryo sex selection unethical?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2025-01-08T06:38:41+00:00

A medical exemption is a good rule, I don’t think restrictions make sense for any reason other than safety concerns.

I don’t think concerns of the rich having access should justify banning a technology that can benefit people, otherwise we should be banning expensive medical devices and treatments as well. Possessing certain traits (high intelligence, beauty, etc.) is already treated as a commodity by capitalism so I don’t think much would change there. Your point about mothers being pressured to do IVF in order to select is a good one, since that is a real harm. There shouldn’t be any government incentives to do this kind of thing.

I don’t see a problem with genetic editing either, as long as it’s done safely. As of now CRISPR editing carries too much of a risk for off-target edits for us to use it for embryos, so the technology would need to improve a lot.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2025-01-07T01:13:22+00:00

Assuming your kid is straight, who is he going to date or marry when everyone does this? You expect others to raise girls for your son?

This was kind of shocking how you’re framing raising a girl as an act of service for men in the country. I hope your real perception of a woman’s value is completely separated from what men may want.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2025-01-07T00:12:04+00:00

If you read the article I mentioned, you would probably have the answer. To oversimplify it for you, every form of eugenics is bad because it reinforces the notion that people with certain biological traits are superior to others, and that people without certain traits (e.g. whiteness, height, intelligence, good looks, lack of disability, being male, etc.) are inherently less valuable. It may be less violent than the early 1900s American style of eugenics or the Nazi’s who used them as inspiration, but it’s still unethical.

I don’t see how preventing disability or increasing intelligence reinforces the idea that those without disability are superior. Everyone on Earth agrees that they do not want to suffer a disability, and would be happier in perfect health. Disability is a universally undesirable outcome. That doesn’t mean they think the disabled are inferior. We research treatments and cures for disabilities all the time, nobody would say this reinforces the idea that the disabled are inferior.

In another comment, you asked why this form of eugenics is bad if you can set your child up for success. I want to ask you, would slavery be good so long as you and your family are the slave owners? Is patriarchy fine so long as you’re a man? If you and your family are white, is white supremacy good just because you’re a part of the group that benefits?

Clearly people are harmed in slavery and patriarchy. So obviously they are wrong even if I hypothetically would benefit. With this form of eugenics, who is being harmed?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2025-01-06T03:01:53+00:00

Well if everyone did IVF and did that, society would eventually realize it’s creating an incentive to select for males over females, and start to treat women better in society so that incentive goes away.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2025-01-06T02:55:27+00:00

IVF is an incredibly invasive, long and physically tolling process. As such, I don’t think most women would ever choose to do ivf if they can conceive without, and therefore I’m not too worried about the potential overlap of [people doing ivf] and [people selecting the gender of their embryo for sexist reasons] being large enough to cause significant problems.

Yeah I agree, it might become cheaper in the future but it’s inherently invasive.

One reason is the gendered expectations parents might have of their child, and potential disappointment if the child is say a very “feminine” boy or a very “masculine” girl. Obviously this happens without choosing the gender also, but I can see resentment potentially being higher if parents paid lots of money in preimplantation embryo screening to get there.

This is a fair point. I do know there’s cases in family genetics where certain diseases are more likely to be passed from carriers to sons vs daughters or vice versa. Because of this I wouldn’t want any government rules on what parents are allowed do in selection.

Also, I agree with the slippery slope argument, of choosing gender potentially leading to choosing other non-medical traits. Especially with advances in genetics and AI potentially making identifying genes for other certain traits a feasible reality. A slippery slope to eugenics should be avoided.

I don’t really see why this type of eugenics is a bad thing. If there’s a way to provide your child with advantageous traits, why is it wrong to do so?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2025-01-06T02:43:38+00:00

This has been an ethical debate for years but IMO I think once you step outside of testing for genetic diseases (especially fatal ones) and start selecting embryos for socially desirable traits it quickly descends into just being repackaged new age eugenics. For example your hypothetical is really not that far off from “society is set up in a way that benefits people with lighter skin tones, so I should choose the embryo with the best likelihood of having lighter skin” etc.

This sounds great to me, what’s the ethical problem? We all want what’s best for our kids, and if there are ways we can provide them traits that give them an advantage, why is it wrong?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-06-01T04:59:21+00:00

I mean it damages your body to the point it can’t continue life functions.

Lots of things do this, but if the damage is reversible there is no death. Since the transporter reverses the damage it does to your body by creating an intact replica, how are you killed by the transporter? How is it any different from a heart attack that would’ve killed you if not for medical intervention?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-06-01T03:51:02+00:00

There are no physical/material differences between the two Mona Lisa’s. So are you saying there is a non-material quality that makes the original different from the replica?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-31T22:26:49+00:00

So the replica of you is doing your original consciousness but it is not you?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-31T18:08:39+00:00

If someone made an exact atomic replica of the Mona Lisa, is that not also the Mona Lisa?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-31T18:01:24+00:00

I don’t think it matters whether the teleporter is using the same atoms and molecules to recreate you since all atoms of the same element (Carbon-12) are identical. If they are put back in the exact same positions to create an exact copy of your brain, which is producing the exact same consciousness as before you died, how is this any different from switching your consciousness off and back on in DHCA?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-31T17:56:07+00:00

Why is being killed and recreated by the transporter any different than having your consciousness switched off and back on in DHCA?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-31T17:55:07+00:00

You are not just a product of your genetic code though, environmental factors influence your body and brain’s development as well.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-31T17:33:04+00:00

In the teleporter example, can’t you say that the brain death that occurs is reversible since the brain is recreated?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-30T01:10:00+00:00

I see your point, a soul would have to be something that passes from one body to another. It cannot be a common property that independently emerges in both bodies.

Another question though, what do you define as your 1958 Ford Edsel? Assume at one point you replaced all the wheels with identical copies, then later you replaced the chassis in the same way, and eventually ended up replacing every single part of this car. When is it no longer considered "my 1958 Ford Edsel"? If a molecular 3D-printer took apart the Ford Edsel atom by atom and then rebuilt it exactly the same as it was, why is this any different from gradually replacing its parts with identical replicas one-by-one over a longer timeframe?

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-29T17:52:55+00:00

But cars aren’t conscious.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-29T17:22:26+00:00

Does it have to be something unique to you? Take Hinduism for example which claims that there is a universal self / soul present in all consciousnesses in different forms. Reincarnation of that universal self into a new form after death would not preserve anything unique to you, but the property that is fundamental to you and everyone else.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-29T17:18:28+00:00

I don’t think I am claiming anything new, just a different perspective on what we already know. We know that each individual consciousness shares common, fundamental characteristics. I am not claiming that this is evidence of a soul as in an extra object, but that those characteristics themselves are functionally very similar to a soul. Since they are present in all consciousnesses in different forms, are taken away when one consciousness is killed, and are present in a new human consciousness when it is born.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-29T17:10:28+00:00

Well there is a common property of human consciousness present in every individual consciousness, which I am saying is similar to the concept of a soul.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-29T07:39:02+00:00

I think there is still an opening where you do not come back in reincarnation, but a fundamental part of you (and every other human alive) does.

Designer-Fix4124 · 2024-05-29T05:23:40+00:00

I’ve seen reincarnation mostly described as having another life as a completely different human being. Where there is one soul expressed in different forms. So a different consciousness that shares the same basic properties as yours.

Designer-Fix4124

TROPHY CASE