Chrissy Teigen chose the gender of her baby
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I already have 2 boys and was going to use the rest of the embryos to try for a girl but decided we can't financially afford another child.
This is normal and not surprising at all. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
As others have said, if you do pre-implantation analysis - which you'd do if you were doing IVF b/c you had some sort of possibility of passing down a genetic disease, or recurrent losses, etc. - they know the genetics. But most (or at least, many) people doing IVF don't do that procedure because that's not the reason they are doing IVF (oh, and by the way- I highly doubt anyone would choose to do it as geerally it makes IVF less successful last I checked). |
Anonymous
| I went through PGD IVF to have my two children, and the gender selection was only available, at the time, for family balance (if you already have 3 or more of the same gender children) or if you were trying to do PGD for a gender specific mutation/disorder. Gender selection I believe requires PGD, I remember reading an article a year ago that most clinics don't do it unless extreme circumstances, but a place in California will do it for anyone. |
Anonymous
No dear. This "gender" as you describe is a very new idea created by people with an agenda. Sex=gender by definition and within science. They are interchangeable. |
Anonymous
Sigh. You're the one with the agenda. They are two different words with two different meanings. Sex is biological while gender is a social construct. Within science, when reporting statistics, no one talks about reporting disease rates by age and gender. They do however talk about reporting rates by age and sex. Back to Chrissy and John - no, I don't have a problem with this. I wonder why she mentioned it though. She must have guessed they'd be criticized. |
Anonymous
No, they don't. they choose the strongest/healthiest embryo(s). |
Anonymous
| If you are epeaking in regards to ivf, the medically correct term is gender selection. |
Anonymous
I did pgd ivf at Shady Grove for a single gene mutation issue. I was not offered gender selection as my mutation isn't gender specific. It's a day 5 transfer. The embryologist rates the surviving embryos and they tell you what the top choices are (which ones are healthiest and strongest at that point). The pgd lab also said they only check for the mutation, they do not do the entire genome mapping (so I wouldn't be able to know the gender/sex, if it had an extra 23rd chromosome, etc.). Usually if they are doing PGd it is for one specific thing, so this suggests to me they did pgd specifically for gender selection. |
Anonymous
That's just because they're squeamish about using the term "sex". I also see this from people early in their research careers. The reason: They're squeamish about saying "sex", and because they forget that sex does not equal sexual intercourse, they fall back on "gender". Every year I see a lecture by someone who's been doing research for a long time, saying please stop being squeamish and use the correct term. IVF clinics may be saying gender selection, but that's a term that was probably chosen for a similar reason: it sounds softer and may appeal more to patients. XX and XY are what? Gender chromosomes? I don't think so. They're sex chromosomes. Sometimes PGD is useful when a parent is a carrier for a sex-linked genetic disorder. It's not called a "gender-linked" disorder. |
Anonymous
Preach! And thank you. The incorrect use of the word gender is a huge pet peeve of mine. |
Anonymous
* kidney transplants * blood transfusions * life-saving medicine Aren't all doctors tampering with our bodies and playing God?? |
Anonymous
NP. I do see where you're coming from, but at the same time those are all designed to help people already in existence, not make decisions about what kind of person to create in the first place. It feels like a significant difference to me and maybe a bridge too far. Nature has come to a finely tuned equilibrium of sex balance in the human population over millions of years of evolution and it seems short-sighted and possibly fraught with unintended consequences to start making it a widely acceptable choice to mess with that. We cannot possibly know what all the effects would be on a macro scale. |
Anonymous
|
to be honest, I personally think using ART is a form of "playing god" already.
Please understand I am not saying it is wrong or evil or anything, but it isn't really "nature taking its course." -signed, someone who tried iui |
Anonymous
| I don't think most clinics are going to just allow sex selection for any old reason. Sounds like they are a rather extreme case. I don't believe that enough couples have to go this far that it will tip the delicate balance. |