garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) (10/07/86)
(3rd attempt at posting, I *think* the other 2 vanished :-) In a recent article in mod.comp-soc hplabs!taylor (Dave Taylor) wrote: > From a fairly reputable source last night, I heard that a product has > just been introduced on the market that allows parents to choose the > sex of their unborn child. > > There is also a big uproar about it... We were just talking about this yesterday: my own thought was that at first, in many societies, boy babies would be preferred. There would be more cannon fodder to fight wars with, and more male competition and violence in general. And that would be a Bad Thing. But as female babies and females became less numerous in the population, the societies and families might discover that the numerous males were always throwing themselves into wars and getting killed (I'm thinking of Iran and Iraq), less able to procreate (by the numbers), and in general being not-too-useful for one's declining years and for society. Then female children would become, willy-nilly, more valuable and more valued. Things might or might not recover to equality of numbers, but at least there would be equality of *value*. It would be a dramatic change of thinking. And that would be a Good Thing. (The U.S., on the average, might go against the grain - purely subjective, but the women I know seem to hope for girl children, and the men I know do too.) garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu) PS - I'm not much interested in receiving pseudo-Christian flames about "interfering with God's Will". (Honest ethical/moral discussions, are, on the other hand, always most welcome.)
rissa@chinet.UUCP (Garret and Trish) (10/09/86)
In article <1178@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu writes: >But as female babies and females became less numerous in the population, >the societies and families might discover that the numerous males were >always throwing themselves into wars and getting killed (I'm thinking of >Iran and Iraq), less able to procreate (by the numbers), and in general >being not-too-useful for one's declining years and for society. Then >female children would become, willy-nilly, more valuable and more valued. > >And that would be a Good Thing. Not necessarily. I tend to think female children would definitely become more valuable as potential brood mares. And those poor unfortunates that could not supply their quota of children would have no purpose or value to society. And we know what THAT means. Yuck. Trisha (and that would be a Bad Thing) O Tuama