twitter facebook stumble upon rss

Fight Overpopulation with Genetic Testing

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

"Trying" for a boy or girl often just leads to more mouths to feed.

woman with too many baby girls

Many women I know already have kids, but the ones who have girls want a boy and the ones with little girls crave having a boy. An acquaintance of mine had two boys, but she always wanted a girl -- so she had another baby which turned out to be another boy. She's still determined to get a girl -- and she and her husband are trying again for a girl. In the meantime, they're going broke. They already have three kids, way more than they can afford or than the planet actually needs. This woman, who seems predestined to only pop out boys, would be the perfect candidate for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis -- a process that can determine an eggs' sex. 

PGD isn't cheap. It can cost upwards of $3,000 plus the usual approximately $15,000 IVF fee. But I think it might be worth it if it would stop women from rolling the gender dice ... and losing.

Have you ever tried to have another child just to get one of a different sex? 



next: Ellen's Halloween Surprises
7 comments so far | Post a comment now
Trina October 30, 2008, 9:00 AM

you just tsaid she can’t afford the 3 she has, so how is she going to afford the $3000 test? just a thought.

i understand trying for what sex you want. but what you think you want may not be what you really do. i wanted a girl so so so bad….and of course had a boy, and i wouldn’t change it for the world, i’m not having anymore children and i never regret not having a girl. god know what he is doing.

RIN October 30, 2008, 11:38 AM

I COMPLETELY BELIEVE YOU SHOULD ONLY HAVE ANY CHILDREN BECAUSE YOU WILL LOVE AND CHERISH THEM , AND I THINK PART OF THAT IS BEING ABLE TO RAISE AND AFFORD THEM. PAYING FOR A BABY DOES NOT CHANGE LOVE. FOOD CLOTHING AND SHELTER IS A WAY OF SHOWING LOVE. IF THEY CAN DO THAT AND THEY HAVE DECIDED THEY CAN HAVE ANOTHER BABY REGARDLESS OF THE GENDER -THAN SUPPORT THEM, IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS THAT WONT GO AWAY BRING IT UP. WE ALL NEED HELP, IF THEY MAKE A BAD DECISION MAYBE YOU CAN HELP THAT CHILD FEEL LOVED LATER IN LIFE. MY PARENTS DID NOT NEED ME BUT THEY HAD ME AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE SHAPED HOW I WAS RAISED.

Amber October 30, 2008, 3:14 PM

I had twin boys first. When they were 20 months old we tried again, yes hoping for a girl. When he turned out to be a he we decided to stop. We wanted 4 kids to begin with but after my 3rd I felt like I was done. I have no desire to get pregnant. I’m not sad for never having a girl, I love having 3 boys.

Even if I could afford to blow $3000 on a test for a girl I wouldn’t do it.

Evasta October 30, 2008, 10:34 PM

There seems to be an unspoken assumption here that your genes are so special that you need to reproduce them and that “parenting for 18+ years” is the same as “having a baby” (biologically).

If you really want to commit to parenting (which should be the case if you are choosing children)then adopt. If the gender of the child is all that important to you, adopt the gender you want to parent.

Global carrying capacity is about 2 billion and we are rapidly approaching 7 billion. We are well into what is called “overshoot” which will lead to an inevitable collapse.(Think resource wars, starvation, epidemics, etc.)

If we choose to reduce our population voluntarily, the collapse will be somewhat less harsh and with somewhat less suffering.
Suggested reading:

www.paulchefurka.ca

http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

Anna October 31, 2008, 3:09 PM

if you want a child of a particular gender so bad why no adopt, silly. There are plenty of children who could use your love.

Pete Murphy November 1, 2008, 10:45 AM

Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I’m not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, soaring commodity prices, environmental degradation, etc. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.

I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight other countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. The U.S. is the only developed country still experiencing third world-like population growth. It’s absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized.

If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.)

Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new perspective into the overpopulation debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”

Enfant forum March 5, 2011, 3:55 PM

A powerful share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing a bit of evaluation on this. And he in fact purchased me breakfast as a result of I discovered it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the deal with! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to debate this, I feel strongly about it and love studying more on this topic. If potential, as you develop into experience, would you thoughts updating your weblog with extra details? It’s extremely helpful for me. Huge thumb up for this weblog put up!


Back to top >>
advertisement