response 178 of 216:

Oct 16 15:00 UTC 2000

Re #167: Well, it might help the population growth problem...

I usually use Merriam-Webster because it's freely accessable online.  It's
not as good as the OED but it's cheaper.

response 180 of 216:

Oct 18 01:46 UTC 2000

Re #169:  Perhaps people using schemes which select for sex as
a byproduct should have to buy some fraction of a selection right,
depending on the probabalistic outcome of their procedure.  Or
maybe the government should pay for it, as a public-health measure.

It's feasible to select sperm for either sex.  There are fluorescent
dyes which mark DNA, and sperm can be sorted by the amount of DNA
they have (the X chromosome is bigger than the Y chromosome, so XX
sperm have more DNA than XY sperm).  If you want to select, you can.
It's just a question of wanting to.

Lois McMaster Bujold has already seen the "precious girls" thing
coming, and written it into Barrayar.  Thumbnail sketch:  long
isolated, feudal, barely industrial planet is rediscovered by
galactic civilization and goes through some huge upheavals as a
result of the cultural shifts.  One of the advances is the uterine
replicator.  In "A Civil Campaign", the Koudelka family has four
girls, the first two naturally, the last two quite deliberately
by way of replicators.  The mind-set of the parents was, with the
male-primogeniture emphasis of the culture (put into sharp relief
by another sub-plot) there was an oversupply of boys in the upper
classes, and *great* opportunities for girls.

Great book.  Read at least some of the previous books in the series
before tackling it.

The real issue is, by the time a problem becomes obvious by the
unavailability of mates it's about a generation too late to do
anything about it.  Thus my suggestion of a market in selection
rights for the here-and-now, to even things out before that happens.

response 182 of 216:

Oct 18 14:42 UTC 2000

re #180: James Blish did it, too, in "And All the Stars a Stage" (1974). 
He describes families as generally choosing to "start out with a boy", 
then in a generation women are in demand and in control of most of 
society.

response 184 of 216:

Oct 19 04:23 UTC 2000

Re #181:  I doubt it, else it couldn't be used for sex selection.

Re #183:  You are correct.

response 186 of 216:

Oct 24 04:31 UTC 2000

Re #185: I was under the impression that it had been, but I cannot
say for certain.

response 188 of 216:

Oct 30 12:55 UTC 2000

It takes two to tango, as they say.  And both should be held accountable. 
It is just as immoral for a man to father a child and walk away as it is for
a woman to have an abortion.  But still, two wrongs don't make a right.  Thats
why we don't want people to have sex until after they are married.  It shows
a commitment by both participants to themselves and the future.  It gives us
some hope that these two are mature enough to raise progeny as they come
along.

Yes, I think you should keep your pants on until after you are married, I
don't think it happens to often, but at least it might make you keep them on
until after you are engaged!

response 190 of 216:

Oct 30 16:20 UTC 2000

Re #188:
    I thought that both *were* held accountable.

response 192 of 216:

Oct 31 08:12 UTC 2000

I'd like to see values as well as sex technology taught at the age when
the question comes up (like 7th grade?).  Teach the potential women who
are at least over half a decade from autonomy in our society whatsup -
just what the deal is and how to say no (to the horny little shits like
I was at that same age).  "If you love me you'll do it" is right up
there with "No, I won't cum in your mouth", and "If it hurts I'll pull
it right back out" and "Its totally Windows Compatible", and "The check
is in the mail".  I'd like to see mandatory 'parental notification' - if
the situation blows up because the parents weren't doing what they
should have been doing in the first place, this is one area where I
think the 'State' indeed has an interest, and I'm not gonna bother to
explain that one 'cause if you don't see it, you won't.  I'd like to see
adoption be seriously offered as an alternative to abortion.  There are
childless couples out there who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars 
of their own and taxpayer money trying to have children of their own
which for whatever reason are incompatible genetically that would jump
at a chance to love and cherish a child even if its not genetically
related.

I'd like to see a nation where abortion is truely the last resort
instead of where such is regarded much like taking a shit.

It seems to me a truely moral person has to regard abortion the same as
capital punishment and the right to bear arms and be equally leary of
and support the unpleasant necessity of all.

response 194 of 216:

Oct 31 15:05 UTC 2000

I'm not sure I'm opposed to parental notification (I see both sides of that
argument), but I'm definitely opposed to parental consent.

I don't think we live in a nation where abortion is "regarded much like taking
a shit." I agree it's not taken seriously enough by some people, but I don't
think that's a fair characterization.

I also fail to see the moral relevance of either capital puishment or the
right to bear arms. The latter is NOT a moral imperative, it's the result of
law (the Second Amendment), while the former is the result of the needs of
a civil society (and hence the product of social morality), while abortion
is the result of the needs of the individual (and hence the product of
individual morality).

response 196 of 216:

Oct 31 18:12 UTC 2000

Fancy that. The institution of marriage, the centerpiece of the gay rights
battle, is all about "passing along the genes." OT prohibitions on adultery
and fornication are all about "passing along the genes." It's part of our
cultural psyche, and it's hardly new.

response 198 of 216:

Oct 31 19:26 UTC 2000

(My point being, capital punishment would not exist without society, but
abortion could.)