From: Robert J. Bradbury (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 10:04:05 MST
The NY Times has an interesting piece about the U.S. National
fertility society making recomendations against "sex selection".
Of interest is where this leads -- to selection against
> 'What's the next step?' asked Dr. William Schoolcraft of the
> Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine in Englewood.
> 'As we learn more about genetics, do we reject kids who
> do not have superior intelligence or who don't have the right
> color hair or eyes?'
I'll make a very harsh (and probably get crucified for it)
assertion. Children are parasites on their parents for
at least the first 9 months, if not the their first 18 years.
Of course parents are free to choose creating those parasites
but they are operating under the influence of a genetic
program designed to bias their decisions. Given the investment
that parents make in children, it is perfectly reasonable that
they should select those most likely to generate the greatest
ROI from the parents' perspective. In this respect one should
be selecting children not for sex or intelligence or eye color
but those most likely to remain loyal to the parent and repay the
support that the parents have provided over the developmental
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST