GENDER DEVICE: People use ultrasound to determine the sex of babies--and have contributed to more than 160 million "missing" females in Asia and elsewhere.
Image: © iStockphoto.com / Gene Chutka
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Mara Hvistendahl's book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.
The technology that ultimately became the dominant method of sex selection around the world began as a tool for navigation. The story of ultrasound dates to 1794, when an Italian biologist curious about how bats find their way in the dark discovered sonar, or the fact that distance can be determined by bouncing sound waves off a faraway object and measuring how long it takes for the waves to ricochet back. Centuries later, when the growing prowess of German submarines during World War I convinced the Allies that to win the war they needed a way to navigate underwater, scientists put sonar to use. The American, British, and French governments jointly funded research into the phenomenon. The effort succeeded, and by 1918 the Allies were using acoustic echoes to correctly pinpoint the location of German U-boats.
After the war, doctors guessed sonar might have medical applications as well. They first used ultrasound in surgery, where it turned out sound waves could heat and destroy tissue, making them helpful for everything from treating ulcers to performing craniotomies. Then in 1949 a chemist stationed at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, employed the new technology to locate gallstones in dogs, and ultrasound became a diagnostic tool as well. Physicians began navigating the human body as World War I submarines had navigated dark waters, bouncing sound waves off the internal organs.
Ultrasound proved surprisingly versatile. It could clean teeth, treat cysts, and dissolve kidney stones. It may have been with one of these applications in sight that in 1959 Scottish obstetrician Ian Donald used the new technology on a woman who happened to be pregnant and noticed that the fetus returned echoes as well.
Back then, ultrasound offered the simple promise of learning more about a pregnancy. Doctors could not perform x-ray exams on pregnant women because of the risk of damaging the fetus, so Donald’s discovery raised the prospect of an alternative form of prenatal imaging, giving physicians hope of monitoring high-risk pregnancies. If Donald suspected that knowledge would translate into fetal selection and subtraction, he probably envisioned women attempting to avoid debilitating sex-linked diseases like hemophilia. (When the first sex-selective abortions had been performed in Denmark using amniocentesis four years earlier, indeed, they were done for that reason --and discriminated against males as a result.) He could have hardly guessed that ultrasound would one day contribute to a sex ratio imbalance involving over 160 million "missing" females in Asia and elsewhere.
Sex selection was a dim possibility, indeed, because early ultrasound machines were nothing like those available today. The 1960s machines were cumbersome gadgets that towered over the pregnant women on whom they were used. One model, called the articulated arm scanner, resembled a giant version of the toy cranes fairgoers rent for a few quarters to try their hand at winning stuffed animals. The articulated arm scanner helped doctors take crude measurements of the fetal head, allowing them to track a baby’s growth in the womb. But beyond that the image it produced was hazy, making it impossible to discern fingers and toes, let alone a tiny penis or vagina.
It didn’t matter that the early ultrasound machines yielded fuzzy images, however, or that they only proved helpful in a small proportion of pregnancies. To the 1960s public the technology looked positively futuristic. Around the time pregnancy became a choice rather than an inevitability and the business of having children became about more than generating labor for the farm, we began seeking ways to bond with our babies before birth. An image on which to pin parental hopes made that task a whole lot easier, and so it was a breakthrough to have a preview, however muddled, of the baby growing inside a mother’s uterus. Coming at a time of technological optimism when Americans were enamored of outer space and kitchen appliances alike, an era some were calling the Biological Revolution, ultrasound captured the public imagination.
Even though the high-resolution machines capable of identifying fetal sex and other finer characteristics were still years away, the press seized on the possibility that portraits of babies before birth might help us control the mystical birth process. The flurry of coverage that greeted the new technology forecasted extensive reproductive manipulation—which newspaper editors saw as a great thing. The headlines were bold and optimistic: Ultrasound Device Takes Guessing Out of Pregnancy. Knowledge Is Key to Happy Childbirth. A New Eye into the Womb. One article dubbed ultrasound The Electronic Doctor. The headline on the cover of the September 10, 1965, issue of Life—alongside a hulking machine whose heavy arm nearly eclipsed the mother under examination— read Control of Life: Audacious Experiments Promise Decades of Added Life, Superbabies with Improved Minds and Bodies, and Even a Kind of Immortality. (Today preimplantation genetic diagnosis—a form of embryo screening during in-vitro fertilization that allows parents to select for sex, is greeted with similar enthusiasm. Girl or Boy? Now You Can Choose, proclaimed a 2004 cover of Newsweek.)
But public fascination also provided a window for criticism, and ultrasound elicited substantial ethical deliberation. Some critics feared overly powerful scientists. Feminists pushing for abortion rights fretted, justifiably, that the machine humanized the fetus. Others worried the new reproductive technology would be exploited by governments intent on manipulating their populations; the Nazis, after all, had screened newlyweds for genetic diseases in their eugenics program. What if the power to create "superbabies" fell into the hands of an evil dictator? But none of these critiques came close to identifying what turned out to be ultrasound’s most pernicious threat. In hindsight, 1960s Americans worried about everything except the possibility that average parents, emboldened by the new knowledge technology brought them, might make small, seemingly innocuous choices—and that those choices, taken together, would add up to disaster.
Excerpt by arrangement with Public Affairs from Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl. Copyright © 2011 by Mara Hvistendahl.
See what we're tweeting about
55 Comments
Add CommentThe only information missing in this article is what the most early possible detection of the gender of the fetus is. That question is not answered, because it is important in the pro-choice debate etc. The second possibility is also the naming of the child, because family names can only be passed on by boy, hence people always want boys to secure the family name. It might be a good alternative to pass on family names both by boys and girls. Because both families have equally rights to pass on their names.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not the invention of Ultrasound that caused the problem, it's the legalization of abortion for no medical reason. The comment that ends this article "might make small, seemingly innocuous choices" minimizes the drastic nature of this. Choosing to end a pregnancy is not a "small, innocuous choice" it is a major, life and death choice. Blame the doctors and lawyers who allowed for and supported the murder of the unborn, and not the inventors of a machine to save lives for this loss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe buzz about this book is already huge. I could not resist ordering it - my copy just arrived yesterday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, this brief book excerpt is not going to cover everything - it is material worthy of book-length treatment, after all - but it is sufficient to whet my appetite to bite into the whole thing.
mesmoron said, "people always want boys to secure the family name."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be missing the point. Passing the surname to women would not correct the problem. This might be the chicken or the egg debate. Families have a preference for males for security, not for the surname. The male carrying on the surname only developed because of this. Surnames only came into use in the 14th century.
Throughout history males were better able (as a result of culture) to be "providers." This allowed males to better provide for their parents in old age or in case of illness or disability (e.g. work the farm). Having male children reduces the risk of not surviving. This still carries on in our society, both in developed and developing nations.
If surnames are so important, why did they not arise until the 14th century?
I also don't understand your first premise about "most early possible detection" and the "pro-choice debate." Could you please elaborate. The excerpt even mentions "preimplantation genetic diagnosis" of the sex of the embryo. You can't get any earlier detection than that. And yes, this is an issue of the pro-choice debate. What point are you trying to make?
This is an excerpt from the book "Unnatural Selection" on pages 115 to 117:
http://books.google.com/books?id=wm4lyj21Rp8C&pg=PA115
Zsingerb: You live by ancient unsubstantiated, irrational ideas in a modern enlightened world. When I use the word enlightened I am referring to the educated few, not the unthinking hordes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA woman has the right to discard an unwanted fetus, just as you have the right to undergo plastic surgery to improve your appearance or have a living cancer removed from your body or chose to take antibiotics to kill of millions of bacteria that consider your body their natural home environment. Every one of these actions terminates living tissue, a fetus is nothing more than living tissue. The individual emerges after years when the child gains an understanding of self.
In an extremely overpopulated world we should also look at the benefits of people choosing males and aborting females. Its females that have babies. Example: Look at the way the European population bounced back after the end of the second world war, a majority of men were killed, women replaced the population lost using the surviving males. Today in extremely overpopulated regions like India and China populations choose males, this will dampen birthrates.
Abortion is a female human right more than food or lifestyle. Men should have no say in the matter.
Since men "should have no say in the matter", then I suggest you march right into your state legislature and start protesting child support legislation. Why do educated/degreed/employed women have the right to pick-pocket 40% of their ex-husbands' salaries with the courts' approval because THEY either kidnapped, or were awarded the children? WHY? Because, women want it both ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen do we determine when a child gains understanding of self? Do we have the right to determine this? The first few moments after birth a newborn is not that different then a fetus except for it's ability to oxygenate itself and yet we take every measure to facilitate and ensure it's survival. Why do we care if it lives? Yet we do, we care a great deal, and we should.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on your comment of "The individual emerges after years when the child gains an understanding of self." I assume you support infanticide up to and including the preschool years. Your support of that shows that you have no understanding yourself of what constitutes "a life". A fetus is an individual, differing from its "host" in genetics and is not a tumor (same genetics as the host) nor something like plastic surgery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd say that most humans become somewhat aware of their own mortality and reasonably responsible for their actions around the age of 25. Prior to that, few pay much attention to any potentially death defying consequences of their actions. That's why governments chose to send so many of their young adults into combat - they're most effective at that age. Not to make any moral judgments concerning the value of life...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientific earthling,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSelf awareness is somewhat objective. Is someone proven self-aware by doing the "spot-on-face with mirror" test?
Many believe that Sarah Palin is still not self aware. In your view, is she an individual? In your view, should she be aborted?
God who?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Every one of these actions terminates living tissue, a fetus is nothing more than living tissue. The individual emerges after years when the child gains an understanding of self."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment implies that a mother could justifiably terminate a 1 or 2 year old child, as the individual has not yet emerged.
If a non-pregnant woman was slapped in the face, or a pregnant woman was punched in the belly, few here would say that their reaction to that is the same. However, if we regard a fetus as mere "living tissue" and nothing more, our psychological response to those two acts should be the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStep back and step back again. Culture and its inherant attitudes towards woman cause this. If anyone was to do a little research it would become apparent that woman in developed countries (US,UK and Australia to name a few) are on a warpath to be allowed to choose the sex of their babies. And most want DAUGHTERS. About 95% want to choose to have a girl child. And they resort to IVF procedures using PGD but this is only allowed in the US. I personally know of 11 women who have travelled to the US to use these medical prodecures there. There are at least two websites dedicated to ways to have a girl child. This usually eventuates after a woman has give birth to 2,3 even up to 6 sons and she is desparate to have some balance in her family and to parent a child of the opposite gender. If PGD for gender selection were allowed in other countries then terminations for gender reasons would decrease. The ethical committees that run the show often have children of both genders and are therefore unable to fairly judge such a situation. These women are a minority within a minority with in a minority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease be aware that they are out there. In a lot of western families these days the sons grow up and get married and then go where the wife wants to go ie near her family. Her family takes prescedence over his. This leaves many women who under older/other cultures would be very protected etc , totally alone.
oops, I meant "Self awareness is somewhat subjective."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, somewhat. Not every female on the planet desires to reproduce. Just because you have females does not mean they are all reproducing. One male can also produce many more offspring than one female as he can impregnate multiple females in a short period of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't it make more sense to make birth control options accessible to women(and men)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince when do beliefs have anything to do with reality?
JJJ1969: Women should have it both ways. They deserve every award they receive. Why? Because men have exploited, enslaved, tortured and murdered women for centuries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't believe me read the chronicles of the church, see what they did to women to satisfy their sexual desires both normal and twisted. I am talking about the most powerful men at that time the priests. The prettiest girls, young women and very young girls some infants were accused of being witches. They documented all their deeds, this catered to their lust to write and read pornography.
The church was not the only religious institution that tortured and killed women, all religions, without exception, have done the same. so did all the powerful kings, leaders etc. If you had a pretty daughter - put her in a burkha, that is possibly how it was invented.
Time to settle the score. You pay.
Progress: While a child is totally dependent on its mother, she should have the right not to provide for its needs and if it dies in the process so be it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do not enslave a woman to cater to your ideas of what is right or wrong. At the end of the day, nothing is right or wrong, your thinking makes you believe it is so. We are part of nature, nature has no use or need for right and wrong. Natural selection is her only law when it comes to lifeforms.
Zsingerb: Every individual emerges at a different time based on a standard human clock. I refer you to jtdwyer's comment for further clarification.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow what constitutes life:
Life is a virus, a bacterium, an amoeba, a nematode round worm, a crab, a moth essentially anything that reproduces itself. These creatures including you and me are life.
Another important fact about life beyond viruses and bacteria is it always ends. (based on the way some bacteria, viruses and protozoans reproduce they could be considered undying till of course the earth is engulfed by her dying sun).
That is life a brief existence followed by non-existance.
Cramer: too late to abort Sarah Palin, and time travel is impossible; time is the history of events, discrete on the Planck scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you are talking about the Rouge Test. Remember now not only chimps but other monkeys can pass this test. All it tells us is that the subject recognises itself in a mirror. Perhaps humans 50 Kyrs ago would fail this test, since they had never experienced a mirror.
Sarah Palin eats, drinks and excretes waste, she exists and expresses opinion, not very smart, but that's besides the point, that makes her an individual. Remember the average human on this planet is approximately as smart as she is. Hence her popularity and of course every young to middle-aged male sees her as a desirable sexual partner.
I have no opinion on aborting Sarah Palin or anyone, because no one can ever know how the individual is going to turn out. I hold the mother has a right to abort a child she does not want, even if she is doing it to torment the child's father. The child occupies the mothers body and if she sees it fit to evict, so be it.
scientific earthling: If nothing is right or wrong, then there's nothing wrong with enslaving a woman. Only your thinking makes it so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProof1000: This is a scientific magazine. Yes! I do like to stir the pot. Thinking is great, the only pleasure in life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the idea of a god was an essential step in our evolution, I see the religious books as a history of mans development. A lot of fiction to attain social order and control over society.
I don't believe a thinking being of any kind ever had anything to do with the existence of this universe or of its contents, including all organisms we believe constitute life.
When I die, I will simply cease to exist as the individual I once was and all my chemical constituents will be recycled.
JJ1980: If a child has no means of survival and the mother is unwilling to provide for the child, she may for whatever reason choose to kill her child. However remember natural selection has imprinted the mothering instinct into most mothers. Some animals do kill their offspring, usually for good reason. Talk to a zoologist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this case natural selection is choosing to eliminate a genetic mutation where this mothering instinct is either non existent or weak.
Yes every woman should have access to birth control. When it fails as it will at some time, abortion should be available. No punishment for indulging in natural activities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjbates225: Yes you are right. Question is do you want to live in such a society?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSociety needs an ever changing code of ethics; not shoved down our throats by those seeking power and control but by society as a whole using rational argument and past experience of injustices.
Couldn't agree more. Of course (full disclosure) Mara is a good friend of mine but that doesn't discount the fact that this is an excellent book about an important (and often overlooked) subject of real human import.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientific earthling: If nothing is right or wrong, why does society need an ever changing code of ethics? By terminating a thinking, feeling fetus, aren't you using your power over him or her to shove your ethics down his or her throat? If nothing is right or wrong, how can you point to past experience of injustices? They are only injustices in your mind, right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientific earthling: I haven't enslaved any women, do not belong to a church and haven't used my influence to commit any inappropriate sexual acts. I am no more responsible for the acts of these priests, rulers and kings than you are. Are you descended from some of these men? Can you prove otherwise? Why should I pay to settle the score? Why not you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can certainly make the argument that an embryo is an individual genetically distinguishable from the mother. It is not unreasonable to define this as "an individual." However, your argument fails to offer any proof that this "individual" is an individual human being. Furthermore, with the advancement of science, every cell in your body, dead or alive, can be reasonably considered an individual, as we are not very far from the point where cloning humans from individual cells is going to be technically possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's rather unfortunate that the comments on this board have transpired from a very interesting topic to a "abortion/men are evil" debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJbates225: We need an ever changing code of ethics because as tribal animals we need to live as a society. However with time our knowledge base changes and so do our attitudes, our ethics need to change to adapt to the resulting social change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA fetus is less thinking and feeling than you give it credit for, slaughtering a goat, cow or any other mammal causes it more grief than one would cause a fetus.
To put this in perspective when I was anaesthetised for a colonoscopy, I felt absolutely no pain nor did I comprehend the passage of time, lying in recovery after the procedure I realised if I had died (as some do) during the procedure my life would have ended without any trauma. How wonderful. Can I please die this way.
Yes, all injustices are only in our minds, in nature nothing is wrong or right. Nature does not care about pain or suffering. I point out what I believe are injustices to people who claim they are the guardians of our ethics & morality, when history reveals the extent to which they disregarded the same in their behavior.
Byronraum: I have no knowledge of my ancestry and its irrelevant to me. I simply exist at this time, and shall do so for a little while longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not blaming any individual for what I in modern times consider immoral behavior, at that time it may have been acceptable. I do not fall into the trap of imposing my ethics on past generations. However past generations did have a code of ethics, which they document, and when they violated their own code, under any guise, I point it out, especially when their successors claim they are the exclusive guardians of ethics & morality.
Its not an individual who pays the price for redressing past deliberate wrongs, society as a whole acts and individuals must bear their share of the cost. So yes both you and I must pay, its only money they ask - cant use it once your dead.
If we segregate and deprive a section of society of education, we can not expect them to take on jobs as accountants, lawyers, scientists etc. However for depriving them of education we need to provide them with suitable work and ensure their children are educated.
zsingerb: A male sperm is an 'unborn' human. A female egg is an 'unborn' human. Somehow you have appointed yourself a protector of unborn humans, even though a male sperm cannot be seen with the naked eye and a female egg is the size of the dot at the end of this sentence. A woman expels an egg every 28 days and a male expels millions of sperm every month. Are you going to protect all these unborn humans who get flushed down toilets every month ? You are an idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I can only speak for the Dutch situation; we have legalized abortion. However due to the widely spread use of alternative anti-conception there's no huge debate on 'pro-choice' or 'pro-live'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur legislation supports the switch of the surname to that of the female.
In regard to the family security I must say; that single parent households are rising. To have security later daughters are a likely choice. Why? because of the fact that individualism is widely spread, male careers have little room for care and support and even if children want to financially support their parents. Fact shows that most informal care is done by women. Even if the children have money; professional care is too expensive for most people if they have to pay for it. In that case money doesn't get you much, because care consists often of labor intensive actions and work. I thus do think girls are very valuable in the end; but than people have already forgotten the fact that they made irrational choices. The best way is to have one of both; it will mingle both beneficial characteristics.
What planet do you live on? Seriously, I know 17 couples (friends) that have children under 10 yrs. old. A mix of boys and girls and 40% of the girls have handed-down family names, yet only 18% of the boys do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWishing it were so does not make it so. In our society, they do not have the right to do so. In fact, if any parent tried to, through action or inaction, murder a 2 year old, and the child died, that parent would be:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Ostracized for life by the great majority of society.
2. Imprisoned for a non-trivial period of time.
3. Likely murdered in prison by other criminals - criminals who value a child's life more than you obviously do.
If you wish to remove the dead weight dragging on this planet's ecosystem, may I respectfully suggest that you begin with yourself, rather than an innocent life who is full of promise and who may turn out to be the next Ghandi, MLK Jr., Mozart, or Linus Pauling.
scientific american: "We need an ever changing code of ethics because as tribal animals we need to live as a society. However with time our knowledge base changes and so do our attitudes, our ethics need to change to adapt to the resulting social change."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTranslation: I oppose giving rights to fetuses because I'm a selfish person. I've got mine, Jack!
"A fetus is less thinking and feeling than you give it credit for, slaughtering a goat, cow or any other mammal causes it more grief than one would cause a fetus."
I agree slaughtering a goat, cow, or any other mammal causes him or her a lot of grief. That's why they are the equals of humans. That's why killing a mammal like a cow is no different from murdering a human in cold blood. That's why killing animals should generally be illegal. Anyhow, what makes you think I'm giving too much credit to fetus for thinking and feeling? I realize a fetus doesn't start out that way, but it eventually develops brain waves and starts moving, and I mean complex movements, not just simple reflex actions like twitching.
"To put this in perspective when I was anaesthetised for a colonoscopy, I felt absolutely no pain nor did I comprehend the passage of time, lying in recovery after the procedure I realised if I had died (as some do) during the procedure my life would have ended without any trauma. How wonderful. Can I please die this way."
If it were legal to, I'd be more than happy to arrange that for you. After all, you say abortion should be legal because it cuts down on the human population. Well, if you think it's OK to kill innocent people for that purpose, why shouldn't we start with you?
"Yes, all injustices are only in our minds, in nature nothing is wrong or right. Nature does not care about pain or suffering. I point out what I believe are injustices to people who claim they are the guardians of our ethics & morality, when history reveals the extent to which they disregarded the same in their behavior."
I realize nature is morally neutral, but doesn't make ethics a matter of opinion. Nature doesn't care about mathematics, but that doesn't make math a matter of opinion.
scientific earthling,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rouge test is suppose to be more about self-identity (self-concept) than self-recognition. Self-identity requires an explicit memory of self-awareness that results in the ownership of numerous traits. (e.g. my face does not have a mark on my nose; your face does)
I doubt most adult humans would fail the rouge test 50k years ago. There is no difference between humans of today and humans 50k years ago. Since chimps can pass the rouge test, the ancestors of humans going back 5 to 10 million years could most likely past the rouge test.
And yes, they did have mirrors back then in the form of the reflecting surfaces of still water (or laminar flowing water).
Just because Sarah Palin appears to have an opinion does not mean that she is self aware. Her opinions could be no different than a mosquito's ability to land on a person's skin and suck blood. She simply could be repeating something she heard similar to the input-output process of a computer, which could be programmed with the wrong answers. However, I am sure she could pass the rouge test.
I don't believe "every young to middle-aged male sees her as a desirable sexual partner." I am a heterosexual male and I do not see Sarah Palin as a desirable sexual partner. It takes more than good looks to sexually arouse me. She elicits the same feelings of disgust in me as a hot-looking, venereal-disease-carrying slut (not calling her a slut). Intelligence is the greatest aphrodisiac for me.
I find it interesting that most "pro-life" people want to protect a fetus before birth, but not protect it after birth. They talk about the right to life for a fetus, but once it is born, it becomes survival of the fittest. It is unlikely that a poor child without sufficient education is going to become "the next Ghandi, MLK Jr., Mozart, or Linus Pauling." And these people who deny equal opportunity to the poor children of the world actually call themselves Christians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[vasbinde, I am not saying you are pro-life or have these opinions. I am just adding a comment.]
I believe the correct term is "gender" selection, not sex selection. The proper answer to the question of "sex" is "yes" or "not on your life, jerk"; but the male or female question is "Gender", not sex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMesmoiron: You live in a socially and technologically advanced nation. Hopefully your national leaders will see the value in permitting citizens to legal terminate their life when they wish to do so. Most rational people would make that choice and most of your concerns regarding care when extremely old or incapacitated will no longer exist. The state must provide for those wishing to continue their existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no care for my surname or any name it is but a label and an emotional issue mainly to people with little understanding of sexual reproduction.
You live in a scientifically and ethically advanced country, it attracts a lot of people to it, however you do need to insist they do not destroy it. Trying to impose long outdated ethics based on silly arguments like culture or religion should be shunned. You should be informing all comers that yours is a scientific rational nation that lives by modern ethics.
Democracy gives each citizen one vote irrespective of the individuals mental state. Religious organisations try to take over nations by segregating their members and then forcing their constituents to out-breed the rest, thus imposing their ideas through democratic institutions they tend to abhor.
Vasbinde: I do not wish for anything, not even life. I just make rational arguments for and against different aspects of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to justify your stand by using emotions, you even suggest criminals are better somehow better than a mother who killed her infant, without ever considering the circumstances.
Your speculation that an aborted child could have ended up a great human being has long been discredited. Millions of infants die every year, once dead there is no chance of them becoming anything. Your argument suggests predetermination of destiny at birth, which is totally irrational.
jbates225: Your arguments are incoherent and hard to understand. Essentially I can not understand what you are trying to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever if you just want to end my life because you don't like my views, you are welcome to do it, on the condition you do it as a hoped to die without pain.
Cramer: I am extremely glad to hear that some males find intelligence an attractive attribute. I wish females could feel the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only reason I wish for this is the results of the guppies experiment. Females chose the partners they mate with, and pass on their genes (along with much more of their own). Could result in a very intelligent human species.
Extremely late got to go reply to the rest later.
scientific earthling,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe wealth trumps looks as a factor for female attraction to males. And most of them don't care how that wealth is obtained. Power is in the mix too, but it is mostly positively correlated to wealth and therefore a redundant factor. Many people believe the world would be ethically better if women were running it. Women have always ran it--indirectly, through the males they select. We're all in this world together.
I don't believe that intelligent people have offspring that are necessarily just as intelligent as the parents. I believe intelligence works similar to height. Across the entire population, there is a regression to the mean that is also correlated to the macro-environment (e.g. average nutrition for the society). 95% of humans are probably born with approximately the same intelligence. The actual and/or apparent distribution is then created by environmental effects and psychological traits (e.g. children with anxiety or ADHD might not develop as well). Psychological traits are determined by both genetics and environment. In this context it must be made clear that there are different types of intelligence.
Cramer: I believe you may be right about your assessment of females. Pity, think what might have been, had they a bias for the intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts not just genes that cause the next generation to outsmart their parents, its memes (Richard Dawkins idea from The Selfish Gene), the environment that would be present in an intelligent family would encourage curiosity, skepticism and an ability to think rationally. I believe I benefited from a highly intelligent father, my mother was educated, an atheist (which requires a level of thinking) and was considered a very good looking young lady. Why she chose my father, I can not say, he was not very rich (well off but so was her family) and was ostracized by his family for marrying a dark skinned girl.
Left to its own devises intelligence would be no different to height and would regress to a mean, but environment can greatly enhance intelligence as nutrition would to some extent impact height.
When it comes to psychology, I am terribly skeptical, its very unscientific almost like religion. I especially find ideas of repressed memories and the like befuddling to say the least.
We see different types of intelligence or should we say we focus our intelligence in different ways towards subjects (an artificial division of a continuous ocean of knowledge), gaining deeper insights into the realm we delve into.
scientific earthling,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. I do not believe genetics is a major component in intelligence, except for the difference in genetics between a mosquito and a human or genetics that influence psychological or physical disabilities (e.g. anxiety, schizophrenia, etc).
Smart parents are not always going to raise their children in an intellectually nurturing environment. They might not take the time to "encourage curiosity, skepticism and an ability to think rationally" whether or not they value those attributes. They both might be too busy with their careers. How often have we seen this. It seems like it's more the norm than an exception.
Yes, psychology is a soft science. Some might think that physics has also become a soft science. Will we ever be able to prove string theory or that there are an infinite number of other copies of ourselves out there? We do know that each of us are psychological different and many of us have psychological illnesses or disabilities. We can use the scientific method to study the natural world of psychology. What has made it difficult with the social sciences vs the physical sciences is that it is more difficult to control all the factors in the social sciences. We can't run two parallel universes side-by-side. We are now finding it more and more difficult to control the factors in the physical science. The days of Newton are long gone. We know this when serious scientists are thinking we might just be all a computer program. For me this type of idealism is practically equivalent to religious thought.
When I referred to different types of intelligence, I did not mean the intelligent gains we make by voluntarily focusing on acquiring specific knowledge. I meant the the different way our central nervous systems function. For example, some people are memory based people (e.g. Kim Peek (Rain Man), who could memorize every phone number in a city). Other people are logic based people (e.g. Einstein, who could not remember his own phone number). What about an illiterate athlete? How much intelligence does it take to coordinate muscle movements and anticipate movements of their opponents. Not all of the focus is completely by choice. We tend to do what we are good at. Some people might choose to practice more, but did they choose between being an athlete or a scientist?
Look who is generalizing. I did NOT say that ALL criminals value life more than this hypothetical murderous mother (HMM). In fact, this HMM is likely to feel little compunction against murdering other children, with whom she has no maternal bond, specifically because she doesn't have any moral qualms with doing so to her own children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn regards to criminals however, a hypothetical woman in prison for grand theft auto, who never physically harmed anyone else (and who went out of her way to avoid doing so) can arguably be said to value life more than the HMM. This hypothetical criminal might feel immense revulsion against this HMM. Ergo she might take matters in to her own hands to rid this world of someone who felt no compunction against murdering her own baby and who (in her mind and the minds of many in our society) would be very likely to kill other babies than her own.
In general, I was just stating what would likely happen, given the current state of our society and its relative valuation of the life of a two year old, and its abhorrence of a mother killing her own children.
Actually, I am not suggesting pre-destination. I am suggesting that there is a small, but perfectly valid possibility, that a murdered child would have the unique genetic composition that, under the right circumstances, would result in said child growing up to make significant contributions to society.
You may then reply, "A mother who feels it necessary to let her child die through inaction or action would not have given a child the 'right circumstances' to grow up to be a positive societal influence." This is true, but then you would be missing out on an extremely positive solution - adoption.
In fact, studies done of children that have been adopted have shown for decades that the personality and intelligence, and thus the potential for a positive impact on mankind, of a child are NOT solely due either to genetics or environment. It is a combination of both. This is why an outgoing, gregarious adult (formerly adopted) can come from an adopted family who is quiet and introspective. Yes, there are deviations on the mean, but a child is more than his environment or his genetics would determine alone.
It would be so much more responsible of people if they were to give up their children for adoption, rather than have them aborted for sake of adhering to an outmoded desire for more male children. There is an immense shortage of healthy babies up for adoption: people go to great lengths and expense to find one.
Cramer: I spent time doing research at uni. The only place I was surrounded by highly intelligent people, rest of my career spent doing baby chemistry in commercial organisations and forgetting all the real chemistry I had ever studied. At uni the cream of the crop were single and had no children. Those who did, put in enormous amount of time and resources into their children. One such person had moved to a farm and brought me a soil sample for analysis, I found high Pb. It could have been she took the sample close to the century old dwelling where lead paint could have contaminated the soil. Anyway she sold the farm and moved to another, unwilling to risk her children ingesting lead while at play.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere in Oz the intelligent do seem to make time, discarding friends and other activities. Go to marinas etc. you find mainly electricians plumbers, carpenters and the other trades that make lots of money and spend it unwisely ending up with nothing at retirement, their children too seem to loose out due to poor role-models.
I don't consider psychology a science, its claims have not been tested. Yes physics is becoming a bit like that, since we cannot experimentally verify events at the quantum level. The classic experiment of electrons bombarded at 2 slits and displaying wave like interference, which disappears as soon as we try to determine which slit the electron went thru is a case in point, but an explanation that the sensor (photons) acts like a sledge hammer in the detection process is rationally reasonable. Any of the string theories on the other hand are just correct maths, none have been or seem to be verifiable. The explanations given are sometimes mind-boggling, I like Richard Feynman's explanations in his lectures on Physics. Don't do what I did, got Volume 3 first because I dreamed I was clever! You need to read all 3 volumes each takes you through 1 year of a 3 year undergraduate course in Physics. You wont know everything, but at least you don't get explanations that defy understanding.
I am scientifically orientated because I have poor memory, I could not ever memorise the periodic table of elements and chemistry was my main field of education. If I did not have an explanation for how it worked or is derived I could not remember it later. Result I was good in maths and sciences bad in history, geography and languages. So I accept each one of us has strengths and weaknesses, is this a result of different forms of intelligence, yes if by intelligence we mean working of the brain.
Vasbinde: Lets get back to what you said. Quote: Likely murdered by criminals - criminals who value a child's life more than you obviously do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are saying a mother who kills her infant, will be considered even by some criminals as immoral and killed by them.
Your morality is supported by the actions of such criminals? Your argument: If even some criminals would go to the extent of murdering this person, well well the person must be evil! And I am right!
You use this explanation to justify your stand that a woman has no right to abortion and is obliged to be a slave to the wants and needs of the child till the child is independent.
Further you conclude a woman who killed her child would go on to kill other children. On what basis do you come to such a conclusion? Do you apply this generalisation to women who have had abortions too? Have you heard the case of a woman who killed her extremely disabled child, because she could not cope and the child was in terrible distress? Mercy killing?
You feel its is right to rid the world of someone who has killed her child and feel other criminals should do it, to demonstrate how morally they are superior to said woman. This is insane.
To me you seem to have an ayatollah like sence of morality based on ancient value systems of revenge, granted still existent in some regions of the modern world.
If you read other posts like cramer's and my responses you will realise, I believe the development of children has more to do with memes than genes.
Yes I still believe men have no right to impose their ideas on women when it comes to pregnancy and abortion. Sciam has chosen to pull my first post on the issue for whatever reason they chose, I am unaware of why my post was removed.
I hope that you are not applying a broad brush and attempting to divine my personal views on child development and investment in education based on a few paragraphs that I have written.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn answer to your unstated question: I am a HUGE believer in equality of OPPORTUNITY. Every child should have the opportunity to succeed; to prove his mettle, to shine as brightly as she can shine. Every child should have the opportunity for learning that expands the mind, grows critical thought, encourages artistic expression, and teaches them to share their gifts with the world and with those less fortunate. I had the opportunity, through hard work of my own, sacrifices on the part of my parents, and correct choices on my part, to graduate high school with honors, graduate college, and enter in to a career that provides for myself and my family fairly, with enough left over to help out our local food bank and other charities.
Had I made other choices: hanging with the wrong crowd, partying constantly, doing drugs / drinking to excess, my outcome would have be vastly different.
As such, I am not a believer in equality of OUTCOME. If an adult has made terrible life choices of their own, they should accept the consequences of those life choices, without requiring or requesting that society shield them from those negative consequences. Adults should be given opportunities to change their life course as well. Even so, if they continue to make ill-advised decisions (e.g. drug abuse, violent crime, etc.) those adults should live with their situation.
You would see from my other comments to "scientificearthling" that I am very much in favor of a child being carried to term, and if that child is unwanted or would be unloved by his/her birth parents, be put up for adoption by loving parents who would give that child every opportunity to succeed. I guess you could call me, more than pro-life, pro-child.
You mention "the problem" without specifying what it is. I would submit that our species biggest current problem is one that's hardly ever mentioned in serious discussions: overpopulation of our home planet by humans. A little thought will disclose that the discovery of empirical science about 500 years ago led to an increasing cascade of science-based technologies that, in turn, ultimately enabled the remarkable four-fold increase in the planet's human population that took place between 1900 and 2000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn that connection, it's very likely that the easily demonstrable inability of the modern world to come to grips with accelerated climate change is a form of the denial that also characterizes our behavior. Those who disagree and insist it (climate change) is a "hoax" seem to forget that if they are wrong, it's the unborn children of the future who will pay the biggest price. How soon and how large that price could become may have already been suggested by the fate of Joplin and the current flooding of farmland along the Mississippi.
I find it a little adversarial that you question whether I was labeling you when I explicitly made the following statement in a reasonable short comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"[vasbinde, I am not saying you are pro-life or have these opinions. I am just adding a comment.]"
You already had the answer, so why raise the question?
If more "pro-life" people shared your beliefs, we would be living in a much different nation. The fact that we are not living in that nation can be considered proof that most "pro-life" advocates do not actually share your beliefs on education (regardless of what they say).
By the way, it cost much more to educate an unwanted child than it does to educated a wanted child. This is one reason why poor communities have poor education outcomes; and at the same time that poor community can not afford to spend more on education. It all depends on what type of society you want to live in. We are becoming a third world country; and not as a result of the current debt levels (we also had "debt problems" in the early 90s that went away).
We are running the risk of turning the conversation into a referendum on the costs and benefits of education. :-) For example, most people would agree that "Good" teachers should get paid much more than they do today. Perhaps $75K per year for a "good" elementary school teacher, $90K per year for a good high school teacher, etc., with "good" principals making 10-15% extra. This would dramatically increase the cost of our educational system in the USA, but would also tend to attract many more of our best and brightest to the educational profession. This would need to extend to more than just the proverbial "three Rs", to be the "Three Sides of Humanity": Intellectual, Physical, and Artistic. Sports and artistic learning should be just as important to school boards as the "core subjects" of math, science, language skills, etc. We can all agree that physically and emotionally healthy kids are much more likely to excel intellectually.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would be prohibitively expensive given our current economic system. I would love to see a solution that would attract and reward top talent, and provide that talent, along with safe, clean facilities, for all kids, even in poor communities.
You bring up an interesting point, one which I would like to have more detail and information on: "it costs much more to educate an unwanted child than it does to educate a wanted child." I am not familiar with this concept. Could you point me to where you heard about it. I'm curious to learn more about this.
In reference to your comment about third world status for the US: I think that we might digress here again, but a multitude of factors, in my opinion, are responsible for the current downward spiral: lack of proper education across all layers of society, an outflow of investment capital / massive trade imbalances to China, India, etc., lack of long term focus in corporate America (hyper-focus on quarterly earnings as opposed to long term investment and growth), an overly litigious society focused more on pop culture / mental junk food rather than "mental vegetables". We need to care enough for our fellow Americans to provide excellent opportunities for everyone, while at the same time ensuring that people understand the importance of standing up and leading themselves out of darkness.