I think I would gladly march with the womyn on this one. Let's hope the issue doesn't descend into legal arguments about competing rights.

Peter: C'mon. You know it's already there.

Chris:

Sadly, I agree with you.

The interesting thing is that if this process is stopped--and female political power thereby preserved--it will be done predominantly by the party of males.

Orrin:

If so, it is to their everlasting credit.

Interesting use of the word "diagnose."

You all are making an unwarranted assumption: that, on average, couples will choose to have boys more often than girls.

Given that the US doesn't, so far as I know, have dowries as a part of marriage, then that incenitve for sex selection is gone.

To the extent this happens, I'll bet it is almost entirely due to Dad wanting a boy this time after two or more girls, or vice versa for mom.

Sex ratio impact: zero

Demographic impact: small, but measurable, because more couples will get the gender they have been waiting for in fewer pregancies.

And, for the same reason, there might be a slight decrease in abortions.

Sorry, but I've been thinking about this atrocious story for the last hour, and I retract my post above. I would not follow the womyn, but I might be honoured to lead them.

This is a challenge to men and an appalling wrong that men, not women, must right. We know at heart that, when all is said and done, abortion is a woman's issue in the sense that their collective voice will be determinative. We can philosophize, rail, rant and argue, but our relative remoteness from pregnacy and birth means that our voice wil always be an add-on. That is why, as Orrin correctly points out, the best hope for restricting aborion is the shifting views of womwn.

But this is different. The female is the victim because men want it to be so (even if their cultures have convinced their traditional women to go along with it). It is the converse of abortion. Men are the killers. Women can rail and wail and march all they want, but until men rise in angry, threatening revolt, little may happen. Somebody has to look these b-s-t-a-ds in the eye and threaten.

Women do not like to be controlled by men, or told what to think by them. But they don't like confused, deferential wimps either. There are times when men should assert their principled, protective role quite independantly of what women might think. I always wondered how the Clinton impeachment saga would have played out if Monica's father had picketed the White House with a sign that said: "Mr. President, let's talk man to man.", irrespective of what Monica wanted. The only time I saw him, he talked about Monica's freedom of choice!

Guys, time to get angry and take charge.

Jeff:

Do you know any men?

Yeah. Me. Wanna make something of it?

And you seriously think the main use will be for "balancing" families?

Mr. Judd;

I will admit that I live in a strange demographic, but overall the balance of gender wouldn't be much different than random. While I know one couple that desperately wanted a boy, there are others that wanted a girl. Had my parents had access to this technology, there would have been more girls in the family. And if it had been available to my current family I can tell you it wouldn't have been me making the selection. Isn't the Wife always right?

Okay, that takes care of middle/upper-middle class white folks, how about the rest of America?

OJ:

My experience is the same as AOG's.

Your argument is self defeating. Only the upper middle class can afford to purchase the choice.

Wow! We're really widening the demographic now.

Jeff--for now.

Short Boys. Long Girls.