Tuesday, February 06, 2007

What happens in Alabama, stays in Alabama

D and I watched Sweet Home Alabama tonight. I didn't like it all that much. It was ok, but I actually liked Because I Said So better. Reese Witherspoon is just hard to like sometimes. Plus, the plot was painfully predictable. I mean, the title basically gives it away. She's not going to go for the New York guy with a title like that. And they kept playing Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama," of course...I liked the way they used it in Forrest Gump better. Grr.

Moving on, D told me there was an article in the Times about baby gender selection and how it's easier to control what you have now. The Times has a feature where you can comment on certain articles, and that was one of them. The article has already collected over 200 comments. I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. In a way, I think you should leave it up to fate, but I understand if people want to influence the outcome. What do you think?

11 comments:

Lisa said...

I ADORE Reese! I love all her movies.

And I'm not sure how I feel about the gender selection. It could lead to the problem that China is facing---a generation of way too many men with not enough potential female mates. But I don't know that we in the U.S. have a strong enough gender preference in either direction to upset the balance that much. I worry more about the slippery-slope effect. Now it's gender. Then it's eye color or hair color. Then we have a bunch of creepy designer kids running around. Genetic variation is good for us.

blackcrag said...

Sweet Home Alabama was predictable? Yes. But for light, silly fare, it was good.

As for gender selection, I am against it. It is too much like playing God. First we chose the gender, then we choose the hair colour, then height and other body characteristics...

Funny, I just read Lisa's comment, and my thoughts are exactly the same. I started to write about the Chinese gender problem too.

So basically, I'm saying I agree with Lisa.

kitkat said...

When I was a kid, my parents had some friends, a married couple, who kept having kids because the husband wanted a boy. Wasn't that like Henry VIII? Anyway, I'm sure that poor woman would have wanted to choose a boy desperately!

However, I think it would be weird if my doc ever asked me, "Boy or girl?" in the same way that my grocery bagger asks me, "Paper or plastic?" What ever happened to mystery and surprise and taking what life gives you?

Elsa said...

I haven't seen Sweet Home Alabama - doesn't really interest me. Reese is ok...I guess I'm neutral on her.

Regarding the gender selection, I tend to agree with Lisa - I'm not sure how I feel about gender selection. I haven't really formed a coherent opinion on it. I have read much about the problem that China is facing and the social implications of that. All these "new" issues are difficult and need a lot of debate to fully understand all the implications and consequences. I hear the argument of "It's too much like playing God" - as blackcrag states. But don't we "play God" all the time with medical advancements? We extend our lives through medicatios and surgeries (eg. heart bypasses, ventilators, etc); we change our appearances through surgeries; premature babies are now surviving because of medical technologies; invitro virtiliations, etc. We are changing the "natural" course of our lives all the time by "playing God".

Bottom line - I'm not sure. We need more thoughful and insightful public debate on the issue.

His suzy said...

I liked Sweet Home Alabama if only for the fact that they didn't make it an obvious one where she's having to choose between the good guy and the bad guy - they were both good guys.

I understand that some parents really want one sex or another, especially if they already have children that are all one gender. But at the same time, it just seems to me that that's interferring a little too much with things. I can understand wanting to correct a birth defect or something, if that's possible. But choosing the gender just seems like it's going a little too far.

anne said...

Gender selection - I think it's bad. I'm with Lisa above - genetic variation is good for us, indeed. Hence healthy mutts! Hybrid vigor and all that.

Reese Witherspoon? She's cute, but I don't know much about her.

Bearette24 said...

Hi Anne - welcome! Yeah, in response to everyone, I think I'm against gender selection. Goes against nature and all.

Roxanne said...

Gender selection falls into the same category as cloning for me. Just a little too creepy.

I like the idea of being surprised right up until the birth, of what sex the baby is going to be. I like surprises in general, but that's like the ultimate.

I think it's already bad enough when parents try to control who and what their child is going to be from the minute they're born, but do we really have to give them the option of starting from conception?

Capybaras United said...

There was an article recently that mentioned how some midgets - maybe they were being artificially inseminated or something - wanted to make sure their kid would be super short too. That it would be a special bond between them.

Some of the doctors wouldn't do it, but other doctors would.

avocadoinparadise said...

I'm leaning toward thinking it's ok to choose the gender sometimes, if the parents really are nutzo and feel the need to (as kitkat's crazy friends below). We have a world overpopulation problem that isn't helped by these huge families caused by rampant other-sex-wanting.

As a society we'd have to consider the ramifications of all the 2 kid, 1 of each sex families that this would spawn though. Talk about a probable lack of variety. Bor-ing!

Here's a link to the article :)

Bearette24 said...

Thanks, Avocado. I thought it was interesting that the technology is more successful in producing girls than boys.