Does it cost more or less to spawn specific gender? Love is genderless, right? Or, at least the shareholders of the synthetic love corporation agree to the most cost effective business. If you want that fact checked, lets start with one newly legalized "seed-to-sale" business:
If you checked the link, you would notice that was about agriculture with intent for medical use. That legalization infringed on our U.S. Constitution, which is easily proven by who still sits in jail today for even more benign efforts, like Roger Christie, founder of The Hawai'ian Cannabis Ministry.
"Ask for seed, and you shall receive!"
Besides administer holy oil, he can marry you, too! Compare that to the moral issue of the vial, we imagined in the test of gravity. Does anybody perform marriage in test tubes? Mayo Clinic offers many options for infertility treatment. These treatments also seem quite benign for people who want children within marriage.
If you can choose the gender of the people then, don't the people have the choice of which gender they marry? That is the equality issue. I mean, they once appeared naturally benign for the purpose of marriage rights and equal treatment. Now, zealous followers appeared for further liberal equality for ways that does seem so natural. California has as answer, however, this bill introduced by lawmakers:
"If the proposal becomes law, theoretically every gay and lesbian couple in the state could be deemed infertile for purposes of insurance coverage." -- Washington Times, April 2013I doubt they really mean gay and lesbians much like how people really don't mean hackers, but they say it anyways when they try to avoid terms like crackers. For more details about that, see my previous blog post: "Gay: Hacking The Paramount." What was avoided were the people who want children, in away possible, through marriage equality. That includes bisexuals, transgenders, and other stereotypes who are sexually active in polygamist scenarios, like dykes and faggots. Of course, under republic monarchies, you probably would never utter such association.
So far, our democracy allowed artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, clones (to an extent), surrogates, sperm banks, and everything else in hell that will "get 'er done." Whomever "her" is... but that corrective surgery appears included in coverage. Does our democracy guarantee citizenship to each new conception, or does the choice in technique lead to inventions of bio-engineered ownership?
Who owns the vial at the end of the day? We have already seen reports of community ownership of children. With all purposes and intents of DNA testing, it has become almost impossible to stay out of the court system. It is easier if I repeat here what I said about this:
I think children need family time, private family time, that allows them to focus and develop their skills early. We can't ignore those that have not received that chance. I also think that teenagers are more independent these days, but there are also more parents not able to provide the independence they need. We can't ignore what the MSNBC host implied for community ownership, given that teenage level, for what elders tend to receive as benefits later.
Before I end on that note, non-profit organizations benefit from their community. and have many "advantages." Realize how Boy Scots of America have discriminated against gays, and how that is now being corrected by lawmakers that planned to cancel BSA's NPO status. Maybe they meant "inventions" instead of gays, as this makes it impossible to discriminate against any natural means of conception.