Prenatal gender selection is an issue that has been raised by the new technological advances in science. Parents can pick and choose the sex of their children based on their needs. They have they choice to have balanced families are all children of one sex in cultures that prefer one over the other. This sounds great as an idea, but realistically what effect will this have on society?
In this paper I will argue that prenatal gender selection is wrong. Prenatal gender selection is defined as choosing the sex of your offspring for personal reasons before it is conceived or by aborting fetuses that are found to be the undesirable sex. This can also include choosing the embryos to be implanted by in-vitro fertilization, abortion after the sex of the fetus is established, or the killing of a newborn infant because of the gender being undesirable (Robertson 2). I will develop three main arguments to support my thesis. I will start by showing how prenatal gender selection discriminates against the gender that is chosen to be terminated, it causes imbalances in the sex ratios, and it kills innocent human beings. I next consider and refute possible objections to these arguments, then conclude with some final thoughts.
My first argument is that prenatal gender selection discriminates against the sex of the child that is being terminated on a gender basis. Discrimination is huge global problem. Prenatal sex selection and infanticide practices all tend to favor healthy males (Hudson and Boer 6). All countries in the world no matter how progressive are seen to have gaps in equality for females (5). The idea that male children are wanted more than female children shows the discrimination and bias against female offspring (6).
Marilyn Frye suggests that woman may be seen as weaker and may be able to be taken advantage of and we need to protect these people that need help (Rachels 258). Women in many cultures are dishonored and treated in offensive ways only because they are female (259). They are not given a chance to show their intellectual or physical strengths because they are seen to be weak on the outward appearance of being female (259).
Discrimination and disappointment can follow the decision to choose the sex of your child (Robertson 4). What happens if the ultrasound technician doesn’t read the screen clearly and tells you that your fetus is the opposite sex from what you are expecting to have or that the wrong embryo is placed in-vitro? Prenatal gender selection methods are not 100% effective, except for infanticide, which can leave large areas for error (4). A healthy fetus of the desired sex may be aborted, a family may resort to infanticide, or even the child could be abused and neglected because they were not wanted. The parents have high expectations that these selected children will fill their expected gender roles and it can lead to huge disappointments if they don’t get exactly what they were expected after going through such extreme lengths to achieve them (4).
Psychological egoism fuels many decisions to proceed with gender selection. The parent’s believe their life will be better by having a certain gender offspring. This selfish view is motivated by their wants and desires (EMP 64). They are discriminating against an unborn child because of their own preconceived notions as to what the perfect offspring would be for them. I do not believe that a person that wants to be a parent could already have such horrible ideas of what a child is going to be like that they are willing to kill their own offspring because they don’t exactly fill the roles that their parents think they should.
Natural law is also broken by these actions. Rachel’s states that the main point of the natural law theory is that everything that exists for a reason (EMP 53). Maybe a couple is intended to have all sons or daughters. You don’t have to understand why, but if nature intends you to have a certain gender for offspring then that is the way it ought to be and this keeps all of the genders equal (EMP 55).
By eliminating a fetus or an infant on the basis of their sex is against the Divine Law theory. Although different groups may have different religions, they all believe that there is a God or Gods that is the supreme being from which they were created (Rachels 4). Discriminating against the child’s intended sex is messing with their God’s life plan for them (6).
All of these examples show that by choosing one sex over the other you are discriminating against them because of preconceived notions. Some people want a male offspring because they think they are better able to take care of them, while some may want a little girl because they already have four little boys and want that different parenting experience. Both ways the sex that is undesirable is automatically discriminated against and bad stereotypes are continued against them because they are seen as undesirable.
My second argument is that disparity in the ratios of the sexes can also have devastating consequences for society (Hudson and Boer 5). This can create problems within the balance of a society at all levels (5). It is our duty to protect these levels to keep an even number of the sexes in communities to help ensure stability.
Asian countries such as China and India are currently having the most problems with unequal gender ratios. If there are more males than females in certain age ranges, then who are these males to marry and have their children? India even enacted laws in 1994, to prevent any woman from finding out the sex of a fetus during pregnancy so they would not be able to abort the child for gender related reasons (Boer 38). A culture that values males that much must really be worried about their society if they enforce laws to try and keep from having a large gap in their country.
The social contract theory is completed renounced in these situations which can lead to fear, uncertainty, and possibly violence. According to the social contract theory people band together for protection and they follow the normal patterns and social etiquette that best suits all humans (Rachels 11). These males are forced back into their “state of nature” (12). They all need to find a mate, but because there are very few available in the dating pool, they are forced to fight over what is available (12). It leads to a scarcity of the available and necessary resource (12). This can be a dangerous and violate problem for anyone around them.
A theory called “Bare Branch” Behavioral Syndrome is one major predicament associated with an excess of men that can not find wives (Boer 37). Young males that are bored, unmarried, and have no sense of security in the futures can often find themselves getting into trouble and causing huge jumps in crime rates (37). If there are large numbers of these men in a society then it can cause huge amounts of crime, fear, and instability to even an entire country (38). These men are pushed out of normal society and can be prone to join gangs and other violent groups to protect themselves because they are not able to follow the normal life pattern of marrying and having children (38).
The change in the homeostasis of a society that is kept by equal changes can completely rewrite a culture. If there are no females to bear children or no woman for each male to have their own children then entire bloodlines can be lost. All of this is a major side effect of selective abortion and gender selection.
My third argument is that prenatal sex-selection kills an innocent human person. What do you do after you have a conceived a child and you find out it is not the desired gender? Would you abort the fetus, kill it at birth, or try and raise the child anyways? These are some of the moral dilemmas faced by people that only want a child of a specific gender and have to make a choice as to what they are going to do.
The main methods of determining a fetuses gender after conception is by chorionic villi sampling (CVS), ultrasound, or fetoscopy (Dickens 172). These are most accurately used after 11 weeks of gestation (172). The main method of disposing of the unwanted fetuses is by induced abortions after the results of these tests are preformed (174).
The killing of another person is not only against all legal and societal laws; it is also one of the main prohibited actions of divine laws (Rachels 4). The act of aborting a fetus on the sole basis of its gender raises completely different arguments than someone that would abort a fetus because they are unable or unwilling to care for a child. These people either discriminate against or feel threatened by the fetus because it is the undesired sex and eliminate it for only that reason. I see no better definition of murder than killing based on the assumption that it will be a threat or because of sexism. It seems to fit the definition of a hate crime to me.
There are many arguments that lead to the view that the practices of controlling the sex of offspring and the disposal of fetuses or infants that are not of the desired gender are correct. Many people believe that people should be allowed to do have the chance at being happy by choosing the sex of their offspring. Killing an infant just because of its sex is not justifiable homicide for any reason. I will now refute the main arguments against my thesis.
Discrimination against a fetus on the basis of sex could also need to parents getting even choosier about the genetics of their children. What if they decide that not only do they want a boy, but they want a boy with blue eyes and blonde hair? The line has be been drawn somewhere. This is also discrimination of certain traits that may occur naturally with the parent’s genetic structure. The legalization of prenatal gender selection will lead to the legalization or at the least rationalization for any type of genetic designer babies (Coleman 27).
Some many see the fact that a couple wants a certain sex child to “balance” their family so it would not be discrimination against the fetus (Robertson 3). Most families are seen to have a preference for two children (3). The majority of these parents that want the two children want them to be a girl and a boy so that they can have the different parenting experiences and a “completed family” (3). This group is actually the most interested in the costs and procedures that go along with choosing the gender (3). They say it is not seen as discrimination or sexism if they want one of each sex that will balance each other (3). This can be seen as doing one’s duty to have one child of each sex to balance society and your family. This explanation of a theory I believe leads back to Psychological Egoism in the fact that it still makes it seem like the parents are choosing the sex to fulfill their parenting desires and not having an ulterior motive in wanting to have one child of each gender instead of trying to rationalize their decision by saying they are really balancing society (EMP 64).
Many people believe that it is their right to choose the sex they will better able to nurture them because they are so wanted (Rhodes 31). This may cause more psychological problem by people that believe that by choosing the sex or genetics of their offspring that they will have the perfect family. They grow up having dreams of their little house with a white picket fence and their perfect children running in the yard. Children don’t always turn out the way you plan for them and it may end up as a big let down if they don’t follow their expected life path (31).
Believers of utilitarianism may believe that this will cause for more happiness for the family than it could cause hardship (Rachels 11). One flaw to this theory is that many people don’t give the fetus equal treatment in the decision of happiness (13). They do not take into effect that this potential person has the equal right as them in this decision and I am sure they would not be happy with knowing that their parents would only want them if they were a certain way. Most children want to be loved for who they are and not for some preconceived notion their parents had of who they will be.
Some people believe that using these methods will leave a large gender gap and it will not harm communities in any large way. In Rhodes article, “Acceptable Sex Selection” she argues that because most of these families are only trying to get a child of the opposite sex they have it will not leave communities with many unmarried males to cause problems (31). She believes that this practice is not yet widespread enough to cause rifts in society (30). This does not mean that it could not happen in the future if more people have access to the procedures. All technologies become cheaper with time and if they find a consumer market for the processes then more people will less stigma attached to it and may engage in the behaviors.
Rhodes also believes that by choosing the gender of their children it will relieve the problems with overpopulation that is caused by people that keep having more kids because the keep trying for a specific gender (31). That may be slightly true for Western cultures, but the abortions and infanticide are being committed in areas where they are only allowed small families and they can not afford to keep having females that will not be able to take care of them (32). I don’t believe people are willing to have more kids after having so many of a single sex without knowing the odds of having another child of the same sex as the previous children. I do not think this will eliminate the burdens of large families because they wouldn’t have the children if they didn’t want them.
Cultural relativists in many Asian countries will still agree that it is far superior to have many more male offspring then it is to have females. Their culture sees nothing wrong these practices because of the higher prospects for the future caused by the end result with no consequences as to their actions to get the desired outcome (Rachels 24).. The males in these societies are so treasured because they are the ones that are supposed to take care of their families when the parents become too old to take care of themselves (Boer 35). If these males are not able to find mates then who will be the ones to take care of them or inherit the family land if there are no heirs? They see “weeding out” the female children they do not need as ensuring that they are taken care of in their old age (35). They are only thinking of themselves and not to welfare of these children. They are not worried about the problems that will be encountering these men as they reach adulthood or the implications that will only get worse as their grandchildren come of age.
One main argument that could be raised against the fact that abortion for any reason is that it is legal in the first trimester for any reason (Robertson 5). The patient doesn’t have to inform the doctor that it is because of the projected sex of the child. This should bring into consideration the role of the doctors that perform abortions. They are ethically bound to protect other human beings. I definitely believe that fetuses being terminated just because of their gender are horrible uses of medical technology and completely against the oath doctors take before they are allowed to practice. They are using all of their time doing these non-medical procedures when people that may really need medical help have no where to go (Robertson 7).
There are very few Supreme Court cases that rule on reproductive rights (Coleman 27). Most of what have been ruled on is ruled as privacy issues and the cases rule on the side of letting people chose what they want done to themselves (27). In Strong’s report, “Can’t We Control Our Children” he argues that reproductive rights are basic rights that should be protected by the law and all governments (12). These rights are imposed to help safeguard the happiness of the citizens. Some people may say it is discriminating against the mothers that should have the chance to choose what they want to do with their bodies. Does this mean that the government should protect their right to kill their children or mess around with genetics because it is what they want to do?
I have explained the reasons for and against prenatal gender selection and believe that the problems that can potentially be caused by the procedures can cause far more harm to society than those that advocate it. Most cultures are trying to end discrimination in their societies against others for any reasons would just be further ignited by allowing babies to be killed for a reason as small as their gender. Entire generations can be set back or eliminated by reducing the amounts of fertile females to give birth to the next generations to keep a society going. Normally law abiding people are being driven to kill or abort fetuses that don’t fit their ideal specifics for what their children should be.
Therefore I think it is clear that we should all help to show that this practice is wrong. It can lead to harmful consequences that can be prevented. None of these practices are healthy or will lead to stability in communities that we need to build long term successful cultures.
Works Cited
Boer, Andrea. “The Security Threat of Asia’s Sex Ratios.” SAIS Review 24.2 Summer-Fall 2004: 27-43. Project Muse Database. UMUC Library. 30 April 2006.
Coleman, Carl. Is There a Constitutional Right to Preconception Sex Selection?” The American Journal of Bioethics 1.1 Winter 2001: 36-37. Project Muse Database. UMUC Library. 30 April 2006.
Dickens, B, G. Serour, R. Cook, and R. Qiu. “Sex Selection: Treating Cases Differently.” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 90.2 August 2005: 171-177. Science Direct Database. UMUC Library. 30 April 2006.
Hudson, Valerie and Andrea Boer. “A Surplus of Men, A Deficit of Peace: Security and Sex Ratios in Asia’s Largest States.” International Security 26.4 Spring 2002: 5-38. Project Muse Database. UMUC Library. 30 April 2006.
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Fourth Edition.McGraw Hill: Boston, 2003.
—. The Right Thing To Do, Third Edition. McGraw Hill: Boston, 2003.
Rhodes, Rosamond. “Acceptable Sex Selection.” The American Journal of Bioethics. 1.1 Winter 2001: 31-32. Project Muse Database. 24 May 2006.
Robertson, John. “Preconception Gender Selection.” The American Journal of Bioethics 1.1 Winter 2001: 2-9. Project Muse Database. UMUC Library. 30 April 2006.
Strong, Carson. The American Journal of Bioethics. 1.1 Winter 2001: 12-13. Project Muse Database. 24 May 2006.
