tinyjo | Your right to choose?

[Poll #204849]

I've been listening to bits of the discussion about this following the confirmation from the HFEA that parents will only be able to perform gender selection for medical reasons (e.g. avoiding heamophilia), not personal, social or "so-called family balancing reasons" but I'm afraid I'm finding that this is one of those questions where I'm not entirely sure what to think. On the one hand, I've heard very few good arguments against gender selection. Many people seem to have a gut reaction against it, but I don't understand why. This encourages me to align it in my mind with the many other scientific debates where the public have ill-informed objections. On the other hand, I'm not sure I can see good reasons for allowing it either. I don't think, for example, that it should be available on the NHS for non medical reasons.

The one reasonable person I heard speaking against it argued essentially that gender selection gives you an illusion of control which, if it doesn't work out could be damaging for you and the child. So for example you chose to have a girl because you have a certain perception of the way girls are. If your child turns out still not to be like that (perhaps she's a tomboy, for example) then your disappointment will affect you as a parent and the development of your child. This makes sense to me, but is it a strong enough arguement to restrict choice? After all, there are plently of avenues available for the parent/child relationship to mess up. If you're fixated on having a girl and you have a boy, won't your feelings of dissappointment in that case have a similar effect?

So what do you think? And more importantly, why do you think it?

Current Mood: curious

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think parents should be able to choose the sex of their child. I don't think I'd want to do it, but I think the option should be available.

Why? Is it just that the ability is there and you see no reason to restrict the choice?

Pretty much. I think there are more situations in which the availability of choice is likely to be good than there are situations in which the availability of choice is likely to be bad.

Well, I don't know why someone would choose the gendr of their baby. However, we don't legislate against other stupid choices people make with their kids so we shouldn't do it with this one.

Also, if we ban this then we'll NEVER get a race of genetic supermen. And then who will the cyborgs fight in the future, huh?

How does gender selection work? They find out what gender a foetus has and you "get rid of it" if it's not the right one and try again? Or can they somehow influence what gender an unborn baby will turn out as?

I can't imagine the second, so opinions on the first will probably also be tied to people's opinions on abortions.

Or can they somehow influence what gender an unborn baby will turn out as?

X and Y chromosomes weigh different amounts. Therefore, X-sperm and Y-sperm weigh different amounts, and can be separated.

I think you're right that this may well be tied to peoples' opinion on abortion, but I don't think it will be due to the mechanism.

Hadn't thought of that sort of thing (artificial insemination and sperm selection); it makes sense now that you've explained it.

The gender selection is very frequently tied to abortion as the means of applying preference.

As I'm sure you are all well aware, this debate has been very alive in India, where this practice seems well afoot - especially amongst those families with means.

Incidentally, with a preference towards boys.

-----

My view: Whilst I can see little reason to deny the option, I can also see the serious population imbalances this can produce (some good - like family economic potential or immediate social standing or forcing a revaluation of the rarer women; some bad - like the social destabilisation, the 'little emperor' effect, a shrinking diversity & distribution of gender perspective in a society) over time.

I generally consider a successful birth of a healthy child such a difficult and often dangerous enterprise, that I don't know why anyone would want to abort that particular gender if they are in fact ready and willing to start/expand their family.

As for alternate means of applying a gender preference, the same outcome opportunities and problems apply, though much of the issues surrounding abortion and faetal health can be side-stepped.

Incidentally, I probably shouldn't use the term 'gender' and instead clearly use the word, 'sex.' Gender is decidedly a more social construct, and is far more diverse than male/female.

"some good - like family economic potential or immediate social standing or forcing a revaluation of the rarer women"

- the suicide rate among Chinese women is the highest in the world. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2526079.stm )

Rareness of women does not increase their status. It increases trafficking, abuse, and incarceration.

I generally consider a successful birth of a healthy child such a difficult and often dangerous enterprise, that I don't know why anyone would want to abort that particular gender if they are in fact ready and willing to start/expand their family.

Poverty, family pressure, status, to avoid abuse, to avoid penalties associated with children of that sex (a fine, dowry payments), and (deleted) to avoid upsetting the father.

Rareness of women does not increase their status. It increases trafficking, abuse, and incarceration.

I was going to post about that: when I first heard about Indians avoiding bringing women into the world, c. 20 years ago, I made the same misassumption about how that would affect the status of women, when in fact all that happened is the lot of wives got worse in as much as they started being 12 year olds shipped in from Bangladesh.

Finding this out (thanks to the good people at the BBC) has coloured all my future-looking thoughts and predictions.

Maybe it's my own ideological bias, but the laws of supply and demand should eventually be felt. Mind you 20 years is only a generation ... one simply isn't going to see massive change in so short a period in such societies.

Ultimately: the ruling patriarchy will be forced into a hard choice between female betterment or social collapse. And yes, women will bear the worst brunt of this entire evolved situation.

----

I wonder how AIDS is accelerating these effects, and how things will turn out. I think the greatest tragedy we're seeing in places like eastern Africa is the lack of an indigenous government response to these challenges: like setting up social security networks to supplant familial links and traditions of polygamous marriages of (AIDS) widows to protect family resources.

"the laws of supply and demand should eventually be felt"

You've actually answered you own point there. When women become a scarce resource, they become exactly that; a resource. Something you buy and sell, something owned, and any benefit goes to the owner of the chattels not the chattel herself.

The (worldwide) AIDS crisis is a different issue, but I'd point out that in most African countries (South Africa is a special case) both the government and NGOs are working very hard to respond to the crisis. It's not enough, of course.

I'm not sure what you mean by "AIDS widows" -- the result in the worst-hit places is that only old people and children (aged 0-9) are left.

Anyway, big issue and definitely off-topic.

1. You make a good point about 'resources' ... however, I maintain that with sufficient pressure, even the most patient societies revolt. Women are people, and people *need* liberties. Abuse can only go so far, even when organised and traditional.

2. I don't think AIDS is necessarily so different, especially when it intersects with traditional social values. It would be nice to treat AIDS purely as the medical plague that it is, but that hasn't been the case in the First World, or the Third. 'AIDS widows' specifically refer to those infected women (infected by husbands) who outlive their AIDS-dead husbands, who may have AIDS-infected children, and due to social ties, may be married by the husband's brother. A practice fairly common in SE Africa, I've read. In the long run, the orphans and aged are badly impacted by AIDS, but in the short-run, a society's highest earners are killed, and traditional social values may perpetuate the infection. By the bye, as an infection fulcrum, the 'AIDS Widow' model applies to both sexes - and again traditional social values may perpetuate this problem. I brought this up, because there is all too often a failure by government to intercept infected survivours, and a failure by those traditional social orders to evolve to the new challenge sufficiently.

For example, with good information, women as these can (and have in some places) gather together to demand their own independent support - with primary interest in the children.

Yes, I've read this, and it is true. And a totally repressive 'system of distribution' a la Handmaid's Tale is conceivable ... but ultimately society will crumble without greater female rights. So further control measures may necessarily have to be a short-term reaction.

My view: if men do not find they have a perceived 'fair share' access to reproductive opportunity, instinctive competition will take over - and that wrecks social order.

While perhaps less pertinent to female rights per se, it is interesting to consider the case of the Spartans. Their ideology and wholehearted application of social engineering towards those ideals wrecked them.

Poverty, family pressure, status, to avoid abuse, to avoid penalties associated with children of that sex (a fine, dowry payments), and (deleted) to avoid upsetting the father.

Hence ready and willing... (i.e. ready = able) Otherwise I take your point completely. Incidentally, note that I did rate higher social standing from a prefered sex as a 'positive' ... since irrespective of our view of it, a family in difficulty with a slightly higher social standing due to prefered offspring may make just that difference in success/survival - unfortunately.

Note: this is quite separate from actual economic output, necessarily. Most societies who practice sex selection are patriarchial, so favour male children. Males will have superior access to social resources to the betterment of their family and female relations. Irrespective of, say, higher female productivity since farming may be far steadier income than cattle ranching/goat herding. The damnable old myopia of social valuation - but there's no getting past it without the kind of major effort no one seems willing to seriously try any more. (alternative: UN viral-like efforts with female education, UNDP efforts, etc.)

"... ultimately society will crumble without greater female rights. So further control measures may necessarily have to be a short-term reaction."

Short-term solutions have a nasty habit of becoming long-term ways of life. The Handmaid's Tale is fiction, and like all fiction says more about its social context than actual real-world severely female-oppressive regimes (of which there are many).

"ready and willing"

OK, "ready and willing" could cover everything I mentioned.

"alternative: UN viral-like efforts with female education, UNDP efforts, etc."

Of course, it's only an opinion; but I don't see this as an alternative. Education of women is the only way of raising their status as opposed to their value.

Education programmes for women form key work for every major NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation) in the world. Apart from raising the status of the women involved in such programmes, side effects include lowered child mortality, better educated and healthier children, increased general, reproductive and sexual health (men and women), home income generation, capacity building, better resistance to crises and problems, and, in the end, decreased poverty.

"no one seems willing to seriously try any more"
See above.

1. I mention HMT on the grounds it expresses the most extreme (and not common model today...though I reserve North Korea for special mention) concept of an unbalanced sexual-rights society. The reality in most places is far more complicated, very often women making themselves prisoners by their ignorance or beliefs - though I'm sure that'll push a lot of hot buttons out there. :-)

2. I agree completely about the value and worth of female education around the world (including the First World, if one reads the likes of Anne Coulter, ;-) ), I just don't think it is getting anything like the resources it needs to fully succeed.

by arguming simulaneously that:

a) oppression inevitably leads to revolt ("I maintain that with sufficient pressure, even the most patient societies revolt")

and,

b) that women conspire in their own oppression ("very often women making themselves prisoners by their ignorance or beliefs ")

b) is demonstrably true, and I would never dream of arguing against it --- a) is a political opinion.

No, I don't see these points as mutual -exclusive or -negating.

Sadly, I think 'b' has been the classic solution of slowing the inevitable outcome of 'a.' In this respect, 'tradition' and 'religion' can be considered very suspiciously.

Mind you, 'b' is a very strong feminist view, and certainly not one everyone subscribes to, including women.

I think you have to have IVF - the normal procedure for that is to attempt to fertilize several eggs and then pick one or two to actually implant I think. So in this case you'd get to decide what sex the one you implanted would be.

At present, two routes exist for 'choosing': aborting the 'wrong' foetus, or using IVF and choosing the 'right' egg.

I can't see any non-medical reason as a good one for choosing the sex of a child, and I don't think people should have the right to do so, either.

First, the illusion of control issue has more ramifications for society and for the individual than we might at first guess. What presuppositions do we give to our children if we have a culture which tells a child that if it had turned out to have the 'wrong' genes it would have been terminated in the womb? How can we assure children that they are of equal and real value as individuals if society accepts a pre-judgement of them as only worthy of life if they are of the 'right' sex? In other words, that the most important thing about a child is its sex, and that all the rest if that child's potential is worthless if it hasn't got the 'right' plumbing and hormones? Such a choice is inherently degrading to humankind.

Secondly, the 'right' would be used to reinforce cultural prejudices against one sex or another - and overwhelmingly this is a bias against females. Regardless of which sex would be the object of discimination in a 'choice'-based culture, in a civilised society, using technology to reinforce sex-based and gender-based bias is, I think, wrong.

But I'm a bit old-fashioned about this: I believe we are all of value in the eyes of God, and that whilst sex is an aspect of our lives, it can be and often should be subsumed by other aspects of life. There are great poets, writers, ministers, doctors, nurses, musicians, gardeners, loo-cleaners, whatever, of both sexes, and everyone's talent and potential is worthy of more respect than the mere fact of their biological sex.

I don't think anyone's said anything about 'right' and 'wrong', just about parental preference. Some parents would prefer a boy, some would prefer a girl - that's the way it's always been, and the way it's always going to be.

What you're arguing for, I think, is effective regulation of the technology. Because yes, I agree that it shouldn't be used lightly or discriminatorily; I just disagree that the potential for such is a reason to disallow it.

What presuppositions do we give to our children if we have a culture which tells a child that if it had turned out to have the 'wrong' genes it would have been terminated in the womb?

Don't we already do this to a certain extent? We provide pre-natal screening for conditions such as Downs syndrome for the explicit purpose of allowing the parents to abort if it's found.

Another thought that occurs to me - those who are desparate to pursue selection already have crude options available to them as, if they find out the sex early enough, they can abort. Would it not be preferable to have a regulated and safe way of performing sex selection for people who are so fixated?

The thought of the UK being a society which privileges individual selfishness to such an extent makes my blood run cold.

As someone who went through extensive prenatal testing and two sessions of genetic counselling about her then-unborn child: no, a fixation about a child's sex and gender should not be a valid reason for society at large to allow a universal "right" to pre-select a child based on no criterion other than that of sex. A child being male or female is a normal condition, and I cannot accept that being one sex or another should be defined as in any way abnormal. People who are fixated about a child's sex are the ones who need help and counselling to learn that both sexes are wholly acceptable. Society at large has no reason to allow a minority of "fixated" people to condition our future attitudes to our children.

I can understand people who decide to terminate a pregnancy based on, say, genuine genetic disorders such as trisomies (Down's is trisomy 21; trisomy 18 produces some really horrific handicaps and a shortened, and apparently pretty terrible, lifespan) but these are geniunely abnormal conditions; and in the instance of Down's syndrome, our 'first-world' culture has so changed the educational facilities, and attitudes, towards Down's that although there are still terminations for this reason, many people now opt to keep the pregnancy going and celebrate the presence of these kids in their lives.

IVF and abortions are both seriously invasive procedures, and both require extensive counselling. The time and money spent on 'choosing' a child can and should be spent on helping people to understand that either sex is good and normal. I have yet to see or read about any society using foeticide or infanticide as a form of sex selection which, in the long term, flourishes. Truly, I think allowing such a universal 'right' would be an actual evil, a corrosive and degrading form of power allocated to people inherently unfit for its use.

I'm in favor of it in the case of one parent being a carrier of a fatal sex-dependent disease (like Tay-Sachs or Huntington's Disease) or something like that.

I know it'll probably be abused by people with money, but in that sort of situation, I honestly think the 50/50 balance will come out in the end. (Except maybe in patriarchal societies where having a girl means just having another mouth to feed...but those same families might not necessarily have the money for this procedure anyway.)

Just my thoughts. :-)

I'm in favor for the reasons Carrie discussed. I don't think I'd ever want to choose the gender of my children, unless there was a medically necessary reason to do so.

That's pretty much the current position in this country after the consultation - allowable to prevent transmission of genetic diseases only.

I answered No, but it would be Yes in the case of good medical reasons as you outlined above. But it should be restrictive to these medical cases, rather than opening up the opportunities for *designer* babies...

But of course, the answer should be no, for a very fundamental reason -- basic rights. Specifically, "equality of opportunity" -- the equal chance to be born, no matter what sex you are.

The usual effect of selecting the sex of your child is that people chose sons, and for all that we love to think about the UK as this cosy, non-sexist place, I think (at the very least) we'd see masses of older sons and younger daughters, which will lead to a social shift, one I'm not sure I would be happy with.

Crude forms of sex selection already take place -- female infanticide in China is famous, of course (and the social crisis that has attended upon this) but selective abortion after discovering the sex of your child is extremely widespread (they'll even refuse to tell you the sex of your child in some London clinics). These are (of course) "nasty" while pre-selection of sperm is "nice" but both are based on the same decision -- that a boy is better than a girl (or vice versa).

Now, I'm not allowed to discriminate like that with the people I work with, and whenever I'm around young people, I'm also obliged to challenge such attitudes (and frequently have to do so). Should parents be allowed to discriminate in that way with their potential offsping?

Now, while I'm usually Pro-choice wherever having children is concerned, in this case I think I make an exception. Chosing whether or not to have a child (whoever they might turn out to be) is one thing. Chosing to exercise control over so fundamental an aspect of their individuality -- quite another.

I'm also speaking from a personal view. My Dad wanted a boy, and would have been able to bully my mum into following his decision. So that's me scratched out. How about allowing sexual selection in the case of genetic disorders? Well, that's my friend Colette's son scratched out.

And we may not be perfect or quite what our parents wanted, but they love us anyway, gender and life expectancy be damned.

first a comment:

And we may not be perfect or quite what our parents wanted, but they love us anyway, gender and life expectancy be damned.

Or not love as seems all too often the case(s)...

As for the problem:

The odd mixture of political rights given/denied to children.

Here's one approach: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
and it's application has various shortcomings.

On the opposite extreme, we have life rights being granted to fetuses in the US, and I don't think that's quite right either.

"Or not love as seems all too often the case"

My father expresses his love very pooorly; he would still claim he loved me and be telling the truth, however -- this is true of many abusive people. Whether or not we should deny abusive parents the right to have and/or raise children is another issue entirely.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is good background reading to this sort of debate, yes.

the equal chance to be born, no matter what sex you are

But in that case, there's already an imbalance - it's, what, 1.1 boys for every girl? Something like that. And it's probably because sperm are different weights, so there's an inbuilt advantage for boy-sperm. Small, but it's there. Should we be correcting that and trying for a 50/50 birth rate?

The usual effect of selecting the sex of your child is that people chose sons

On an intellectual level, I'd be absolutely fascinated to find out whether this is still true in this country, what with the regular articles about how boys are failing and girls are succeeding. It probably is, I guess, but I'd bet it's not as extreme as it would be in, say, China.

Should parents be allowed to discriminate in that way with their potential offsping?

No, but I think the solution, as elsewhere, would be to challenge their attitudes, not to remove the option of choice.

Interesting to consider that in light of longevities and general health advantage of women.

+0.1 to deliberately cover losses to ill health, bad habits, violence?

Brutish calculations maybe, and lacking in elegance, but...

Actually, fewer boys than girls survive past the age of five years when the age-related statistics are adjusted to accommodate the effects of malnutrition in female children.

I can't see any reason, other than compelling medical reasons, for having the 'option' of 'choice'.

Nobody in this small group of 'pro-choice' folk seems to have addressed the question I posed earlier: what message do we send to our children if we tell them that they had to be the 'right' sex in order to be born? I honestly did want a daughter; I have a son; I am delighted, endlessly lucky, amazed, to have any child who is healthy after a difficult pregnancy and birth. Children who are not valued for themselves are cowed from an early age; I see children every day who because of their sex believe themselves to be inferiro and in some way undeserving and it is pitiable to behold.

I can't think of any personally-constructed desire for "choice" as more important than the joy and self-esteem of a child. I don't think adults should have an automatic right to a technology which inherently reinforces such soul-destroying tendencies. "For if anyone puts a stumbling-block before these little ones, I tell you, it would be better for him to have a milstone around his neck and be flung into the sea..." and I agree with that: adults have to be responsible beings, and society should not further encourage them to be selfish, self-indulgent, and petty at the expense of a child.

It is true that some people just prefer to have a child of one sex or another; but frankly, excepting compelling medical reasons, I think that's just hard cheese. We shouldn't always have everything we want.

Puritanically yours... :-)

I dunno, I find that's just something you have to cope with -- in the womb as elsewhere. Girls are a lot less likely to die early as a result of violence and more resistant to disease, so it evens out. (actually, I don't know what the current stats are on this, so I'll withdraw from this argument now)

Would people in the UK still chose boys? We both thought "yes, but not always" ... I think there are probably better ways to find out than making pre-birth sex selection universally available, though. A web survey, maybe ;)

challenge the attitudes, don't remove the option Yes, well now. In an ideal world there would be no laws and we would all just do the right thing. But until then ...

Other than for medical reasons, I think the entire idea is disgusting.

Nonetheless, I've chosen "yes", because I think people should have a legal right to do this. I would, however, hope that the medical profession would marginalize the practice. It is a very small step from choosing the gender of your children to "buying" smarter, prettier children through genetic manipulation.

It's one thing to eliminate serious illnesses; it's quite another to set up a system of "designer children". We should not attempt to decide what genetic qualities are desirable and undesirable in a child, just as we should not overmedicate children who are already born.

Despite my views, I don't really think any of these things should be illegal. I don't think it's the kind of thing that the government should be trying to control.

I'm unsure about sex selection. My answer is generally no, mainly because of the possible side-effects of IVF treatment. I also have doubts about IVF as I'm unsure whether people should have a *right* to create life. That doesn't seem right. For example if someone has a condition that means that can't have children, but can use their eggs/sperm, then are we doing ourselves a favour (human race terms) by continuing this gene line.

I know I'm wandering into dangerous areas such as eugenics. But I just can't help feeling that this is a bad path to be going down.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

Emptied of expectation. Relax.

June 2020

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated December 25th, 2025 05:43 am

Style Credit

Base style: Abstractia by chiming
Theme: Make Waves by chiming