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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
Hmmm, I hadn't given it any serious thought
Date: November 14th, 2003 09:20 am (UTC)From: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.