Your right to choose?

[tinyjo]

[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?

Comments

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

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.

[snowking.livejournal.com]

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?

gender selection

[pne.livejournal.com]

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.

sex selection

[vinaigrettegirl.livejournal.com]

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.

[coffeechica.livejournal.com]

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. :-)

[shepline.livejournal.com]

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...

Hmmm, I hadn't given it any serious thought

[cleanskies.livejournal.com]

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.

[entirelysonja.livejournal.com]

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.

[xencat.livejournal.com]

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.