Can Parents Select the Gender of Their Child?

(This was an essay I wrote for ethics class:)

Sex selection has been carried out by many cultures throughout history. Some methods, such as following certain sexual practices or eating certain foods, have not necessarily posed a risk to either the couple or the fetus1. Less safe practices, including tying off the left testicle to produce boys, lean toward controversy (1). In particular, abortion, infanticide, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are extremes of gender selection as these involve killing an innocent life. The ethical issue, therefore, is not merely gender selection, but more specifically, the violence of abortion, infanticide, and IVF to achieve this purpose.

      The frequency of the extreme sex-selective methods reflects the imbalance of society, particularly on gender issues. First, it demonstrates male dominance in cultures where males are the breadwinners and women are regarded as caretakers and reproducers of heirs. This is more prevalent in Eastern cultures, like in India (2). Often, the woman silently suffers the pain – and physical risks, if undergoing medical procedures – in submission to various social pressures. Forced gender selection thus shows the lack of respect for women in general; it violates their freedom to choose and live individualistically. Furthermore, it contradicts the natural instinct and, paradoxically, the social norm of mothers: the responsibility of providing care and protection to their children without prejudice. 

      Another kind of discrimination that arises in a society which tolerates or advocates the killing of unwanted embryos, fetuses, or infants is ageism. Although commonly associated with the treatment of the elderly, ageism can involve infants and the unborn as well, since it is a prejudice based on age – the length of a person’s life or existence, which begins from conception, a belief derived from Catholic teaching. On the other hand, proponents of abortion and IVF argue that the embryo or fetus is not truly human yet and can be compared to a tumor, as it is within the body and can be removed. However, the latter comparison is scientifically incorrect. A tumor is a disorganized mass of cells which cannot differentiate into specialized tissues; thus, unlike an embryo (at least), it does not have the potential to develop into a full human being. Therefore, the right to live also belongs to the very young, who are unable to help themselves or express their opinions. Abortion, infanticide, and (in many cases) IVF deny them this basic right.

      In vitro fertilization, a recently developed procedure, actually does not necessarily involve killing the embryo. But when the intention is to choose the genetic makeup of the child, oftentimes, many embryos go to waste before one is created with the desired genes. In many countries, gender selective IVF is allowed only for the purpose of avoiding sex-linked disorders (3). Nevertheless, this will not prevent the child from having other diseases or disorders, which are influenced by many genes and by the environment. Also, changing the child’s genetic makeup might unexpectedly predispose him/her to other medical conditions, which would then become a disadvantage to both the child and the parents. Thus, the trial and error procedure of IVF is not always an effective way of creating new life exactly as the parents desire.

      Indeed, taking away ‘unwanted’ lives may appear to have a slight ecological advantage: it causes the human population growth rate to slow down to a certain extent. However, this negatively affects people in countries with more serious gender gaps. In China and India, for instance, the males outnumber the females, making it difficult for men (especially in rural areas of China) to find partners and have families. This can eventually result in a further decline in population growth (4). In addition, with the termination of babies and artificial genetic selection, the overall genetic diversity decreases, reducing the potential of the human race to adapt to the changing environment. As long as gender selection is widespread, the resulting decrease in population, uneven male-to-female ratio, and shrinking gene pool all together will pose a threat to the survival of humanity. 

      What can be done to lower the rates of these gender selective procedures? First, women around the world can be empowered through education and legislations that protect their rights. Second, couples who need/want children can consider the option of adopting; this way, they can also harmlessly choose the child’s gender. Third, laws banning sex-selective abortion, infanticide, and IVF must be properly enforced by the government and healthcare professionals. Cooperation and respect in society are keys to lessening the rates of all forms of infanticide. 

References

1. Schenker, J.G. (2003). Gender Selection. Fertility Weekly, 18-20.  
2. Spinelli, M.G. (2005). Infanticide: contrasting views. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 8: 15-24.

3. http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_cont2.htm

4. Lovgren, S. (2005). Too Many Males: A Fast Lane to Extinction? National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_sex_ratio_2.html