Arguments Against Elective Gender Selection

The technology of the world today is fast-paced, fascinating, and extremely helpful in many cases. The ever-changing field of medical technology has changed and/or saved the lives of countless people. Doctors are able to perform procedures on patients today that were unheard of only 5 years ago. However, not all procedures and practices may be biblically ethical. Christians must decide which procedures are God honoring and which ones are not, especially when infertility is involved. Dr. Rae mentioned five theological foundations for bioethics that believers should evaluate in order to discern the uses of technology in the interference of the natural process of conception. Dr. Rae’s list consisted of the following: Dominion Mandate, Impact of

The question is, why not allow parents to choose their gender solely based on preference? One of the main problems with this is that choosing gender may cause sexism, the belief that one gender is greater than another. Another problem could be gender imbalance, seeing that if many women chose to have girls, then in the future there would be an imbalance of gender, making it difficult to repopulate. Along with gender, scientists can also change the genetic code of an egg to make the baby more intelligent, or to have better health. Some problems with this could be that altering genes to make humans smarter could cause a “superior” race, therefore making people who have not had their genes altered looked down upon, and this would not be good for society. This also falls into the category of “designer baby syndrome,” which causes the parents to view their child as some sort of trophy, and that brings into question whether or not the parents are doing what is best for their child, and if they are having a child for selfish reasons. Another point Law

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

With increasing developments in biotechnology there are now more choices than ever for prospective parents when they decide to start a family. This induces demand for philosophers and ethicists to analyze the moral pertinence of such practices around the world for a wide range of situations. In this paper, I will present the arguments of Dena Davis against sex selective techniques and the subsequent arguments by Sophia Wong that link sex selection and disability de-selection. I will subsequently evaluate Wong’s extension and its viability within the argument established by Davis and defend my conclusion that it is indeed comparable and equivalent arguments due to the congruence of gender and disability expectations in the United States.

Sex selection, in this new age of technology, is one of the easiest sections of designing a baby. All the parent has to do is say “yes” or “no” to one gender or the other without the risk of some percentage indicating a disease the new baby might have. Since this particular procedure is so easy, it can be abused (Rachel Lehmann- Haupt). For example, some cultures put more value on a male’s life than on a female’s including the hugely populated countries, China and India (Designer Babies: The Good and the Bad). Even the USA has taken notice with four states, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Illinois, and Oklahoma, banning any abortion that is gender-based (Sex-Selection Abortion Bans). This eliminates sex selection through abortions, but the bans need to spread into the designer baby realm and into more states. If more bans are not put in place and humans are allowed to freely pick the gender of their child, then the majority of the world could be become male, but with the price of the procedure comes an even bigger, social

The author is the associate editor of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society. In which, is the area of the news site that cover all technological advances and controversies on new sciences. The article cover the opinions of conservatives and progressives alike on the use engineering a child before or after birth. Although, the possibilities are endless and the benefits to humanity are countless such as, curing diseases, inherited genetics; they are filled with risks. Numerous scientists, ethicists, and other important members are present at this meeting, but exclude members with strong moral standards to have a less biased opinions. Nevertheless, ethics are not unconsidered, which is why there is such a strong force that holds

"Technological innovations in the reproductive area means being prepared to explicitly acknowledge that it is acceptable to destroy embryos under certain circumstances in order to encourage research on alleviating disease embryos. This in turn acknowledges the role of science in rectifying what may have gone a defective state during development.” But what is wrong with it that makes it questionable to those who follow christianity? It is the fact that many label this act as immoral and lives are being loss in the process as of which it really a flip of a coin on whether the “test tube baby”, or experiment some would call, would survive or not. We know that God is the author of life, but scientists

Chan School of Public Health revealed that “Roughly one in four Americans (26%) think changing the genes of unborn babies should be legal to reduce their risk of developing certain serious diseases, while 65 percent think it should be illegal.” (Harvard 1) The prospect of engineering a child, however, is not as far-fetched as one may believe. Sarah Ly explains in her article for The Embryo Project Encyclopedia that “IVF has become an increasingly common procedure to help couples with infertility problems conceive children, and the practice of IVF confers the ability to pre-select embryos before implantation. For example, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows viable embryos to be screened for various genetic traits, such as sex-linked diseases, before implanting them in the mother.”. (Sara Ly) Though it is an unpopular position to hold, many modern families would fight for their reproductive rights because their families would not have been possible without the aid of medical intervention. In an early and well-known case of gender selection, Monique and Scott Collins visited doctors at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, in 1996 for in vitro fertilization. Monique and Scott Collins desired to have a girl, because their first two children were boys, and the couple wanted a daughter in the family. Even though this procedure was performed to achieve the parents’ desire to create a more balanced family, this was one of the first highly publicized instances of PGD, as the decision was for a more cosmetic purpose rather than to address a specific medical condition. The Collins’ decision to have a “designer baby” by choosing the sex of their child entered the public eye when they were featured in Time Magazine’s 1999 article "Designer Babies". Even though the Collins’ case only involved choice of gender, it raised issues of choice for all other traits such as hair color, eye color, height, or

One of life’s profound moments is that of a mother’s caressing gaze into the eyes of her first-born child. Only a minority of mothers who conceive genetically impaired children face an alternative world of heartbreak and melancholy.

Doctors should not be allowed to assign gender and perform medically unnecessary surgeries that permanently alter the gender of a child. The decision of assigning gender should be postponed until the child reaches puberty.

Many believe the tampering with children in vitro is wrong entirely; saying God’s work or fate is solely in control of these thing; but that isn’t valid in my opinion. When you look at the science behind creating life there is so much left up to simply what chromosomes pair with each other that is what makes up your child. To just discredit any type of aid that could come to a family whose bloodline passes on fatal traits is negligence to me. On the other hand, there is a large group of people who don’t focus on the medical benefits of this type of research but simply on the aesthetics of their unborn child, which seems miniscule and unimportant when you’re dealing with life threatening diseases being passed on, but is an over stepping of boundaries this research could lead to. There is no evident answer to whether genetically engineered children are immoral or not, but I believe there is a line that needs to be drawn by who is still to be determined, but the research should still be done in order to get to a point where we can delegate

The topic of abortion is very controversial, but nothing has ever been learned by avoiding tough subjects. What are your views on abortion? Under what circumstances, if any, would you consider it? If you were a lawmaker, what would be your stand on this issue? (*In India, boys are valued more than girls and amniocentesis has become widespread. In one province, only one in thousands of abortions following: amniocentesis was that of a male fetus, the rest were females. How do you feel about abortion as a tool for gender selection? Suppose that one of the female fetuses in the previous example was also identified as having suffered severe mental and physical damage to the point that, after birth, the resulting child would mentally and physically be unable to care for itself. Would this information influence (change) your decision?)

Science is a field of study that has progressed over the years. Humans have advanced in ways that even our own ancestors could not imagine. It was over 350 years ago that a cell was first discovered by humans. Now, scientists have mapped the entire genome of humans and even other organisms. Why might this be important? With this accomplishment, scientists can now peer into a person and see their genetic makeup or rather their “identity.” This information in hand, scientists can find genes for specific traits or abnormalities. However, with this technology, there are ethical problems that are associated with it. Should humans have the power to select what genes an offspring should have and if so what specific genes can they alter? Should humans have the power to “play God?” These questions indeed are difficult to answer. Regardless, this issue must be addressed for the unborn children who will be involved in this ongoing controversy.

Babies are commonly viewed as the most innocent lifeforms in the world. Not only does their cuteness touch the lives of everyone they come in contact with, but their inability to carry judgments makes them someone most of us admire. Unfortunately, while the baby may not be able to express their likes and dislikes, their parents have already introduced the baby to the idea of favoritism, even before it makes its way out of the womb. New technology has allowed parents to select the sex of their baby. As a result, the idea behind childbirth being a miracle, as well as a magical process, is now lost. By allowing parents to select the sex of their children, society is enabling people to value one gender over another and neglect the true intentions

There are numerous parents who would agree that the main concern of parenting is that they must take care of and protect their child from anything and everything. Most hope to give them the best life humanly possible free of diseases, premature death, and help in any way. With the new discoveries and usage bioengineering technology, creating the perfect child is not far from reach. Couples are able to genetically alter the fetus before it is born to rule out any concerning birth defects. With technology like this the question that needs to be asked is whether or not such practices should even be legal. Human bioengineering, or eugenics, through egg donation, in-vitro fertilization (IVF), karyomapping, and other techniques should be made illegal in the United States due to embryotic destruction, bioengineered humans being held to extremely high expectations, and harsh side effects for the women involved.