Non Medical Sex Selection Should Be Legal

“Deaf Lesbians, ‘Designer Disability,’ and the Future of Medicine” by Julian Savulescu argues in favour of the use of in vitro fertilization or “IVF” (the fertilization of an embryo outside of the body which is later implanted as an infertility treatment) to implant an embryo if and only if it is deaf. In this essay I will reconstruct the premises of Savulescu’s argument -that the parents are only acting impermissibly only if they harm the offspring (as defined by Savulescu). Furthermore, I will criticize the idea that only by outright harming the offspring, as Savulescu defines it, are parents acting impermissibly. I will argue that by allowing for the freedom of parental choice in the matter, some parents may then choose to limit the choices and life of their offspring, which can then impede those same parental choices when said offspring reaches parental age themselves; a near paradoxical

Australian law reforms have been adequately effective in dealing with surrogacy and birthing technologies. The NSW state reforms have effectively supported the changing values of society by aiming to achieve justice and avoid conflicts surrounding surrogacy, while the commonwealth is obsolete on effective laws to prevent surrogacy issues. As the demand for surrogacy and birthing technologies increases, issues surrounding surrogacy are more prevalent in society. Additionally, there is no Commonwealth law, meaning each state and territory has developed individual laws of surrogacy and birthing technologies, allowing for issues and challenges surrounding the protection and the rights of all parties involved.

When one contemplates the concept of eugenics, few think of modern contraception and abortion when in reality they are one in the same. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1923, proudly proclaimed that men with incurable “conditions” should be sterilized. However these conditions were often none that could be helped, such as, one’s intelligence, race, and social class (Schweikart and Allen 529-532). The purpose of the society was to create the perfect class of men; elite in all ways. Likewise, Margaret Sanger’s feminist, contraceptive movement was not originally founded with this purpose. It was marketed as a way to control the population and be merciful to those yet to be born, again determined also by race and

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

Darnovsky suggests that although many genetic scientists support germline engineering because it can potentially resist transfer of hereditary mutations, these scientists fail to mention that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) does the same effect in allowing a technician to screen embryos for traces of diseases and simply deliver any non-infected embryos to the mother’s body. In conjunction, Darnovsky endorses the alternative of prenatal screening with the option of abortion to avoid the use of in vitro fertilization. Cohan, however, observes that it would dubious for the Court to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights to use germline technology while people are already using reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and surrogacy. He asserts that the right to use these reproductive technologies is protected by law, and implies that it would be hypocritical for the government to restrict use of germline technology while these other reproductive technologies are still in effect.

In England, which gave birth to the eugenics movement, it is interesting to note that sterilization laws never took hold. Bertrand Russel, a British philosopher at the time published Marriage and Morals (1929) in which he wrote “I say only that our scientific knowledge at present is not adequate for this purpose, and that it is very dangerous when a community allows its moral reprobations to masquerade in the guise of science, as is undoubtedly happening

In my last response to discussion question 8, in chapter 7, I said I am one who acts more upon my commonsense. I place myself and judge moral theories more as what a utilitarian would do. I feel that some of your decisions and actions should be based on what produces the best over evil, everyone considered. As I read the case study, Aborting Daughters, I instantly answer the question, “Do you think sex-selection abortions are morally permissible?” No, I do not think they are morally permissible. Not so much because of the utilitarian’s belief, which I will get into later, but because I do think a fetus is a person. And like Kantians who believe fetuses are persons, the fetus has all the rights and due all the respect that any other person has. To abort that fetus because it’s a girl (or a boy) does not give any rights to the fetus.

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

Over the course of the semester the topic I felt that I analyzed and reflected upon most was sex selection. Sex selection is a topic that I knew very little about at the beginning of this semester, but I have come to learn a lot about and appreciate over these past few weeks. Sex selection refers to numerous methods that allow one to select the desired sex of their embryo. Technologies that include ultrasounds or prenatal testing followed by selective abortion, preimplantation genetic selection (PGS) for sex, as well as numerous sperm-sorting methods, are readily available for families that yearn for a particular sex of their unborn child. I have considered both sides of the argument against and in favor of sex selection, but my view is sincerely against sex selection.

Despite the intent and purpose of the act being wide and all encompassing, it has been interpreted by the ultrasonogists, the abortionist, the doctors and more shockingly the government alike, to exclude Pre-conceptual sex selection.

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.

How can the principles of ethics (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice) assist in finding a middle ground on new reproductive technologies?

“Should parents have the right to choose the gender of their future child? Should it be legalised in Australia for non-medical reasons?”

In his article defending procreative beneficence, Julian Savulescu argues that “couples…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” (2001, 413). In this article, I argue that Savulescu’s conclusion introduces complications which challenge its practical application. These complications can be outlined as follows: a) what is best, in terms of non-disease character traits, is subject to change and irrationality; and b) unfettered selection by reproducers may have profound and unknown impacts on human populations. Accordingly, private, unrestrained genetic selection must be banned in the United States, with research permitted under careful oversight.

As quoted by Nelson Mandela, “to deny people their human rights is to challenge their very existence.” In the past century, humans have been experimenting and debating the use of eugenics, which is the science of improving the human race through controlled breeding in order to increase the occurrence of desirable, heritable characteristics (Mankiller). Although eugenics is supported by many, one could argue that eugenics is a violation of a human’s rights. In the United States Constitution, some of the human rights mentioned are the right to liberty and freedom, the right to live life free from discrimination, the right to control what happens to one’s body and to make medical decisions for oneself, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and the right to life. In countries across the world, there is little debate about these God-given rights. However, this paper will discuss how eugenics is a violation of not one, but every single one of these basic human rights. Eugenics is morally wrong because it promotes abortion for expecting mothers, it creates a stronger sense of racism within a community as well as on a global scale, and it solidifies the social hierarchy.