Should Gender Selection Be Legalized in Australia for Non-Medical Reasons?

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values of society by aiming to achieve justice and avoid conflicts surrounding surrogacy, while the commonwealth is obsolete on effective laws to prevent surrogacy issues.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.

Unlawful abortion was defined as “unlawful if performed not to save the life of the mother in question.” (Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2003) However, in 1969, the Menhennitt ruling was established in the case R v Davidson. This more liberal interpretation stated that abortion could be ‘lawful’ under strict guidelines and circumstances; establishing that “abortion is lawful if performed to preserve the woman from serious danger. However, the danger must be equal to the dangers imposed by an abortion.” Since the Menhennitt ruling, no new interpretation have been made introduced, nor has any official legislation been introduced, leaving the decision up to the judge, and in some cases, a jury (Cica, 1998). This leaves abortion law hazy and unclear; evidenced by the fact that 14,000 abortions occur every year in Queensland. Stakeholder groups with conflicting views are in uproar over this

Non-legal responses include surrogacy Australia, which advocates for surrogacy as an effective means for infertile parents. By supporting surrogacy it helps to make it a positive way of becoming parents, which creates debate about it which eventually helps to create a law reform which will benefit people.

Every woman has the right to make any decision that involves her body. Our government has always respected the individual’s right to privacy. A woman’s reproductive system should not be regulated by the government. In the

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.

The morality alone of picking the gender of the fetuses, all other details aside is immoral based on gender bias. If the process of picking gender is always allowed,

The right to have children is understood in very different ways and people’s ethics and values are put to the test each and everyday when they find out they not only must take care of themselves but the lives of another human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted this statement regarding the right to bear children “men and women of full age, without any limitations to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family”[1]. This concept has been viewed in multiple ways and according to ethical theorists; they agree that no rights are absolute. However, it is said that for women at least, there is a fundamental privilege to have children. The right to

This gives women rights to their privacy to conclude if they want to bring a child to this world. It also enables physicians to make decision without involvement with state law.

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

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) marks a great step forward in medical technology, and Australia is a leader in the field. IVF is now a popular procedure for couples who are infertile or are having trouble conceiving. However, it raises ethical, moral and legal issues including the rights of an individual, property rights, the definition of human life, scientific experimentation versus a potential human life, religion, costs, and community, medical and taxpayer’s rights.

Ackerman, she also shared her concerns for making this process available for everyone. She believes if designer babies are to be normalized, some institute would need to regulate the process, otherwise it could pose to be a very big issue (D. Ackerman, phone interview, April 13, 2017). Another highly controversial problem is the embryo (baby) does not have a choice in the matter of what is happening. (The main question to ask anyone here is, is it right to manipulate and change an embryo, and their DNA when they can not even give consent to the operation (Loria, 2015, para.11)? So, instead of letting nature run its course of what the gender is suppose is to be compared to manipulating the genes. Furthermore, another ethical dilemma that could potentially arise from manipulating genes is the loss of individuality of the eventual baby. Since a parent is changing their child, one could think “what could my baby have been like” (Hanson, n.d., para.6).

Considering the topic of elective gender selection, I find myself erring on the side of Marcy Darnovsky. Thus, I say no, parents should not be allowed to select the sex of their unborn child. First, I feel that the risk associated with the “biopsy or freezing harming the embryo” through such a procedure reveals that it is not justifiable. Additionally, because knowing the sex of an embryo may result in he or she being “created and destroyed,” accepting such happenings would show tolerance for the murder of an innocent life. Nevertheless, my stance is not merely because of ones’ rights or because it is “by its very definition sexist,” it is merely because my convictions tell me that it is scripturally wrong. The preimplantation genetic

With new technologies available everyday, it seems almost as if we can customize our children. Reproduction is no longer an outcome of random and inherited genes, but now it’s a process of creating the child that we want to have. Fertility clinics are in debate as to whether or not it is ethical to be able to determine the sex of our children. Some view this as a valid option, while others see it as another step down the road to designer babies. But how far is too far? That is a question that we can only answer for ourselves. While this article remains unbiased, we are able to form our own opinion after seeing the pros and cons of both sides.

Although PGD is a relatively new procedure, there are several ethical questions surrounding its use. One question is, "Should parents be allowed to choose characteristics for their children that are not related to disorders such as their baby’s eye color, personality, or even the sex of their baby?" [Wekesser,1996]. Until the genes responsible for inherited traits such as the previously mentioned are mapped, this is not an issue. If scientists do not know where the gene is located, they are unable to create a test determining the presence of the gene. However, because we do know how the sex of a child is determined, a specific gender can be screened for. Many believe that this should