Fetal Sex Selection

In twentieth-century America and in many other cultures, research has consistently documented the preference and desire for sons. This is because in many cultures, such as India and China, maleness means social, political, and economic entitlement. Whereas, women are traditionally seen as an economic burden on the family-particularly where the custom of large dowry payments at weddings is still practiced. For this reason in recent years, as the expressed desire for a male child grows, and the urgency to select fetal sex increases, fetal sex-determination technology has become a highly lucrative business-even in countries where the use of such technologies is banned. Many times when the fetus is determined to be female, abortion often follows because of the cultural and economical pressures to have sons. Such fetal sex-determination practices have led to many more male than female infants being born.

The gap grows even wider because of a high childhood death rate of girls, often from neglect or killing by strangulation, suffocation, or poisoning. There are many technologies that are available for sex selection including: preconception, preimplantaion, and postconception techniques that involve traditional folklore and herbal approaches. There are also sperm-separating technologies whereby X- and Y-bearing sperm are separated, and the desired sperm are artificially inseminated into the woman, increasing the chance of having a child of the chosen sex. It has become more and more socially accepted to use prenatal diagnostic technologies to determine fetal sex. But incidence rates for sex-selective abortions are difficult to obtain, and there is a mixed opinion about the frequency of sex-selective abortions, tinged by political controversy.

In the two texts we will be discussing, we hear first from Gail Vines who urges caution about sex-selection technologies, uncovering some unforeseen consequences for parenting and societal gender relations. Then we read from the editors of Lancet whom provide in the editorial acceptable reasons for sex selection, quelling fears of supposed dangers of sex selection to society.

In The Hidden Cost of Sex Selection, Gail Vines argues that there is hidden social, gender, and cultural damages involved in sex selection. Claiming that, “choice turns on comparison, so sex selection will encourage comparisons between the sexes, a development that could easily worsen the position for girls and women in society.” Vines further supports this claim by quoting Marilyn Strathern of the University of Manchester who says “to make sex an issue at the point of conception, to select on gender grounds, will reinforce discriminationâÂ?¦by even saying that one sex is preferable to another, we could be legitimizing discrimination.” Vines then cites Teresa Marteau, who is director of the Wellcome Psychology and Genetics Research Group at Guy’s Hospital in London, as saying “Do we want to encourage conditional parenting, the kind of parent who says, ‘I will love you only if you are a boy or a girl?'” Arguing that this kind of mentality eats a tiny bit at our humanity and is indeed harmful to society.

The Editors of Lancet in an article titled “Jack or Jill?” weigh in on the other side of the argument claiming that sex selection should be socially acceptable and can in many ways be a benefit. They claim that in reality only a very small percentage of the population would actually use sex determination technologies to select fetal sex. They argue that the practice of the prohibition of sex selection at conception would have only a very small effect on the status of women. They also make the argument that being able to choose whether to have a boy or a girl would add an acceptable new dimension to family planning. Stating that couples sould satisfy their wishes for he size and compostion of their family and the children might benefit be being wanted, not only for themselves but also because of their gender. The Editors make their final statement saying “The possibility of effective sex selection provides a rare opportunity to plan in advance how a potentially valuable technique could be monitored and made available to the public.”

In reading the two sides of the argument I find that tend to agree more with Vines than with the Editors of Lancet. There are of course many factors to look at when analyzing the situation, social, cultural, and economic. However, although I can see where the Editors of Lancet might have a point and make valid argument-I agree that sex selection really wouldn’t have much of an effect on position of women in society. I fear that as Vines said that by allowing sex selection we would be fostering in society a behavior that essentially promotes conditional love and ultimately “eats a tiny bit at our humanity.”
I have no qualms against preventing conception before it happens by means of birth control pills or other means, but I think that if a couple is planning on having a child they should have the child for what it is: a creation made out of love between two people that connect on a different level. I think that the selecting of the sex of the child takes away from that and would lessen the responsibility and consequent joy that comes from having a child-be it a boy or a girl.

Not only that, I can not help but wonder along with Vines, that if sex selection is practiced on a large scale what the final outcome would be, would we all chose to have male children and thereby extinguish ourselves as a race? Nature has as an uncanny ability to balance itself out and ensure the survival of a species, but when we start interfering with that natural process are we really only ensuring our own extinction? I think it is best to leave some things to nature, and this is one of those things.