In the article “Is It Ethical to Choose a Baby’s Sex”, Rachael Rettner discusses the case where the celebrity couple Kim Kardashian and Kanye West might have selected the sex of their second child.1 The article points out that sex selection is acceptable for medical reasons, but it also calls into question the morality and ethics of sex selection. The Center for Human Reproduction defines sex selection as “a fertility procedure used to choose the gender of a baby prior to conception”.2 In this paper, I will address the sex selection in general, aside from the sex selection due to medical purposes. To do so, I will explore its potential unfavorable consequence in terms of sex ratio, sexism, harm to the child and parenthood. I will also address criticisms …show more content…
Sex selection deprives the child of the right to an open future. Dena Davis explains the right to an open future in her article “Genetic Dilemmas”. She claims that “to view a child primarily through its gender narrows the child’s ability to choose his or her own path through life”.8 This suggests that children should enjoy full freedom when they are brought into this world by their parents. When a child is born into this world through sex selection, the parents of the child may expect him to live up to their certain expectations. For example, a couple of two girls is expecting a third child and they want a boy so that he can inherit their company in the future. Once he is born through sex selection, the couple will cultivate him toward the goal of heritage. This limits the boy’s future to the only one direction. Furthermore, the couple is likely to emphasize more on the boy than the two girls. The girls might feel sad when they find themselves treated differently by their parents. This may cause depression which is harmful to their growth. Hence, sex selection has the potential to bring harm to children, and it ought not to be put into
Many parents do in fact have desires related to their children that with sex selection could come to fruition, however using a child solely as an end seems unreasonable . Savulescu argues that if parents “love their child as an end itself” that any other desires, such as a father wanting a male child because he loves boys that play sports, that sex selection could facilitate would do no harm since it is ok for some of the “means” of having a child to be fulfilled.
In today’s society, it can be argued that the choice of being male or female is up to others more than you. A child’s appearance, beliefs and emotions are controlled until they have completely understood what they were “born to be.” In the article Learning to Be Gendered, Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell- Ginet speaks out on how we are influenced to differentiate ourselves through gender. It starts with our parents, creating our appearances, names and behaviors and distinguishing them into a male or female thing. Eventually, we grow to continue this action on our own by watching our peers. From personal experience, a child cannot freely choose the gender that suits them best unless our society approves.
about how the parents raise their children. Based on the article the authors said that “Perhaps, one might suggest, the boys need more prohibitions because they tend to misbehave more than the girls. But Bellinger and Gleason found this pattern to be independent of the actual nature of children’s activity, suggesting that the adults and their beliefs about sex difference are far more important here than the children’s behavior”( Eckert and Ginet,740). Many people think the linguistics are using to express feelings about how many parents are raising their children differently because of baby’s gender. In addition, the parents raise the submissive delicate women instead the mean raise him as the alpha male.
This is meant to alleviate logistical concerns that sex selection will lead to disastrous gender skewing. However, Davis takes this evidence and evaluates it with a moralistic concern about the motivations and expectations that arise from the ideal 50/50, “family-balancing” scenario that an aforementioned large percentage of Americans say they would employ given the option. It seems to Davis that this desire for a balanced family is sexist to its core, in that it completely ignores all potential traits that two children may exhibit in favor of equally distributing sex at birth between them. This is to say that the act of family balancing only seems to be accepted on the basis of gender, not other attributes or hobbies that a child may have. Parents wouldn’t be so keen to prohibit a younger child from pursuing chess club as an extracurricular just because their eldest had already been a member in grade school, even though this would cause an imbalance in the perceived qualities of their
Recent high profile cases, films and books all around the world including the UK, Australia and the United States have brought to the public’s attention a new type of IVF. ‘Embryo Selection’ meaning ‘Embryos are fertilised outside the body and only those with certain genes are selected and implanted in the womb.’ Henceforth meaning that doctors are now able to select specific embryo’s and implant them into the mother of who may have another sick child in order to gain genetic material such as bone marrow which will match the ill-fated child and therefore hopefully be able to save their life. Creating a ‘saviour sibling’. ‘A child conceived through selective in vitro fertilization as a potential source of donor organs or cells for an existing brother or sister with a life-threatening medical condition’ a definition given by Oxford Dictionaries (1.0). Cases of this are happening all around the globe and many are highly documented about. The most famous case could be noted as in the fictional book of ‘My Sisters Keeper’ By Jodi Picoult. I will further discuss this throughout my dissertation and how books and films can affect the view on certain ethical subjects. Furthermore, I am also going to discuss a range of factors such as certain religious beliefs and the physical creation of saviour siblings compared to the creation of designer babies. Strong views are held by many both for and against the creation of saviour siblings.
One popular objection is: if it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, or a “future-like-ours”, then it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. Because it is immoral to deprive someone of a future, one must conclude that it is immoral to deprive a sperm or egg of a “future-like-ours”. This objection is in reference to different modes of contraception, such as condoms and birth control. Nevertheless, the biggest problem with Marquis’ argument that allowed for this objection was its indecisiveness and improbability to draw a definitive line. Marquis criticized the pro-lifers and pro-choicers for being unable to have a definitive definition and made the same mistake in his own argument. One could object to his argument by merely questioning where the decision would end; are we to believe that one is depriving a sperm or an egg a future when we use contraception? Another important note is the idea that a “future-like-ours” is even an even more ambiguous term than a “person” or “human being”. It is impossible for the average individual to know which of his sperm or her eggs carries a genetic abnormality that may cause their child to not have a
Our culture has a stringent belief that creating new life if a beautiful process which should be cherished. Most often, the birth process is without complications and the results are a healthy active child. In retrospect, many individuals feel that there are circumstances that make it morally wrong to bring a child into the world. This is most often the case when reproduction results in the existence of another human being with a considerably reduced chance at a quality life. To delve even further into the topic, there are individuals that feel they have been morally wronged by the conception in itself. Wrongful conception is a topic of debate among many who question the ethical principles involved with the sanctity of human life. This paper will analyze the ethical dilemmas of human dignity, compassion, non-malfeasance, and social justice, as well the legal issues associated with wrongful conception.
In Igbo society, the sex of a baby determines the family’s happiness. If the baby was a boy it meant greater joy for the family, but if the baby was a girl the parents received mixed feelings. The reasoning behind parents being joyful for males is because the son will take his father’s place when he dies and continue with his family line. On the other hand, parents felt sorrow towards their baby girl because they knew that women are viewed as weak in the society. Also the father would be disappointed because his lineage will become slimmer; the female will soon be married off to another man. This issue was seen in the book Things Fall Apart when Okonkwo was talking about his daughter Ezinma. In the book it says, “She should have been a boy” (Achebe, 1959, p. 6). This quote supports the fact that Okonkwo wanted a boy instead because he saw the advantages he would have had. He would be happier by knowing a male would carry on his name. Contrasting to this culture, in the American society gender does not play a role
Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. Bioethics: An Anthology. Malden, MA. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Part II: Assisted Reproduction. Pence, G. The McCaughey Septuplets: God’s Will or Human Choice?, pages 87-88. Purdy, L. Surrogate Mothering: Exploitation or Empowerment?, pages 91-93. Hanscombe, G. The Right to Lesbian Parenthood, pages 104-107.
A gynaecologist can easily perform an ultrasound and tell parents what gender to expect their child to be. Reasonably, parents have the choice to learn the gender or to keep it a surprise. However, For parents to know they are expecting a daughter by chance or for them to choose that they want a daughter are two different cases. There are a variety of methods that allow parents to choose the gender of their child. In some cases, there may be fear of passing down a sex-linked genetic disease and so a certain gender may be preferred to protect the child’s health. However, a contentious issue is whether or not gender selection for non-medical reasons is ethically defensible. There are three positions that one could take: gender selection can never, sometimes, or always be ethically defended. In this paper, I intend to argue that gender selection is always permissible.
The constantly growing field of medical technology has raised many questions especially pertaining to ethics. The mapping of the human genome, cloning technologies, stem cell research, and of course reproductive technology has caused some very real dilemmas over the role of the human decision in the creation and orientation of new life. Humans are able to accomplish amazing things in science, but at what cost? The ubiquitous nature of reproductive technology has caused a new discipline of reproductive ethics. One such dilemma is that of selective abortion due to sex preference. In this paper I will discuss the ethics of gendercide and sonography’s affect on this practice
Over the course of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with regard to her reproductive rights.
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
Determining whether to divulge the gender of a child should be a personal choice. Society should not dictate whether one chooses to disclose the sex of their child. At conception, the gender is determined by chromosome characteristics and it will be the male (male semen) that dictates whether the baby will be a boy or girl. Nowhere in any literature that has been read or published that it states that “society” is the determining factor whether a girl or boy will be conceived. Society suggests that knowing the gender is routine, but what may be considered routine for some is not necessarily customary for all. If one chooses to stray away from what is considered to be “normal” it poses or present an issue. Individuals are instantaneously met with opposition or back lash due to nondisclosure of the sex of their child whether it is unborn or born. A typical argument would be as to what color clothing to bring for the unborn or born child, should one bring pink or blu...
For example, some people believe that sibling rivalry is more intense or will be more frequent when it comes to how siblings interact with one another. However, gender does play an influential role in the outcome of sibling relations and rivalry. Furthermore, gender affects goes hand-in-hand with parental treatment. Parents tend to show difference parental treatment to their children, especially if they’re of opposite gender. For instance, girls tend to get stricter treatment rather than boys. It may come from the understatement that parents tend to protect girls more than boys for a simple reason that boys tend to be raised to be protectors, while girls are most often considered in need of protection. It’s exhibited by how the parents given the girls an earlier curfew, a certain age to date, certain clothing to wear and an academic agenda to adhere. While on the other hand, when it comes to the boys the rules get bended a bit which makes it unfair and usually sparks sibling tension. “Fighting with siblings is certainly not a means to a desired end; it cannot be conceived as an attempt to achieve greater status or approval from parents since it has the opposite effect. In sum, the sibling rivalry model assumes that sibling aggression involves nonrealistic conflict and that an attack on a sibling involves angry aggression” (Felson pg.3). In other words, due to gender differences and the added parental effects causes sibling rivalry to drive from the aggression place on the siblings from unequal treatment and jealousy rather than something realistic such as household duties, academic performance or extracurricular activities between siblings. According to Aggression and Violence Between Siblings, “nonrealistic conflict occurs when experiences of deprivation and frustration create a need for tension release; thus non-realistic conflict is expressive, or