My position on this issue would be against the plight of having designer children. This action is unethical and for it to be stated as a law, it could be the worst breach to the society’s ethical and moral standards. The cost of generating a boy or a girl is too high to justify the means. Most of the couples tend to borrow from banks and are left in financial crises after the birth of the child. In an analysis by Adams, he indicates that some parents are spending up to 30,000 pounds per trip from Britain to the USA, to select the sex of their child (par 1).
Vardit indicate that women in China and India have been aborting mainly to avoid giving birth to girls (par 3). This is caused by their cultural preference for the male child, and has resulted to the gender imbalance in the two countries.
Prospective parents should not be allowed to select the sex of their child. Children are a gift from God and we should not regard them as designer commodities. Grant concludes that parents should be proud of their kids and not consider they are only suitable to raising a certain sex (par 18).
They are two common reasons given by the supporters of sex selection. The first common reason is “Family balancing”. They argue that if a couple has three boys, they should get a girl to have a balanced family. However, this practice is not different from the traditional reasons hence should not be accepted. Medical reason is a second significant reason. Some diseases are genetically (only affects boys or girls) and to avoid them parents tend to select the child’s sex. Most countries allow the use sex selection on this grounds as argued by Adams (par 6).
The relationship between a child and a parent is built on love and not on the gender of the child. Although this is true, Adams quotes Dr. Steinberg saying that most patients usually have other children hence it clearly shows that sex selection does matter (par 3). Parents tend to show more love to the “designer child” as is evident by the Chinese and Indian women who abort girl’s pregnancies.If a child is born of the wrong sex, the most probable action by the parents is neglecting the child. Adams (par 10) shows that 97% to 98% of Indians and Chinese couples usually want boys. This is a clear indication that females are not given same priority as the males.
They are no valid reasons opposing the use of sex selection for medical reasons. Most people support it but the practice should not be exploited as argued by Vardit (par 13). The use of sex selection for nonmedical purpose has received much criticism. In referring to Grant some parents try to replace their deceased children and this has resulted into gender imbalance in some countries (par 4). Although new technology is used, most anti sex selection activist challenge techniques used to achieve good results.Preimplantation genetic diagnose (PGD) is a common technique in sex selection. This method allows termination of pregnancy for undesired gender by women. Vardit continues to argue that rejecting a healthy fetus over sex selection is a poor judgment and lacks public support (par 12). Religious activists also argue that embryos are living things and should be respected.
The issue of sex selection raises a lot of questions. Should children only be loved because they are of the desired sex? Is a parent justified to carry out sex selection? These two questions have never been answered by supporters of sex selection.
Works citied
Adams, Stephen. British couples flying to US for banned sex selection. Web. 28 August 2012. Web.
Grant, Valeria. Sex predetermination and the ethics of sex selection. Web. 28 January 2006. Web
Vardit, Ravitsky. Is gender selection of a fetus ethical? Web. August 16, 2011. Web
