Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ethics of Sex Selection

  • Chapter
Ethics and Emerging Technologies

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, Inmaculada de Melo Martin addresses the ethical issues raised the technologies that enable parents to select the sex of their children. These technologies are rapidly proliferating. She begins by examining arguments in favor of the use of the technologies based on appeals to reproductive liberty and parental autonomy, and argues that they are not decisive. She then discusses both intrinsic and extrinsic concerns regarding the technologies. She argues that while advocates of sex selection have responses to the intrinsic concerns (or concerns about the nature of the technology itself), several of the extrinsic concerns regarding the technologies have merit, including those related to social harms. De Melo-Martin is particularly concerned about the ways in which sex selection technologies might both express and perpetuate problematic understandings and expectations regarding sex and gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Works Cited

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2007) ‘ACOG Committee Opinion No. 360: Sex selection,’ American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 109 (2 Pt 1): 475–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Reproductive Medicine (2004) ‘Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis,’ Fertility and Sterility, 82 Suppl 1, S245–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Anderson (2001) ‘Unstrapping the straitjacket of ‘preference’: A comment on Amartya Sen’s contributions to philosophy and economics,’ Economics and Philosophy, 17(1): 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Archard, and D. Benatar (2010) Procreation and parenthood: the ethics of bearing and rearing children (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • M. W. Austin (2007) Conceptions of parenthood: ethics and the family, Ashgate studies in applied ethics (Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. M. Berkowitz, and J. W. Snyder (1998) ‘Racism and sexism in medically assisted conception,’ Bioethics, 12(1): 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BioPolicyWiki (2009) ‘Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis,’ available at: http://www.biopolicywiki.org/index.php?title=Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis [accessed August 18, 2011].

  • H. Brighouse, and A. Swift (2006) ‘Parents’ rights and the value of the family,’ Ethics, 117(1): 80–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. W. Brock (1995) ‘The Nonidentity Problem and Genetic Harms — The Case of Wrongful Handicaps,’ Bioethics, 9(3–4): 269–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. E. Buchanan et al. (2000) From chance to choice: genetics and justice (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • S. Conly (2005) ‘The Right to Procreation: Merits and Limits,’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 42(2): 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (1997) ‘Convention for the protection of Human Rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.’ Available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=164&CL=ENG’

  • E. Dahl (2003) ‘Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sex selection,’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 7(4): 380–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Dahl (2004) ‘The presumption in favour of liberty: a comment on the HFEA’s public consultation on sex selection,’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 8(3): 266–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Dahl (2005a) ‘Preconception gender selection: a threat to the natural sex ratio?’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10 Suppl 1: 116–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Dahl (2005b) ‘Sex selection: laissez faire or family balancing?’ Health Care Analysis, 13(1): 87–90; discussion 91–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Dworkin (1993) Life’s dominion: an argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom, 1st edn, (New York: Knopf).

    Google Scholar 

  • Economic and Social Council, U. N. (2010) Achieving gender equality and women’s empowerment and strengthening development cooperation (New York: United Nations. Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Fausto-Sterling (2000) Sexing the body: gender politics and the construction of sexuality, 1st edn, (New York, NY: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Feinberg (1980) ‘On the Child’s Right to an Open Future’ in Aiken, W. and LaFollette, H., eds, Whose Child? (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield), 124–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health (2006) ‘Ethical guidelines on sex selection for non-medical purposes. FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health,’ International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 92(3): 329–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. S. Ginsburg, V. L. Baker, C. Racowsky, E. Wantman, et al. (2011) ‘Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening in the United States: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group paper,’ Fertility and Sterility, 96(4): 865–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. M. Green (1997) ‘Parental autonomy and the obligation not to harm one’s child genetically,’ Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 25(1): 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. M. Green (2007) Babies by design: the ethics of genetic choice (New Haven: Yale University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. R. Habermas (2003) The future of human nature (Cambridge, UK: Polity).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. H. Handyside, E. H. Kontogianni, K. Hardy, and R. M. Winston. (1990) ‘Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification,’ Nature, 344(6268): 768–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Harman (2004) ‘Can we harm and benefit in creating?’ Nous, 89–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. C. Harper, and S. B. Sengupta (2012) ‘Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art 2011,’ The American Journal of Human Genetics, 131(2): 175–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Harris (1998) ‘Rights and Reproductive Choice’ in Harris, J. and Holm, S., eds, The Future of Human Reproduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 5–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Harris (2005) ‘Sex selection and regulated hatred,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(5): 291–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Harris (2007) Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Herissone-Kelly (2007) ‘The “parental love” objection to nonmedical sex selection: deepening the argument,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16(4): 446–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Jha, M. A. Kesler, R. Kumar, F. Ram, et al. (2011) ‘Trends in selective abortions of girls in India: analysis of nationally representative birth histories from 1990 to 2005 and census data from 1991 to 2011,’ Lancet, 377(9781): 1921–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. A. Johnson, G. R. Welch, K. Keyvanfar, A. Dorfmann, et al. (1993) ‘Gender preselection in humans? Flow cytometric separation of X and Y spermatozoa for the prevention of X-linked diseases,’ Human Reproduction, 8(10): 1733–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. S. Karabinus (2009) ‘Flow cytometric sorting of human sperm: MicroSort clinical trial update,’ Theriogenology, 71(1): 74–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Kass (2002) Life, liberty, and the defense of dignity: the challengefor bioethics, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Encounter Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Lafollette (1980) ‘Licensing Parents,’ Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9(2): 182–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Macklin (2010) ‘The ethics of sex selection and family balancing,’ Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 28(4): 315–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Mamdani, (2005) ‘In support of sex selection,’ Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2(1): 26–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. McCarthy (2001) ‘Why sex selection should be legal,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(5): 302–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. McDougall (2005) ‘Acting parentally: an argument against sex selection,’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10): 601–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. H. Murray (2002) ‘What are families for? Getting to an ethics of reproductive technology,’ Hastings Center Report, 32(3): 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. B. Nie (2011) ‘Non-medical sex-selective abortion in China: ethical and public policy issues in the context of 40 million missing females,’ British Medical Bulletin, 98: 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. C. Nussbaum (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D. Parfit (1984) Reasons and persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Y. Pearson (2007) ‘Storks, cabbage patches, and the right to procreate,’ Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 4(2): 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. E. Roberts (1995) ‘Social Justice, Procreative Liberty, and the Limits of Liberal Theory: Robertson’s “Children of Choice,”’ Law & Social Inquiry, 20(4): 1005–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. A. Roberts, and D. T. Wasserman (2009) Harmingfuture persons: ethics, genetics and the nonidentity problem (Dordrecht: Springer).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Robertson (1994) Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Robertson (1996) ‘Genetic selection of offspring characteristics,’ Boston Univeristy Law Review, 76(3): 421–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Robertson (2001) ‘Preconception gender selection,’ American Journal of Bioethics, 1(1): 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Robertson (2003a) ‘Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate. Ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis,’ Human Reproduction, 18(3): 465–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Robertson (2003b) ‘Procreative liberty in the era of genomics,’ American Journal of Law and Medicine, 29(4): 439–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. A. Robertson (2005) ‘Ethics and the future of preimplantation genetic diagnosis,’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10 Suppl 1: 97–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Ryan (1990) ‘The Argument for Unlimited Procreative Liberty — A Feminist Critique,’ Hastings Center Report, 20(4): 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. J. Sandel (2007) The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Savulescu (1999) ‘Sex selection: the case for,’ Medical Journal of Australia, 171(7): 373–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Savulescu (2001) ‘In defense of selection for nondisease genes,’ American Journal of Bioethics, 1(1): 16–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Savulescu, and E. Dahl (2000) ‘Sex selection and preimplantation diagnosis: a response to the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine,’ Human Reproduction, 15(9): 1879–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. S. Scott (2003) ‘Parental Autonomy and Children’s Welfare,’ William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 11(3): 1071–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. L. Scully, S. Banks, and T. W. Shakespeare (2006a) ‘Chance, choice and control: lay debate on prenatal social sex selection,’ Social Science and Medicine, 63(1): 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. L. Scully, T. Shakespeare, and S. Banks (2006b) ‘Gift not commodity? Lay people deliberating social sex selection,’ Sociology of Health and Illness, 28(6): 749–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • V. Seavilleklein, and S. Sherwin (2007) ‘The myth of the gendered chromosome: sex selection and the social interest,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16(1): 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1973) ‘Behavior and the concept of preference,’ Economica, 41: 241–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (2003) ‘Missing women — revisited,’ BMJ, 327(7427): 1297–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Shenfield (2005) ‘Procreative liberty, or collective responsibility? Comment on the House of Commons report Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law, and on Dahl’s response,’ Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 11(2): 155–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. L. Simpson (2010) ‘Preimplantation genetic diagnosis at 20 years,’ Prenatal Diagnosis, 30(7): 682–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Wilkinson (2008) ‘Sexism, sex selection and ‘family balancing’,’ Medical Law Review, 16(3): 369–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Inmaculada de Melo-Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Northeastern University, Boston, USA

    Ronald L. Sandler

Copyright information

© 2014 Inmaculada de Melo-Martin

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Melo-Martin, I. (2014). The Ethics of Sex Selection. In: Sandler, R.L. (eds) Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137349088_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation