Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sex selection

Abstract

Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons raises serious moral, legal and social issues. The main concerns include the threat of a sex ratio distortion due to a common preference for boys over girls, the charge of sexism, the danger of reinforcing gender stereotypical behaviour in sex selected children, and the fear of a slippery slope towards creating designer babies. This paper endeavours to show that none of the objections to preconception sex selection is conclusive and that there is no justification for denying parents the right to choose the sex of their prospective children.

Social sex selection and the balance of the sexes: Empirical evidence from Germany, the UK, and the US

“…More importantly, even if they were, they would not justify a legal ban on social sex selection [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. As far as we can see, the only valid justification for state interference would be a clear and present danger to the sex ratio.…”

Ethical Considerations of Nonmedical Preconception Gender Selection Research

“…Even Aristotle and Plato had suggestions on how to conceive a child of the desired gender (Dahl, 2003). Though the concept of PGS itself is not new, actual genetic research into successful sex selection for nonmedical purposes is, which raises an important question: Is it ethical to conduct genetic research specifically for the nonmedical purpose of advancement of PGS to satisfy parental preference?…”

“…The Argument for Nonmedical PGS Dahl (2003) Wade, and the arguments against sterilization programs based on drug use (King, 2007). King also presents the great example of how government restrictions on two sickle cell carriers reproducing would never be accepted -how would it ever be possible to restrict procreation based on disease chances?…”

Preconception gender selection: a threat to the natural sex ratio?

“…More importantly, even if they were, they would not justify a legal ban on social sex selection [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. As far as we can see, the only valid justification for state interference would be a clear and present danger to the sex ratio.…”