Should people be allowed to choose their baby's sex?

No

1 of 58

by Jack Pine

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Nearly all cultures have practiced traditional methods of predetermining whether a baby will be born male or female freely for hundreds, if not thousands of years. And nobody was ever concerned about it. The reason people are starting to care now is how the determination is being done. The practice is no longer limited to shamanistic ritual or wizardry, and specific sexual positions during lovemaking, eating certain foods, or grandma's folklore, none of which have ever proved effective, by the way. There is this method and that method, which rely on sex being performed at specific times during the ovulation cycle, but there is no real guarantee that any of them will succeed either. Science has found a way around all of that however, and this method, gender determination, has proved to be extremely effective, thus far. Now people are concerned.

Though gender determination is still in its infancy, as applied to humans, it is already being practiced with great success. Parents have sought it as a means of screening a father's sperm for genetic predisposition of specific diseases, but at the same time, it can allow the parents to determine a gender, if so desired. Scientists though, who think genetic screening is great for eliminating diseases, don't think it's ethical to use for gender determination.

One might even ask why people would want to do gender determination. In many cultures of the world, male birth is generally preferred so that the family's bloodline is maintained. Other cultures prefer males to females because females are thought generally to be inferior to males. In poor societies, if a girl is going to wed, her family has to pay a dowry, whereas the family of a son who is going to wed receives the dowry. In these societies, it is therefore preferential to have sons rather than daughters. The parents even practice abortion when necessary, as a means of birth control if it's discovered that the baby carried is a girl. In a humanitarian sense, if you can call it that, gender predetermination would prevent needless, cruel, and perhaps dangerous abortions from being performed. But instead of changing social traditions, the obvious choice is to meddle with nature for the sake of economics.

As long as animals, particularly mammals, have had sex and conceived, nature has randomly selected whether the offspring will be male or female, although the selection tends to lean slightly more in favor of the baby being male at conception. This statistic states that the ratio of 1.2 males to 1 female will naturally be selected for at conception. It is not understood why this apparent preference occurs, but it does. It doesn't necessarily mean either that there is a greater chance a baby will be born male, because from the moment of conception, the baby's sex can obviously result in either gender being produced. This is nature's choice and no one else's. And this is based on millions of years of experimentation. Fortunately, for all of us, nature chooses wisely and has provided a relative balance that has allowed for the perpetuation of our species. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that one gender greatly outnumbering the other will ever happen.

At this point in the development and application of gender determination, it is thankfully too costly for most people to afford. Manipulating tiny chromosomes costs big bucks. Unless there is some dire need, other than a simple preference to have a son or a daughter, the cost versus benefit ratio prevents it especially for poor people, who would especially like to have the ability to choose. So it's easy to presume that the only people who will continue to take advantage of gender determination are those who can afford it, and who feel the need to choose boy or girl. The same will probably apply to the question of genetic predetermination of specific traits, but what if it doesn't?

Could gender determination lead to other predetermination, such as the ability to manipulate genes to produce a potentially intelligent or beautiful child, a child with superior athletic or musical abilities, or preferred eye and hair color? Scientists, who agree that there are great benefits to be derived from genetic engineering, worry that "baby design" could result. Imagine searching websites that offer genetic engineering services like others offer lawn furniture. What style and color would you like? In a world that uses liposuction to control weight, or uses abortion as birth control, it is not difficult to imagine people actively seeking to have the baby they would prefer instead of the one fate has determined they should have. And if it becomes the social norm and is easily accessible, who wouldn't want to take advantage of it?

Surveys have shown that, at least for the present, most people prefer the time honored method of "wait and see" for what nature delivers at birth. Although nowadays, people will generally "take a peek" using Ultrasound during a routine visit to the obstetrician, with some time to spare before the birth, so they know what color clothes to start buying for the baby. That is about as invasive as most people will be concerning their baby's gender. Nearly everybody who is expecting a baby today utilizes this "peeking" method, but when it was first introduced, people were skeptical and didn't want to use it, fearing it could somehow harm the baby.

Since in vitro fertilization was first offered to provide assistance to couples that couldn't conceive, hundreds of thousands of people have turned to Assisted Reproductive Technology to help them. Despite the fact that many people shied away from the technology initially, now it is a socially accepted means of creating a baby.

A substantial aspect of the argument should include the religious morality of tampering with what would otherwise be the beneficence of a divine deity in determining a baby's gender. Many religions are at odds with the concept of genetics and have yet to give it their blessing. Their policy seems to be one of letting nature take its course, or letting God decide. The Catholic Church has been extremely vocal in its reactions to genetic engineering and fundamentally opposes anything that opposes the will of God and His design. They understand though, that there are benefits to genetic technology as long as it conforms to God's will. However, to a religion that doesn't even condone the use of condoms except to prevent the spread of disease, the natural course has always been and will probably always be, the natural course.

Creating a baby is a sacred right regardless of religious opinion or social mores. The means by which it happens might be frowned upon by religious sects, but is embraced by those who need or want it. Scientists may not agree that people should be allowed to use gender determination as freely as one might electively choose to repair a hernia, for instance. And our comparatively advanced society may look down upon other societies who choose selective breeding based upon need, whatever the reason, while we justify it in our society just because we want either a boy or a girl. And whether the method by which gender determination selects for a son or daughter is based on folklore, methodology, or cutting-edge science, how it is achieved should also be a matter of choice that should be made by the parents alone. However, there should be areas of science where man should not tread although he thinks he sees the path clearly. Over the horizon there may be dangers we can't see from here, and at that point, there may be no turning back. So why go there?

In fairness, the bottom line is that none of us should have the ability to say what a couple does to predetermine the sex of a baby, much less that it should even be allowed. The allowance is recognition that all people exercise a freedom of choice as long as it doesn't endanger their lives, the lives of others, or the health of a developing baby. We never want to police science based on fear of its capability. We should choose carefully though, when we begin to overstep the bounds of nature's intent and direction, and consider ethics as our guide for choice.

To tip the scales of mankind in any one gender preferred direction runs contrary to the whole reason man has survived to this day. We have survived because of the random choice assigned to reproductive offspring through the process of evolution, and to presume that we can control that destiny, can we upset the balance? Who knows? Science has given man the ability to cheat nature, like so many other advances that now save countless lives, and nobody asks if that should be allowed. But in some cases, perhaps we should. Do doctors promote life saving because of their Hippocratic oath, or because it's good business, they can do it, and the temptation to play God is great? Where will the line be drawn between what is ethical and moral, and what exceeds nature's plan?

Humans have a tendency to get what they want like spoiled children. And we have to ask ourselves if we really need gender determination, or do we just want it? One can only hope, if there is no ethical rejection of it, that science and man's ability to use it intelligently proceeds judiciously, and with caution and restraint.

In the end, we are all Mother Nature's children and we are all a long way from achieving the maturity and wisdom that comes with growing up and making the correct decisions. And a large part of humanity's survival is because we have let Mother Nature do a lot of the choosing for us. We should trust that she knows best in the future.

Learn more about this author, Jack Pine.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.