Argument: The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with

Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender.

1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/60II/main611618.shtml

Candidate 1: "Parents should have freedom of choice

People should have freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by their decision? Article 16 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Men and women of full age… have the right to marry and to found a family" and this right should be understood to cover the right to make decisions over how that family should be formed 1.When a family have a large number of boys or girls, why should they be deprived of the opportunity to have a child of a different gender if the technology exists? As the Director of the Fertility Institute notes, ‘these are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices…(they) are really happy when they get what they want’ 2.

1. U.N. General Assembly. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml&lt;br &gt;

2. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62067-2004Dec13.html"
Candidate 2: "Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide

Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can help realise this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If a state's population became seriously imbalanced, one might have to rethink: but given that most countries, including all in the West, have balanced populations, and given that many families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of the other sex, this should not stop this proposal being put into effect in many countries. Even in China, the problem is largely due to the "one-child" policy which has been relaxed in many areas since the mid-1990s. Over time, a scarcity of one gender will in any case produce new pressures to rebalance the population, for example the paying of dowries may change, and women will achieve higher status."
Candidate 3: "Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided

Some parents are carriers of known sex-specific diseases. It is obviously in the child's interests that they don't have such a condition. Determining its gender can ensure that. Many families have predispositions towards certain common conditions that are more likely in one gender in another, and these can be avoided too. Nearly all neurodevelopmental diseases are either more common in one gender or more severe among one gender. Arthritis, heart disease and even lung cancer also seem to be influenced by a person's gender. Males disproportionately suffer from X chromosome problems because their body has no copy to fall back on 1 These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system 2. Genetic modification is not the only technology available. The MicroSort technique uses a 'sperm-sifting' machine to detect the minute difference between y and double x chromosome-carrying sperm: no genetic harm results from its use. Over 1200 babies have been born using the technology 3.

1. Macnair, D. T. (2010, August). Fragile X Syndrome. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC Health: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/fragilex1.shtml 2. Doe, J. (2000, December 18). Immune System Disorders. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Time: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,92261,00.html 3. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute: http://www.microsort.net/results.php"
Candidate 4: "Parents have every right, if the technology is present, to choose the gender make-up of their family. Guaranteeing (or improving the chances of) a child being of the gender they want means that the child is more likely to fit into the family's dreams. He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be loved. Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense. 'All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity' 1. Parents give so much to children. They invest years of their lives and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn't it fair that in return, they get to decide something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights.

1. Meek, J. (2001, July 5). Baby Blues. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/jul/05/genetics"
Candidate 5: "It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the expense. The anecdotal evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre-selecting the sex of their children was not a ‘frivolous purpose’. Asked whether her three boys had not been enough, Sharla Allen replied ‘They are. They’re totally everything I could ever want…but why not have two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are?’ 1. No-one is harmed in this process, the parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment.

1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health: http://articles.cnn.com/2005-11-16/health/pdg.gender.selection_1_pgd-spe..."
Candidate 6: "It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Sharla Miller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing God, arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest child had spina bifida, they fixed that. Were they playing God?' 1. Moreover, knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.). Why not extend that ability to plan? Moreover, in many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion.

1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/60II/main611618.shtml"
Candidate 7: "The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies

Gender selection technology should be available, at whatever cost the market dictates, to those who can afford the process and wish to choose the sex of their children. There should be no other restrictions on the couples wishing to go through with the process, other than an assurance that the mother is physically able and willing. As it is not an essential procedure, the state should not be expected to subsidize either the process or the development of the technology. Nevertheless, the private sector should be encouraged to develop the technology and continue to provide the public with a path to maximise their own happiness."

It is hardly shattering the mystery of childbirth, given how common ultrasound scans are. Sharla Miller, who went through gender selection, refutes the suggesting it is like playing God, arguing 'it's just like every other procedure the medical field can do for you. When our eldest child had spina bifida, they fixed that. Were they playing God?' 1. Moreover, knowing what gender a child will be is tremendously helpful for parents in planning for the future (picking clothes, colour schemes, toys, names etc.). Why not extend that ability to plan? Moreover, in many countries and cultures gender selection happens already, usually by selective abortion or abandonment of unwanted babies. Everyone can agree that this is a terrible waste of life and potentially very dangerous for the mother concerned, and of course many people object strongly to abortion on moral grounds. The use of new technologies to allow gender selection at the start of pregnancy will reduce and hopefully eventually end the use of selective abortion.

1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/60II/main611618.shtml
