Morality of sex selection

Different organizations, groups, and individuals have fought to promote equality and abolish oppression in society especially based on gender. As a result, stereotypes and common misconceptions about gender have either been abandoned to create a more gender-neutral society. Potential parents have grown to accept their children regardless of their sex because society has evolved to accept all genders as equal. Despite this, however, some individuals still hold on to ideologies that make it easier to favor one gender over the other. The desire to bear a child or children of specific sex has led to the emergence of sex selection where parents engage in various practices and seek treatments that increase the chances of conceiving either a boy or a girl. Although parents have the right to want children from a specific gender, the processes involved in sex selection have raised various moral and ethical concerns especially because of the impact that the practice has on the child.

Take the case of Lavinia and Sebastian as an example. The couple had hoped to have a son and a daughter but decided to settle for two daughters. The decision was greatly influenced by their inability to conceive after the birth of their youngest child. Financial constraints were also an issue and the couple decided to stop at two daughters after the father lost his job. Despite this decision, however, Lavinia discovered she was pregnant, which rekindled their hope for getting a son. Despite this, however, the couple still had to consider their options because they were already struggling to feed the two children, and adding another one while the husband was still unemployed would make the situation even worse.

Lavinia and Sebastian’s approach when trying to figure out how to handle the introduction of a new child to the family offers a perfect example of the ethical dilemma revolving around sex selection. When discussing the ethics of sex selection, Dickens (2012) argues that the only time sex selection can be considered ethical is when it is done to protect the child from choric hereditary sex-related medical conditions. His argument is based on the belief that sex selection should only be used as a treatment method rather than a tool to increase the likelihood of conceiving a boy or girl. The decision by Lavinia and Sebastian to abort the baby if it is not a boy can be attributed to the misconceptions regarding a child’s gender and the provision of medical practices that allow parents to change a child’s sex out of preference rather than necessity.

The decision to abort the baby if it is not a boy is unethical because it is based on the parent’s desires. Although both parents suggest that financial constraints have contributed to their decision to abort the child, the provision where they are okay with keeping the baby if it is a boy suggests that the financial situation is not as dire as the parents make it seem. According to Steinbock (2002), some parents may opt for sex selection because raising a boy is a different experience compared to raising a girl. Despite the fight to bring about gender equality, Boys are biologically different from women and these differences mean that parents will have different expenses when raising boys compared to girls. In the couple’s case, however, the determining factor is the parent's preference for a boy.

Although the couple is experiencing some financial constraints, their willingness to keep the baby if it is a boy suggests that they can take on the responsibility of raising a third child. Although the expenses for raising a boy may be different from those of a girl, the differences are not significant enough to warrant the decision to abort the child if it is a girl (Steinbock, 2002). It would therefore be unethical to abort the child on the pretense that the expense would be too much for the family to bear especially because the couple has already expressed interest in keeping the child if it’s a boy.

In Lavinia and Sebastian’s case, abortion, or any form of sex selection done to improve the chances that the baby is a boy would be unethical. Other than being adults, the couple was already aware of their financial situation and should have taken more precautions to prevent conception. Furthermore, their willingness to keep the child if it was a boy is enough proof that the decision to abort is based on their preferences rather than any medical or serious conditions that would warrant sex selection or an abortion.

The decision to abort the child is also unethical because it places Lavina’s physician in a compromising condition. As a caregiver, the physician has a responsibility to offer the highest level of care and refrain from any actions that may endanger the lives of the patients under his care (Rhodes, 2020). The physician is therefore required to conduct the test as it is part of offering medical care to the patient. The dilemma however arises from Lavina’s decision to abort the child if it is female, or if the physician refuses to carry out the test to determine the child’s sex. The physician has to make a difficult decision because whatever decision he makes could result in the loss of an innocent child. The physician should however conduct the test and fulfill his role as a caregiver (Rhodes, 2020). Despite the ethical ramification, conducting tests and informing the patient of possible treatment methods is part of the physician’s job description. He should therefore carry out his responsibilities to the best of his abilities and leave the decision whether to keep the baby or abort to the parents.

An argument can be made that the parents are the only ones who fully understand their situation. The decision to abort the child if it is a girl is, therefore, more complex than what society believes should be considered ethical or unethical. The parents have experience raising two daughters and are therefore more aware of what it will mean if the third child is also a girl (Steinbock, 2002). The abortion can therefore be deemed ethical as it would spare the child from the hardships that the parents have already foreseen. Requesting a test from the physician can also be seen as ethical as it simply requires the physician to perform his duties and offer the highest level of care to all patients, regardless of their preferences or ideologies.

Although parents have more knowledge concerning how to raise a child, it does not mean that they will always act in the child’s best interest. Issues such as abortion and parents abandoning their children are some of the examples as to why all decisions concerning the well-being of a child should not be reserved for parents alone (Dickens, 2012). Parents should therefore abide by the same moral and ethical policies that govern society, regardless of their experiences raising children. While Lavinia and Sebastian have the right to abort the child, the freedom does not make their decision ethical as denies the child the opportunity to live. Their decision to abort is also unsatisfactory as they are choosing to end a child’s life for simply being conceived female. Major decisions such as abortions and sex selection should only be carried out as a last resort as a way to discourage discrimination based on gender.

            The topic of abortion is usually sensitive as it involves the life of an innocent whose life hinges on the decisions made by the parents. Before deciding to conceive, parents should understand the full extent of their responsibility as parents instead of seeking out solutions like abortion. Parents must also e ready to raise their children in the best way possible regardless of their gender. Provisions like sex selection should be reserved for extreme situations to prevent their misuse and abuse by irresponsible parents. In the case of Lavina and Sebastian, the test can be conducted but all requests to abort or engage in sex selection until the couple presents a valid reason to warrant such extreme measures. This will force the couple to fulfill their responsibility as parents to take care of the child they conceive instead of denying it the right to live based on gender.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Dickens M, (2012) “Can sex selection be ethically tolerated?” J Med Ethics

Rhodes R, (2020) “The trusted doctor: Medical ethics and professionalism” New York:     Oxford University Press

Steinbock B, (2002) “Sex selection: Not obviously wrong” The Hastings Center Report