Upsetting the balance on sex selection

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Reproductive Ethics
• Social Philosophy

Background:

• Non-medical sex selection is often justified by the aim of family balancing.
• Existing arguments, like Kluge's (2007), distinguish between discriminatory values and mere preferences for a child's sex.
• Concerns exist that any sex selection is inherently sexist due to upholding gender stereotypes.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the ethical permissibility of non-medical sex selection for family balancing.
• To challenge the distinction between preference-based and value-based sex selection in policy.
• To explore alternative justifications for family balancing policies.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis and critique of existing arguments on sex selection.
• Examination of the ethical implications of distinguishing between parental motives (values vs. preferences).
• Argumentative reasoning on policy design for reproductive choices.

Main Results:

• Policies permitting sex selection for family balancing fail to adequately differentiate between discriminatory values and simple preferences.
• Even if preference-based selection is deemed unobjectionable, current policies do not effectively isolate such cases.
• The justification of family balancing through sex selection requires further ethical arguments beyond distinguishing motives.

Conclusions:

• Current policies on sex selection for family balancing are ethically problematic due to inadequate distinction between parental motives.
• Permitting sex selection based on 'family balancing' may inadvertently endorse underlying biases.
• Further ethical frameworks are necessary to justify or regulate non-medical sex selection.