Acceptable Sex Selection

John Robertson presents a persuasive argument against government prohibition of preconception sex selection (PSS) as long as there is no actual evidence of significant social harm from allowing the technology to be freely available. I am convinced by what he says about PSS and have argued along similar lines in my own work (Rhodes 1995). In these comments, I will press Robertson's conclusion in several directions to show what more he might have said in its defense.

Impact

Significant social harms from resulting gender imbalance in the population would count against allowing access to PSS. Yet, in an environment resembling contemporary U.S. society, it is hard to imagine that the number of births that employed the technology could be large enough to have a demographic effect. Any use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) involves financial costs, inconvenience, discomfort, invasion of privacy, and worries about risk of harm to the resulting offspring. While studies show that people have preferences about gender and birth order, in decisions about using PSS those considerations will have to be balanced against the others that mitigate against it. Only those for whom gender is extremely important are likely to avail themselves of the technology.

Consequences

Furthermore, any conclusion about the social impact of a practice has to take all of its effects into account. My guess is that PSS is likely to have only a negligible societal impact. Nevertheless, if we are to evaluate that effect, we will have to assess all of its consequences, those that count as harms as well as those that count as benefits. Although gender imbalance in the population may turn out to be a harm at some point, other effects of PSS are likely to be beneficial.

1. PSS is likely to be used by parents who want an additional child to be of a gender different from other children in the family. Without ART, "try again" has been the method to achieve that goal. PSS has the social advantage of not adding to society's overpopulation problems.
2. By helping couples achieve the gender balance they want with fewer children, PSS can benefit families by easing the economic and human burdens of providing for a large family. Today, when few enjoy the support of an extended family to help with the chores of everyday life and when both parents are typically employed outside of the home, additional children tax a family's limited resources.
3. Potential parents, that is, autonomous adults, are in the best position to assess the kind of rearing and companionship experiences that would be valuable to them. For those to whom gender makes a significant enough difference to justify PSS, the gender-selected child is likely to provide a more rewarding experience.
4. And children produced by PSS are also more likely to be attentively reared and to have a good childhood, because their parents have chosen the gender that they are more likely to nurture well.

Context

Robertson also addresses others' ethical concerns about PSS: for example, that it might support sexism and therein be immoral. Sympathetic moral imagination can, however, help us to appreciate that PSS can be moral or, in some cases, obligatory. Consider the hypothetical case of Mary and Clyde. Many years ago Clyde had engaged in pederastic behavior. He was apprehended for his assaults on young boys, tried, convicted, and punished for his crimes. After years of psychotherapy he now under- standsand deeply regrets his previous behavior. He no longer experiences any sexual attraction for young boys. Infact, he has fallen in love with Mary, and they very much want to have a family. After fully discussing Clyde'spast and considering their options, they de- cidethat they don't want to chance having a boy. The riskof triggering some old feelings would be far too costlyfor both Clyde and a son, and Clyde and Mary would both be very happy as parents of a girl. They opt...