# Sex Selection



## Cheshire Cat (May 28, 2007)

Is Sex Selection wrong in and of itself, independent of negative consequences such as abortion, embryonic destruction and the like?


----------



## Dagmire (May 28, 2007)

They can do that?


----------



## Brian Bosse (May 28, 2007)

If someone were to say that choosing the gender of your baby is morally wrong, then what would be the basis to do so?


----------



## larryjf (May 28, 2007)

I wonder if the culture one is in would make a difference.

For instance if someone in America wanted a girl for selfish reasons...maybe so that the mother could re-live her childhood through her.

Or someone in a culture that is known for violence to women who wanted a boy for non-selfish reasons...because they would not want their daughter subjected to things that women are subjected to in those cultures.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 28, 2007)

Dagmire said:


> They can do that?


Yes, with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and In vitro fertilisation, and abortion. 



Brian Bosse said:


> If someone were to say that choosing the gender of your baby is morally wrong, then what would be the basis to do so?


This is a good way to put the question. I have no idea what their basis would be independent of alleged negative consequences that would result.



larryjf said:


> I wonder if the culture one is in would make a difference.
> 
> For instance if someone in America wanted a girl for selfish reasons...maybe so that the mother could re-live her childhood through her.
> 
> Or someone in a culture that is known for violence to women who wanted a boy for non-selfish reasons...because they would not want their daughter subjected to things that women are subjected to in those cultures.


It is good to bring up such a point, but consider this. To quote Julian Savulescu in his article Sex Selection: The Case For, “Some parents want their children to be great musicians. Sometimes this desire becomes overbearing, as depicted in the film Shine. But the answer is not to ban music schools. The solution is to help parents to be more tolerant and accepting.”
The reasoning is that this is analogous to sex selection. 

As far as the second example goes, that does seem to be a morally praiseworthy reason to have a boy (now how they actually carry that out is an entirely different matter).


----------



## Augusta (May 28, 2007)

The fruit of the womb is God's provenance and we should not try to manipulate it in any way, shape, or form. To do so is to usurp his power and take it for yourself. Utter blasphemy In my humble opinion.


----------



## Davidius (May 28, 2007)

Augusta said:


> The fruit of the womb is God's provenance and we should not try to manipulate it in any way, shape, or form. To do so is to usurp his power and take it for yourself. Utter blasphemy In my humble opinion.



I have a funny feeling that you would rescind this argument in any other area in which humans use science to manipulate nature.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 28, 2007)

Augusta said:


> The fruit of the womb is God's provenance and we should not try to manipulate it in any way, shape, or form. To do so is to usurp his power and take it for yourself. Utter blasphemy In my humble opinion.



Just like what medicine is available is God's providence. Think of all the people who would have lived substantially longer if penicillin had been discovered years earlier.

CT


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 28, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I have a funny feeling that you would rescind this argument in any other area in which humans use science to manipulate nature.


----------



## crhoades (May 28, 2007)

Some of the most sane, biblical reasoning on medical ethics came from the late Dr. Bahnsen: http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=487


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 28, 2007)

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Augusta (May 28, 2007)

I am not talking about all manipulation of nature, but about the fruit of the womb specifically. Who is born or not. God gave us dominion over the garden and everything in it but NOT over the fruit of the womb. In Genesis 9 the life blood of a person (embryo or fetus) God demands and accounting.


----------



## Augusta (May 28, 2007)

If you see this as anything other than and early term abortion argument please distinguish it.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 28, 2007)

Augusta said:


> If you see this as anything other than and early term abortion argument please distinguish it.



I thought the distinguishing happened in the opening post in this thread?

CT


----------



## Theoretical (May 28, 2007)

Ok hypothetical time.

What about an artificial insemination conducted whereby the husband's sperm had previously been filtered (I remember hearing once that there's a significant enough chemical compositional difference between X and Y that would make this possible) so that all that was used was either X or Y chromosome sperm.

What about that situation?


----------



## Augusta (May 28, 2007)

OK, but in that case the question is really about whether or not gender selection (and and sex change?) is the domain of man or God.

I still say this is the domain of God.

Note the consequences of the decision. If it's not wrong to change the ordained sex of a unwitting baby then how could it be wrong for an adult to make such a change?


----------



## Dagmire (May 28, 2007)

I don't think that logically follows, because you're not _changing_ the sex of a baby, you're _preventing_ it from being a certain gender.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 28, 2007)

Theoretical, there are methods of preconception sex selection, but I’m not sure how effective they are. I think some have reasonable effectiveness though.


----------



## Davidius (May 28, 2007)

Augusta said:


> If you see this as anything other than and early term abortion argument please distinguish it.



How can this be equated with abortion? The child is not being killed. Perhaps I don't know enough about the discussion. *shrug*

But I do know that Christ is the Lord of the living and the dead. He has set the times and boundaries for every individual. Does that mean that this excludes preventative measures we take to prolong an ill person's life? Of course not. God doesn't just snap his fingers and pop things into existence, after the Creation of course ; he uses means. But according to what you said it seems like it would also be wrong to try to alter the "natural" process of anything, including medicine, using chemicals for plants and livestock, etc. What makes children special in this regard?


----------



## Augusta (May 29, 2007)

Dagmire & David, are you guys speaking of some procedure that is already available that prevents a certain sex from occurring thus guaranteeing the other?? 

I haven't heard of this. I would still say that the sex of the baby is God's provenance and we shouldn't try to manipulate it. It is not our decision whether a baby is a Moses or a Mary. Even though via 2nd causes God's will is supreme, I think it would be ungrateful and not in the spirit of humility proper to a Christian, to not accept what God gives but to *try *to resist his will.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 29, 2007)

Augusta said:


> Dagmire & David, are you guys speaking of some procedure that is already available that prevents a certain sex from occurring thus guaranteeing the other??
> 
> I haven't heard of this. I would still say that the sex of the baby is God's provenance and we shouldn't try to manipulate it. It is not our decision whether a baby is a Moses or a Mary. Even though via 2nd causes God's will is supreme, I think it would be ungrateful and not in the spirit of humility proper to a Christian, to not accept what God gives but to *try *to resist his will.



Here is an example of what I think they are talking about:

http://www.microsort.net/

I'm uncomfortable with it, I admit. But I think the question about whether it is unbiblical is difficult.


----------



## Dagmire (May 29, 2007)

Augusta said:


> Dagmire & David, are you guys speaking of some procedure that is already available that prevents a certain sex from occurring thus guaranteeing the other??
> 
> I haven't heard of this. I would still say that the sex of the baby is God's provenance and we shouldn't try to manipulate it. It is not our decision whether a baby is a Moses or a Mary. Even though via 2nd causes God's will is supreme, I think it would be ungrateful and not in the spirit of humility proper to a Christian, to not accept what God gives but to *try *to resist his will.





I was talking about Theoretical's hypothetical situation. I don't know how sex selection works.


----------



## Augusta (May 29, 2007)

http://www.microsort.net/



That is awful. The whole idea is so "me" based it is sickening! Having children is not like shopping. You don't have children to accessorize your life with what you pick and choose. It is a privilege and you are called "blessed" when it happens to you. 

It's not so much that you can point to a specific law against it in scripture, but it is a matter of the state of ones heart and faith in God that shows forth. Trying to wrest control of your life from God and his providence, trying to be sovereign in your own life when it is not your own. We have been bought with a price.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 29, 2007)

Yes, flow cytometric separation technology I believe is a preconcptual method.


Augusta said:


> http://www.microsort.net/
> 
> 
> 
> That is awful. The whole idea is so "me" based it is sickening! Having children is not like shopping. You don't have children to accessorize your life with what you pick and choose. It is a privilege and you are called "blessed" when it happens to you.


Most cases of people having children involve wants and desires of the parents. What is wrong with wanting to have, say, a girl, and being able to increase ones chances of having a girl? Unless it results in harm, why is it wrong?


----------



## Davidius (May 29, 2007)

Augusta said:


> It's not so much that you can point to a specific law against it in scripture, but it is a matter of the state of ones heart and faith in God that shows forth.



But I think this is the real issue. Often we come across things for which we personally have a distaste. And often they aren't spoken against in Scripture so we try to establish "principles" from various places in order to bind another's conscience. It happens with things like drinking, smoking, gambling, etc. I've tried to do it with dangerous recreational activities like sky-diving. But, as Paul said, though certain things may not be "expedient" that doesn't make them unlawful. You do not know a person's heart yet you are saying that if they were to want two boys and two girls instead of four girls (perhaps they want to carry on the family name?) this shows they are operating from a bad heart and a lack of faith in God. I just don't think this is a fair assertion for reasons already stated. You would not be consistent with that sort of categorization across the board.


----------



## eternallifeinchrist (May 30, 2007)

i was just thinking, do you think that God could use your choice in sex selection to bring about his will? I don't know if this whole thing is Biblical...


Augusta said:


> Dagmire & David, are you guys speaking of some procedure that is already available that prevents a certain sex from occurring thus guaranteeing the other??
> 
> I haven't heard of this. I would still say that the sex of the baby is God's provenance and we shouldn't try to manipulate it. It is not our decision whether a baby is a Moses or a Mary. Even though via 2nd causes God's will is supreme, I think it would be ungrateful and not in the spirit of humility proper to a Christian, to not accept what God gives but to *try *to resist his will.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 30, 2007)

Ask the Chinese.

The Chinese have had a one child rule for a while and the desire for male children has combined in a judgment that will show their folly for what it is in the judgment they are reaping now. Many female babies were aborted or killed in infancy.

There are too many men and not enough women. There are already reports of women being kidnapped and the bow wave of this problem has not even hit yet.

I have a good friend who speculates that part of the reason for Middle Eastern violence is sexual frustration. Sure, everybody is ticked off but it's always young men with too much testoterone that are usually dumb enough to blow themselves up. Middle age men just don't commit like that anymore. The whole dynamic of the angry youth is fueled, in no small part, by the fact that some of them cannot marry because some of the more well-to-do, who can provide for multiple wives, take them "off the market" so to speak.

Wives and families are a calming and moderating influence for young men. China is going to reap the whirlwind for their stupidity and sin and its coming pretty quickly. This factor, combined with their increasing stress on the oil in the Middle East, is reason for long term concern.


----------



## Theoretical (May 30, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Ask the Chinese.
> 
> The Chinese have had a one child rule for a while and the desire for male children has combined in a judgment that will show their folly for what it is in the judgment they are reaping now. Many female babies were aborted or killed in infancy.
> 
> ...




Try this on for a hypothetical. For as narcissistic a culture as ours, the gender selection "pill" becomes available. For simplicity's sake in this argument, imagine a simple, cheap, over-the-counter pill system where the man would take a pink pill for a few weeks if the couple wanted a girl and the blue pill similarly for a boy. 

A lot of couples may be "disappointed" they didn't have the mix of kids they wanted, but few in a noncompulsory setting would readily gender select via abortion or complicated, expensive treatments at fertility clinics. This pill would change everything. While you'd get some more mixed families, you might also potentially get lots more gender-homogenous ones.

Now imagine that a 4th Wave of Feminism strikes hard and there's tremendous societal pressure to increase female numerical dominance (since there's now a way to do it). Granted, this wouldn't be as bad as the alternative, but it would nonetheless make the nation in question be in a similar boat that Britain was post WWI (where essentially its young-to-middle-aged male population was obliterated), it's still a bad situation for the next generation. This is of course also why women in combat is also societal suicide, but that's another issue.

On the other hand, what if the opposite were to happen and the only "in" thing to do was to have boys? The Chinese one-child policy would actually limit the gender disparity less than the faddish (and widely used) "lets have boys" phenomenon in a country without such restrictions. Can you even imagine what a 60/40 (or worse) generational gender disparity on the male side would be? That's a recipe for national discontent and chaos, so much so that said nation would consider going to a massive, global war if only to balance its population and keep the men busy.

Because of these issues, there's good policy reasons to prohibit any of these procedures, simply because of the dangerous effects massive, anarchical decisions on gender could be for the society's future. Even if the procedure itself weren't immoral, its such a dangerous thing to be tinkering with, as perhaps the ultimate societal prisoner's dillema taking place with the easy presence of something like these "pills'.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 30, 2007)

Interesting thoughts Scott.


----------



## larryjf (May 30, 2007)

I wonder what folks would think if instead of gender you could choose race.


----------



## IanWatson (May 30, 2007)

Augusta said:


> The fruit of the womb is God's provenance and we should not try to manipulate it in any way, shape, or form. To do so is to usurp his power and take it for yourself. Utter blasphemy In my humble opinion.




What about tylenol? People use that to minupulate nature. 
If an issue is not clearly stated or implied in scripture than it should be a matter of conscience. If this affects your conscience you should not do it. But I would not call it blasphemy.


----------



## IanWatson (May 30, 2007)

But i personally would not do it.


----------



## larryjf (May 30, 2007)

IanWatson said:


> What about tylenol? People use that to minupulate nature.



Interesting point. I would suggest that taking tylenol implies that pain is bad and something to be avoided. Choosing one gender over the other implies that one gender is superior to the other on some level.


----------



## IanWatson (May 30, 2007)

Augusta said:


> http://www.microsort.net/
> 
> 
> 
> ...




God is sovereign no matter what we do. We cannot change God's providence.


----------



## Theoretical (May 30, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Interesting point. I would suggest that taking tylenol implies that pain is bad and something to be avoided. Choosing one gender over the other implies that one gender is superior to the other on some level.




That's a good distinction between something that is a negative and consequence of the Fall and making a judgment of inherent superiority (in terms of inherent worth) in the area of gender where there is none to be made, since both men and women are made in the image of God.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 30, 2007)

Boys and girls are different. This difference matters to different families and cultures. It is totalitarian for a state to control procreation, but I don’t think this means sex selection is wrong in itself, but only that it can lead to social ills if abused on a wide scale. In Asia this could perhaps be a problem. To play devil’s advocate, Savulescu says that “advantages which have been postulated [of disturbed sex ratios] include increase in the influence of the rarer sex, reduced population growth and interbreeding of different populations”. 

As far as the superiority claim goes, to quote S. again, “a false belief in the inferiority of women is not a product of sex selection – sex selection is the product of that belief. Education and improving social and employment arrangements for women are more important in correcting these false beliefs than preventing sex selection.” 

Also in many cases of sex selection in Asia, abortion and infanticide is used. But then emotional attachments start to get into the argument. Sex selection in such cultures could cause problems, but in places like the US and UK most people would like to use it for family balancing. That is, have an equal number boys and girls, or something to that effect. Especially in such cases as family balancing, I don’t see how the argument from ‘superiority’ can get through.


----------



## larryjf (May 30, 2007)

Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean they should have it.

If a family wants to be balanced and have equal girls and boys, does that mean that they should have a balanced family?

What if after they have the family they change their minds on the importance of balance?

We are not omniscient so we have no way of telling what our future holds. If we choose to have only girls because we live in a culture that looks down on boys...what would happen if in the near future we move to a culture that looks down on girls? Then our whole argument for choosing the gender is thrown out the window.

Say we think a balanced family is the way to go because we think children will end up better socially acclimated. And later studies come out that prove they do worse socially. Once again our reasons for choosing are thrown out the window.

As fallen creatures we are always trying to take matters into our own hands...this is just more of the same.


----------



## Augusta (May 30, 2007)

IanWatson said:


> What about tylenol? People use that to minupulate nature.
> If an issue is not clearly stated or implied in scripture than it should be a matter of conscience. If this affects your conscience you should not do it. But I would not call it blasphemy.



Hello Ian, I have already addressed this above. You cannot pigeon hole my stance into an anti-medical interventionist stance. God did give us dominion over creation. Plants, animals, etc. are ours to do with as we please aside from breaking God's laws of course. 

It is when people move in on manipulating the birth process that I believe they are overstepping their bounds.


----------



## Augusta (May 30, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Ask the Chinese.
> 
> The Chinese have had a one child rule for a while and the desire for male children has combined in a judgment that will show their folly for what it is in the judgment they are reaping now. Many female babies were aborted or killed in infancy.
> 
> ...



This is a good point. We know from history that too few women can lead to kidnapping. Just look at the rape of the Sabine women. It's a comical story but it was because of too many men without the stablilizing effect of wives and families that Romulus instigated the whole affair. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 30, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Interesting point. I would suggest that taking tylenol implies that pain is bad and something to be avoided. Choosing one gender over the other implies that one gender is superior to the other on some level.



What about growing certain fruits to turn out different ways (e.g. seedless). Take a watermelon - many people don't want to deal with the seeds, while others say the fruit is more flavorful with the seeds.

Of course people are qualitatively different in creation from such things, but the point is that there are in fact lawful cases of deciding which way something in nature will turn out (rather than changing it once it is already formed) in which neither outcome is viewed as inherently superior to the other.


----------



## larryjf (May 30, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> What about growing certain fruits to turn out different ways (e.g. seedless). Take a watermelon - many people don't want to deal with the seeds, while others say the fruit is more flavorful with the seeds.



Another interesting point.
I don't think it's good that we make fruits and such without seeds. After all, that's how we are able to grow those fruits again.
But i do think there should be more liberty with how we grow fruits than how we grow children. In Japan they also make watermelons square to better stack up. I would hate to think of someone taking such liberties with the creation of children. Perhaps down the road a gay couple will want a child who is genetically engineered to by gay?? It certainly wouldn't end with controlling the gender, and perhaps we should ask the question of where the line would be drawn?


This brings up a related question about hybrid foods being grown and how it relates to...

[bible]Deut 22:9[/bible]


----------



## Davidius (May 30, 2007)

All I've seen so far is people make good cases that sex selection can be used for sinful reasons. That doesn't make it inherently sinful. Let's not teach the doctrines of men as the commandments of God.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (May 30, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean they should have it.
> 
> If a family wants to be balanced and have equal girls and boys, does that mean that they should have a balanced family?



No, but that’s not my position. My position is that they should have the right to choose to do so. Unless somebody offers good arguments for why they shouldn’t have that right, and it should be illegalized. I have not seen any good arguments for such a position in this thread (at least for countries where a government doesn’t take a totalitarian stance on gender). 



larryjf said:


> What if after they have the family they change their minds on the importance of balance?


I fail to see how this is an argument against sex selection. 



larryjf said:


> We are not omniscient so we have no way of telling what our future holds. If we choose to have only girls because we live in a culture that looks down on boys...what would happen if in the near future we move to a culture that looks down on girls? Then our whole argument for choosing the gender is thrown out the window.


In many cases of sex selection, it is for the purposes of “family balancing”. Besides, I am merely defending the claim that sex selection should not be made illegal. 



larryjf said:


> Say we think a balanced family is the way to go because we think children will end up better socially acclimated. And later studies come out that prove they do worse socially. Once again our reasons for choosing are thrown out the window.


Most of your hypotheticals are instances where the parents choose sex selection for reason x, and later x turns out not to be the case. But this is a simplistic view of sex selection. Parents choose sex selection for many different reasons, and it hardly seems to be the case on the face of it that all of these reasons will turn out to be false. Perhaps they want to have a boy to carry on the family name, and they already have 3 daughters. They still love their daughters, and such a choice says nothing about superiority one way or the other. 



Augusta said:


> It is when people move in on manipulating the birth process that I believe they are overstepping their bounds.


If a person is not being harmed, then how are they overstepping their bounds? 



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> All I've seen so far is people make good cases that sex selection can be used for sinful reasons. That doesn't make it inherently sinful. Let's not teach the doctrines of men as the commandments of God.


Yes, the reasoning is that because ‘X’ can be used for sinful reasons, ‘X’ should be made illegal. Which doesn’t really follow. 

I think Rich’s argument is the best, but that only holds water in places with severe pressure on selecting a certain gender. In the US at least this is not a problem.


----------



## larryjf (May 30, 2007)

Just out of curiosity for all those who don't think it should be an issue because the Bible does not specify that it is wrong, could the same be said of placing an embryo into a dogs womb? Since the Bible does not specify that it is wrong could it be considered unethical?


----------



## Davidius (May 30, 2007)

caleb_woodrow said:


> Yes, the reasoning is that because ‘X’ can be used for sinful reasons, ‘X’ should be made illegal. Which doesn’t really follow.



Yes, and it's not just an issue of civil legality unfortunately. Augusta said that doing it would be a sure sign of a bad heart and lack of faith.


----------

