Sex Selection

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cheshire Cat

Puritan Board Sophomore
Is Sex Selection wrong in and of itself, independent of negative consequences such as abortion, embryonic destruction and the like?
 
If someone were to say that choosing the gender of your baby is morally wrong, then what would be the basis to do so?
 
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.
 
Dagmire said:
They can do that?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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.
 
If you see this as anything other than and early term abortion argument please distinguish it.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
Theoretical, there are methods of preconception sex selection, but I’m not sure how effective they are. I think some have reasonable effectiveness though.
 
Augusta said:
If you see this as anything other than and early term abortion argument please distinguish it.
Click to expand...

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 :lol:; 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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...



I was talking about Theoretical's hypothetical situation. I don't know how sex selection works.
 
http://www.microsort.net/

:mad:

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.
 
Yes, flow cytometric separation technology I believe is a preconcptual method.
Augusta said:
http://www.microsort.net/

:mad:

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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
:ditto:

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'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top