- Question It!
- By Natasha In Researching Reform
- Researching Reform
- 25/08/2015 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Daveyone ( 15 articles in 2015 )
In the past in Australia, gender selection has been allowed but only on medical grounds
This week’s question is a philosophical one.
Draft guidelines in Australia have recently been published, which ask the public to consider the possibility of allowing parents to choose the gender of their babies during the IVF process. In the past in Australia, gender selection has been allowed but only on medical grounds, such as avoiding gender linked genetic disorders. This exception is much the same in the UK.
Understandably, the question over whether gender selection should be allowed for non medical reasons has caused concern. In this very interesting article on the topic, a researcher at the University of Sidney argues that to allow gender selection is inherently sexist, and would do more harm than good. She suggests that freedom of selection would simply reinforce gender stereotypes, deny diversity and, crucially, ignore the individuality of the child by imposing external stereotypes before they’re even born.
Those who argue in favour of gender selection say it is the right of the parents to decide, to have that freedom of choice and that it could balance gender inequality, where for example a family has a son and would like to have a girl also.
Our question to you then, is just this: is this conundrum at its heart a conflict of interests between the rights of the parent and the rights of the unborn child, or is there no real conflict to speak of, because nature always finds a way of balancing the scales?
Draft guidelines in Australia have recently been published, which ask the public to consider the possibility of allowing parents to choose the gender of their babies during the IVF process. In the past in Australia, gender selection has been allowed but only on medical grounds, such as avoiding gender linked genetic disorders. This exception is much the same in the UK.
Understandably, the question over whether gender selection should be allowed for non medical reasons has caused concern. In this very interesting article on the topic, a researcher at the University of Sidney argues that to allow gender selection is inherently sexist, and would do more harm than good. She suggests that freedom of selection would simply reinforce gender stereotypes, deny diversity and, crucially, ignore the individuality of the child by imposing external stereotypes before they’re even born.
Those who argue in favour of gender selection say it is the right of the parents to decide, to have that freedom of choice and that it could balance gender inequality, where for example a family has a son and would like to have a girl also.
Our question to you then, is just this: is this conundrum at its heart a conflict of interests between the rights of the parent and the rights of the unborn child, or is there no real conflict to speak of, because nature always finds a way of balancing the scales?
Source: https://world4justice.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/question-it-53/
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here