Abortion as contraception [Archive]

View Full Version : Abortion as contraception

simonecuttlefish

10th January 2011, 06:51 AM

In Victoria
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/sex-selection-ban-means-tragic-choice/story-fn6bn88w-1225984624391

In full.
LETTING couples use IVF to choose the sex of their child for "family balancing" always made sense to me.

And now a Victorian couple has shown us just one of the consequences of a ban on that choice.

Most of us know at least one couple who went for that third, even fourth, child in the hope of finally getting a girl or that long-wanted boy.

And I've always understood why.

Those of us with a child of each sex know how much we would have missed out on if we had only boys or only girls.

I've loved my Saturday mornings watching the under-12s but I also adore shopping with my daughter, a joy that grows as she gets older.

But, for some reason, we have a ban on sex selection unless it is to avoid the transmission of a genetic abnormality or disease to a child.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

The result?

A couple with three sons they had conceived naturally used IVF to conceive another child - in this case twins.

But after discovering they were expecting yet more boys - and not the longed-for daughter - the twins were aborted.

Now that couple have applied to use IVF again, this time with sex selection technology that would guarantee a girl.

Their request has been rejected by the panel that oversees IVF and so they have taken their fight to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which has, in turn, taken their case public.

I can understand people being horrified by the abortion of the twin boys. I'm appalled myself.

While I'm not anti-abortion, I deplore abortion being used as contraception or for sex-selection.

Nor do I like the idea of a girl growing up with the knowledge that her parents disposed of two boys in the womb to make way for her.

I can also understand why some people see the abortion as an abuse of the system.

IVF is expensive and not a given. Many couples go through years of IVF treatments without success.

But this couple were successful - they conceived twin boys - only to get rid of them.

But it's precisely the decision to abort the twins that leads me to think we need to reconsider this ban on sex-selection.

I can't help but wonder that if this couple had been allowed to have their girl, the twin boys would never have been aborted and the IVF process would not have been abused.

Of course, this case is not as simple as a couple wanting a girl to balance out their family. They also want a girl to replace a baby daughter they lost soon after birth.

You can never replace a dead child but I'm not willing to stand in the way of this mother's attempts to have another daughter. Her heart, her children, her life.

VCAT won't be able to stop her either, whatever it decides.

The couple have already said that if the test case fails they will go to the US to conceive a girl, as many other couples already do.

No, it's the babies lost that must be our real concern here and for that reason alone the law must change so that no more will we see parents disposing of one child to make way for another.So you can't use IVF for sex selection of children, but you can access an abortion for the same reason? I believe that in some countries, like China and India there have been problems with people procuring abortions or using IVF to prevent having girl babies. Girls in some countries are a financial liability and not good providers for parents in old age (compared to a males employment chances, and in India there is the whole dowry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry) financial burden, which also results in thousands of adult women being murdered a year because of insufficient dowry).

What about in Victoria Australia though? Is the Victorian couple having a baby for the 'right' reason? What is a 'right' reason. Are their actions justified? I know there is NEVER enough information in an article, so all we have to go on is the info above. That's enough information for an ethical discussion though, as long as we realise that it may not completely apply to the actual couple, due to lack of more detailed information.

Let the debate begin!

cyclist

10th January 2011, 07:22 AM

I saw the same story on the weekend as well.

While I have no issues with abortion, I was saddened about the abortion of the twin boys, for much the same reason as the author of the article you posted.

I'm against the idea of sex selection in children via any means. While in this situation you can understand the argument, and it seems like an acceptable reason, you are potentially opening a flood gates.

The problem that you run into is when a family wants a single child, and they want a particular sex. It becomes hard to reject their request in light of this scenario. I know that this is a slippery slope argument, but I see it as a valid one (feel free to show me wrong).

I can accept that the family wants a daughter, I can understand that they had one, and lost her and that is having an emotional bearing upon their desire, but my question is do they want a daughter, or do they want the child that they lost back?

James

Annie

10th January 2011, 08:25 AM

Whilst I am not against IVF or abortion, I am against the idea of sex selection in both. To my mind, a child is a child. Given the dynamics of all families, regardless of the number and gender of offspring or siblings, 'family balancing' is a red herring. I have yet to know a truly balanced family. Whatever that means. Boys are often more girl like than expected and girls often more boy like than expected as are my own two. Gender selection to my mind is based on a stereotypical view of what a girl is and what a boy is.
In an affluent western society, I see gender selection as the thin edge of the wedge which can to a myriad of questionable reasons for IVF or abortion.

As noted by cyclist, possibly the couple were attempting to replace their lost daughter but that could never happen.

flipper

10th January 2011, 08:57 AM

This definitely an interesting debate.

Personally, I'm not against abortion for a legitimate reason and I don't believe that the sex of the child is a legitimate reason. To me a legitimate reason is only if the well being (life or death) of the mother or child is at serious risk if the pregnancy were to continue. If the child is unwanted then there are other more ethically appropriate options, for example good friends of mine are desperate to adopt but are having major obstacle put in their path.

The other side of the argument, IVF for selection of the sex of the child, I am not against per se. In a society like ours where there are no tangible disadvantages to one sex or the other I believe that each case should be handled on its own merits. Context is everything in an argument like this and whether you like it or not there can be no one size fits all solution to this type of ethical conundrum. While it may be appropriate in some societies for IVF to be applied in the determination of a child's sex there is definitely an ethical case to be considered in others (India, China for example where there a significant population problems).

Then there is the whole same sex couples have children issue as an aside to this as well.

stewiegriffin81

10th January 2011, 02:08 PM

I am against the state having any right to interfere with what couples choose with regards to what kind of children they want (with the one possible exception of choosing/engineering children with deficits eg. deafness).

I don't believe that the state should ever interfere with individual liberties unless there are substantive benefits for doing so. No such benefit has ever been substantiated with regards to prohibiting sex selection (or other forms of selection) in Australia (or any other developed country for that matter), and as such, I do not think state interference is warranted.

Dane

10th January 2011, 02:22 PM

I don't mind, and I don't mind sex selection either. Maybe I would mind the latter if Australia was in a position like India or China where there is a mindset biased towards or against a specific sex, but as there isn't...

Logic please

10th January 2011, 09:05 PM

Personally, I'm not against abortion for a legitimate reason and I don't believe that the sex of the child is a legitimate reason. To me a legitimate reason is only if the well being (life or death) of the mother or child is at serious risk if the pregnancy were to continue. If the child is unwanted then there are other more ethically appropriate options, for example good friends of mine are desperate to adopt but are having major obstacle put in their path.
I just thought I would refer back to the Vic abortion provisions (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_in_Australia), noting that other states may differ:

Abortion is legal in Victoria. In 2008 The Abortion Law Reform Act decriminalised termination of pregnancy and set out guidelines for when abortion can take place. Any woman of any age can attend an abortion clinic in Victoria and access abortion until she is 24 weeks pregnant. Abortion after 24 weeks is legal, though it is usually performed for severe foetal abnormalities. Two doctors must agree that the termination is necessary, considering the woman’s medical, physical, psychological and social circumstances.
So, even after 24 weeks, abortion can be legally performed in Vic, if 2 doctors agree that the woman's psychological (&/or other) circumstances warrant it. Given that the woman in this case appears to be claiming related psychological issues, I don't see how she can be legally stopped from terminating the pregnancy, in this case. Much as I might not personally like the idea of abortion as a de facto gender selection device... :( I don't see any way to prevent it, if society is serious about providing safe, legal abortion on demand. No woman can, or should be forced to carry a child to term, if they don't want to, for whatever reason.

The next bit is where the grey areas come in, IMO. Should a couple be allowed to implement a gender selection via IVF for non-medical reasons? ie: not just because one gender might be more prone to a serious genetic medical condition? My view is no. Gender is only one of the possible things that a couple might wish to select for. If gender is OK, then what about selection for academic or athletic prowess? How about if you really don't like gingers (sorry Protes, and any other gingers reading ;):D), or short people*, because think that they have a (let's say statistically) harder life - is requesting only a blonde, taller baby OK?

There's also the question of whether limited public resources (ie: the IVF program) ahould be deployed for a purpose such as this.

*Disclaimer: all attributes listed are for illustrative purposes only, and no offence is intended. Nor do they denote the writer's prejudices in any way :p

I am against the state having any right to interfere with what couples choose with regards to what kind of children they want (with the one possible exception of choosing/engineering children with deficits eg. deafness).

I don't believe that the state should ever interfere with individual liberties unless there are substantive benefits for doing so. No such benefit has ever been substantiated with regards to prohibiting sex selection (or other forms of selection) in Australia (or any other developed country for that matter), and as such, I do not think state interference is warranted.
stewie, my apologies, but I'm don't quite follow this - do you think that gender selection should be allowed, or shouldn't? Maybe it's late or something, but I'm just not sure, when you talk about "state interference", you think that the state generally shouldn't interefere, and therefore allow couples to gender select, or shouldn't interfere by not allowing couples to gender select?

stewiegriffin81

11th January 2011, 12:38 PM

stewie, my apologies, but I'm don't quite follow this - do you think that gender selection should be allowed, or shouldn't? Maybe it's late or something, but I'm just not sure, when you talk about "state interference", you think that the state generally shouldn't interefere, and therefore allow couples to gender select, or shouldn't interfere by not allowing couples to gender select?

My apologies for being a bit vague. I mean to say that the decisions on what kind of children any parent wishes to have should not be dictated by the state. Gender selection and other forms of selection/engineering should be legal (although I think one exception should be where the selection is for a clear and obvious deficit. That probably shouldn't be legal).

The next bit is where the grey areas come in, IMO. Should a couple be allowed to implement a gender selection via IVF for non-medical reasons? ie: not just because one gender might be more prone to a serious genetic medical condition? My view is no. Gender is only one of the possible things that a couple might wish to select for. If gender is OK, then what about selection for academic or athletic prowess? How about if you really don't like gingers (sorry Protes, and any other gingers reading ;):D), or short people*, because think that they have a (let's say statistically) harder life - is requesting only a blonde, taller baby OK?

But why should we prohibit potential parents from choosing such attributes? That is, are there clear harms to individuals and/or society that can be substantiated to justify such a prohibition? I am not personally aware of any.

flipper

11th January 2011, 03:31 PM

Logic please, even though abortion may be legal, my personal opinion is that it should only be used under specific circumstances, such as I previously stated. Even in the particular case being presented here, based on the facts presented, I don't see why the couple could not have carried the twins to term and then put them up for adoption and then used IVF to conceive a girl if that is what they desperately wanted.

When my wife was pregnant with our triplets the obstetrician discussed the possibility that it may be necessary to terminate one of our boys if circumstances demanded. Happily we did not have to make that decision but we often discussed what we would do if the situation occurred. We were never able to come to a definitive solution.

Imagine though if the couple had used IVF to conceive a girl in the first place without the decision to terminate the twin boys in the first place. Would that not have been a much better outcome?

Also I don't buy into the slippery slope argument at all in any situation. Why does there have to be a progression from selection of gender to selection of other attributes. I have yet to come across a convincing argument for any slippery argument. For example, legalisation of marijuana, i don't think that I would ever be convinced that legalising a drug like marijuana would result in an increase in heroin addiction, and I can refute that one from personal experience because I am not a heroin addict!

riddlemethis

11th January 2011, 06:10 PM

Jaar-Gilon

11th January 2011, 08:25 PM

I'm with Stewie and Annie, nobodies business but the parents, if the technology is there it should be available.
The issues and personal feelings/experiences of others have had with pregnancy ie: lost a child, couldn't get pregnant, had one sex when they wanted another etc. are completely irrelevant.
Please remember too that abortion is NOT the killing of a child.

Logic please

11th January 2011, 08:50 PM

@stewie, flipper, RMT and J-G: thank you for your excellent replies to my post. I call them excellent, on the basis that they've prompted me to seriously re-evaluate why I hold this particular position - and that is a good guide to the quality of any post, in my book.

I do have a reply worked out, but given all the stuff going on in Qld, and thinking about our fellow Qld members and forumites, I'd like to defer posting it for a little while. I'm normally up for a debate :), but tonight, I'd like to devote my thoughts and concentration to other matters... :(

Sir Patrick Crocodile

13th January 2011, 09:44 PM

I personally do not see anything wrong with sex selection; it is a couple's choice with what they want to do with themselves or not. It's them, and nobody elses' business.

I am in agreement with stewiegriffin81 et al regarding this; I see no benefit of prohibiting sex selection, yet I see the disadvantage of eliminating a choice that a couple has.

Strictly speaking, if people want to argue "well if we don't have enough <males|females> we'll all die out" that's fine and a valid point, but if we do end up "dying out" another species will take over. It's how evolution works.

Logic please

13th January 2011, 10:18 PM

@stewie: thanks for your clarification, no apol necessary

I preface by saying that I don't think there are any untenable or "wrong" positions being expressed, by anyone in this debate, and many great points have been raised. :) I also note that prospective parents already have a tool for choosing genetic characteristics of their offspring, although somewhat blunt by comparison - it's called "choosing a life partner". :D

If I may start with a few specifics...
I mean to say that the decisions on what kind of children any parent wishes to have should not be dictated by the state. Gender selection and other forms of selection/engineering should be legal (although I think one exception should be where the selection is for a clear and obvious deficit. That probably shouldn't be legal).@stewie & RMT: If, to use stewie's example, the state should have no say in these issues, and it should be entirely the parent's business, then by what criteria would "harm", or "deficit" be determined? And who would make that decision? Going a little further, what if two deaf parents want to selectively engineer a deaf child, to maintain "family closeness and harmony", or even because they're subconsciously afraid of the child "leaving them behind"? Most, including me, would instinctively think that the state should prevent that. But that IMO, is the contradiction - I don't think there is such a thing as a completely unfettered right or choice in a situation like this. If one accepts this, then the degree of choice or state interference, becomes a relevant issue.

Logic please, even though abortion may be legal, my personal opinion is that it should only be used under specific circumstances, such as I previously stated. Even in the particular case being presented here, based on the facts presented, I don't see why the couple could not have carried the twins to term and then put them up for adoption and then used IVF to conceive a girl if that is what they desperately wanted. (my bolding)Please remember too that abortion is NOT the killing of a child.I hoped this part of my previous post, might have covered your quotes above:Much as I might not personally like the idea of abortion as a de facto gender selection device... :( I don't see any way to prevent it, if society is serious about providing safe, legal abortion on demand. No woman can, or should be forced to carry a child to term, if they don't want to, for whatever reason.
Just for clarity, I completely support women's right to safe, legal abortion on demand, whatever the reason... including the one in this case.

Which is why I can't agree with flipper's comment (bolded), above - because it would require a woman to carry an unwanted child to term, for no medical reason. That is a direct contradiction to the principle behind abortion on demand - that women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies. BTW, this is not to say that there is anything "wrong" with flipper's postion - just that I hold a different one, and why.

Some of the replies here, suggest some conflation between abortion and gender selection. I am treating them as separate issues.
Also I don't buy into the slippery slope argument at all in any situation. Why does there have to be a progression from selection of gender to selection of other attributes. I have yet to come across a convincing argument for any slippery argument. For example, legalisation of marijuana, i don't think that I would ever be convinced that legalising a drug like marijuana would result in an increase in heroin addiction, and I can refute that one from personal experience because I am not a heroin addict! (my bolding)
Your bolded comment is a mischaracterisation of my argument as slippery slope. As I said, if genetic selection of attributes ("GSA") is to be allowed, the degree of that selection is a relevant issue, which I posed. Please approach my actual argument, rather than simply dismiss it based on your mistaken preconception of the form of argument. Given this, your comparison with the drug legalisation debate in this context, including the "gateway" argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory), constitutes a strawman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman), IMO.

I've repeatedly said that I don't consider that there is a "wrong" position in this debate. But the posts I'm replying to, caused me to seriously re-look at, "Why do I hold this position, given the arguments against it?".

Many of the arguments for, are along the lines of "if it doesn't harm anyone else, why shouldn't GSA be the sole right of the parents'?". Well, I see another interest in this debate - the future child. Please do not conflate this with the abortion debate - they are completely different situations. Until a couple has made the decision to carry a child to term, that child (and any interests associated with) are largely hypothetical.

Any future child would need to live with the (presumably irreversible) consequences of its parents GSA choices, permanently - good, bad or indifferent. IMO, allowing parents unrestricted GSA arguably violates the Kantian ethical principle of treating "[h]umanity as an End, never [m]erely as a Means" (ref: Shaw & Barry et al, Moral Issues in Business, pp. 68-69)

I don't consider children, the "property" of their parents, and I don't accept that a child's genetic attributes, and subsequent life experiences, should be dictated by the parents, to the detailed level that GSA would permit. I'm in favour of gender selection as currently allowed by the legislation only, although I accept that I'm in the minority on this one. :)

flipper

15th January 2011, 05:16 PM

knowledge is power

16th January 2011, 04:00 AM

Jaar-Gilon

16th January 2011, 01:05 PM

I disagree completely with gender selection. Nature is doing a fine job as it is, male/female births are pretty much even worldwide.
If we start saying yes to this there are plenty of cultural groups in Australia that would still prefer boys to girls. In the longer term we will have problems with some people not finding life partners, as in China.

Hi KIP,:)
Sounds like the slippery slope argument again. Good on those cultural groups, let them choose boys over girls. How is it anybody's right to say they can't?
Because people can abort their fetus, having or not having medically interventional gender selection will make very little difference to the ratio of males to females because people desperate to have a certain sex will and do abort or commit infanticide till they get the sex they want "naturally". Sex selection has been occuring for thousands of years, at least now we can take the barbarity out of it.

What's the problem with not having a life partner? I don't have one is there something wrong with me?
The figures I've seen for adult sex ratios don't indicate that china (1.06:1) is anything out of the ordinary. Do you have numbers to back the assertion that there is a "life partner" issue in China due to a disproportionate ratio between the sexes?

Originally Posted by Jaar-Gilon http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=163026#post163026)
Please remember too that abortion is NOT the killing of a child.

I hoped this part of my previous post, might have covered your quotes above:

Originally Posted by Logic please http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=162690#post162690)
Much as I might not personally like the idea of abortion as a de facto gender selection device... :( I don't see any way to prevent it, if society is serious about providing safe, legal abortion on demand. No woman can, or should be forced to carry a child to term, if they don't want to, for whatever reason.

Just for clarity, I completely support women's right to safe, legal abortion on demand, whatever the reason... including the one in this case.

Yes indeed LP:) you do cover my comment, which was probably made more in general rather than directly at you.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

16th January 2011, 01:19 PM

Logic please

16th January 2011, 07:43 PM

Logic please, my apologies, I should have made my post a bit clearer than I obviously did. Only the first part of my previous post was directed to your comments. Perhaps I should have split it into at least two post. I always take the path of least resistance though.

I did not mean to dismiss your comments as a slippery slope argument. I was in fact actually making a general statement of my own position that was not explicitly directed at your comments. All I meant to say was that each level of selection of attributes needs to considered on its own merits. Selection of gender to me is perfectly acceptable though there other people who fail to perceive that selection for gender and creating a race of super humans are not necessarily in the same ball park and there is no reason why you can't allow selection for gender and still prohibit selection for other attributes.
Thanks for your post flipper, I appreciate the clarification. :) My apols also if I went a little bit "heavy" in my reply ;)

Without resiling from my preferred selection demarcation of "medical need", I do agree with you, in a fairly significant way. I accept that if a case is made for gender selection to be allowed purely on the parents' preference, that other types of preference-based genetic selection should also be allowed. This is not an argument against allowing genetic selection, per se - simply a recognition that I'm yet to be convinced of an objective difference between selecting gender, and selecting other genetic attributes (eg: why gender yes, hair colour no?). I suspect that any demarcation line drawn beyond medical need, will be largely subjective - depending on each individual's personal definition of "reasonable" genetic selection criteria.

I tend to have a bit of a preference for objective criteria, where possible ;):)

Yes indeed LP:) you do cover my comment, which was probably made more in general rather than directly at you.
No worries J-G :) I was probably reminding myself to not confuse gender selection and abortion, more than anyone else ;)

Hi KIP,:)
Sounds like the slippery slope argument again. Good on those cultural groups, let them choose boys over girls. How is it anybody's right to say they can't?
Because people can abort their fetus, having or not having medically interventional gender selection will make very little difference to the ratio of males to females because people desperate to have a certain sex will and do abort or commit infanticide till they get the sex they want "naturally". Sex selection has been occuring for thousands of years, at least now we can take the barbarity out of it.
All very good points, and reminiscent of a "harm minimisation" approach, to me. It becomes a question of whether the practice is appropriate both ethically, and for society. Once those decisions are made, then the question of medical facilitation (or not) becomes relevant, IMO.

The figures I've seen for adult sex ratios don't indicate that china (1.06:1) is anything out of the ordinary. Do you have numbers to back the assertion that there is a "life partner" issue in China due to a disproportionate ratio between the sexes?.
Recent China gender imbalance statistics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451289.stm) as reported by BBC (11/1/10):
The latest figures show that for every 100 girls born in China, 119 boys are born, the [Chinese Academy of Social Sciences] says in a new book.

As such, I cannot see how any of the above are a problems. And what is wrong with not having a life partner anyway? And IMO, China is well overpopulated anyway (over 1.3 billion (http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=china+population&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest)) so if they do end up with "life partner problems" it may bloody well be a good thing.
If you're a young, single Chinese male looking to get married, and there are insufficient potential partners available, you may find a different perspective on this ;)

And no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being single, as long as it is by "choice" (ie: don't want a partner, or "haven't found the right one yet").

Sir Patrick Crocodile

16th January 2011, 09:56 PM

If you're a young, single Chinese male looking to get married, and there are insufficient potential partners available, you may find a different perspective on this ;)Or maybe I would be looking at pr0n instead? What's the relevance here exactly? Could I not go to another country to find partners?

And no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being single, as long as it is by "choice" (ie: don't want a partner, or "haven't found the right one yet").Nobody is forcing anybody to have/not to have a partner though here, and as such I see little relevance of this to the discussion at hand.

Logic please

16th January 2011, 10:32 PM

Nobody is forcing anybody to have/not to have a partner though here, and as such I see little relevance of this to the discussion at hand.
Croc, my comment was simply in reply to the following two quotes, and made from a viewpoint of potential risk to social cohesion, not as a "forcing" issue:

What's the problem with not having a life partner? I don't have one is there something wrong with me?

And what is wrong with not having a life partner anyway?
I agree that this is heading OT, and hadn't intended to.

Or maybe I would be looking at pr0n instead? What's the relevance here exactly? Could I not go to another country to find partners?
Excellent point, and that (going to another country for partners) is probably what will happen.

Threat

20th January 2011, 04:28 PM

I was at my wife friends' place recently, a couple. One of them mentioned this news item. Not wanting to make my wife uncomfortable, I had to bite my tongue when her and her friends (an expecting couple themselves) all immediately condemned this couple in Victoria.

I believe it's totally up to the woman who is pregnant. Abort if desired for whatever reason they like. Everyone else mind their own bodies.

But it seems this case has been contentious for alot of people. Even 'pro-choice' people.

owheelj

20th January 2011, 11:58 PM

I guess I ultimately have a similar attitude to Threat, but I want to make a distinction. I support the right of people to make these kinds of choices, but I think the actual choice being made is morally wrong, and I certainly wouldn't go down that road.

However I would complicate things and say that I think there are practical grounds in which it would be fine to reject their application. For example if there is limited space and high demand, or if there are high public costs then I think only offering the service to people who are most in need of it (ie. are infertile and have no children) would be fine. In those circumstances there is either no reduction in the output of the service, and the neediest are helped, or public money is only spent on things that are actually in the public interest (and pandering to a couple's desire for a girl is not).

Perspective

23rd February 2011, 08:07 PM

Is this an arguement about abortion or sex selection?

Abortion is personal and happens for a number of reasons. I don't think it's anything that someone can regret or not regret - it's just a decision that is made for persoanl reasons that they must live with forever. I understand and I'm empathetic.

The arguement for sex selection in my opinion is completely different. I have two girls. They are healthy and wonderful and I never gave a shit whether i had boys or girls.

Men and women are equal in value. Did I seriously read in the first entry that she understands because she loves shopping with her daughter and watching her sons footy?

Hmmm....

At the end of the day - I'm just another opinion

Threat

24th February 2011, 10:55 AM

(please excuse any incorrect suffixes regarding singular/plural)

My humble opinion is that the woman's reasons don't matter. I don't see why we distinguish between a spermatozoum(?)/ ovum/ fertilised ovum that is now still 2 cells/ fertilised ovum that is now 100cells/ 10000 cells/ etc.

So if it's for sex selection, how many fertilised eggs has the woman passed out in her natural cycle? If she wants to get rid of a female foetus to have a male one, how many female ones has her body already disposed of naturally? There's no-one complaining about that, only complaining about someone being able to make a choice about it instead of chance.

Perspective

24th February 2011, 07:44 PM

Good arguement 'threat'.... at the end of the day I did say it's a personal choice and not one that we can regret or not regret.

It's a choice and each decision is made out of what we consider is important to us. Who am I to judge someone else on what they feel is the right thing to do for them... - even though I still disagree with their choice :)

stewiegriffin81

4th March 2011, 04:28 PM

stewie & RMT: If, to use stewie's example, the state should have no say in these issues, and it should be entirely the parent's business, then by what criteria would "harm", or "deficit" be determined? And who would make that decision? Going a little further, what if two deaf parents want to selectively engineer a deaf child, to maintain "family closeness and harmony", or even because they're subconsciously afraid of the child "leaving them behind"? Most, including me, would instinctively think that the state should prevent that. But that IMO, is the contradiction - I don't think there is such a thing as a completely unfettered right or choice in a situation like this. If one accepts this, then the degree of choice or state interference, becomes a relevant issue.

Hi Logicplease,

Let me begin by apologising for replying so slowly to your post. I somehow missed your reply altogether (I have no idea how, it's very strange!).

With regards to the difficult question of how to determine what constitutes harm or deficit, I would say it should be done by determining how the engineering in question affects the future ability of the individual in question to maximally participate in society (regardless of that individual may actually choose to do).

As such, things like engineering deafness constitutes a fairly clear (in my opinion) overall deficit. Being deaf automatically rules out a number of activities/careers/opportunities in society available to the individual, whereas being able to hear does not automatically exclude the individual from participating in the deaf community, or participating with their deaf parents.

Having said that, obviously there will be other examples of engineering where it will not be particularly clear if the overall effect is a benefit or a harm. Nonetheless, I don't regard that the mere fact that it is difficult to apply discrete categories (eg. legal vs illegal) to continuous variables (such as harm) should mean that it should be considered unworkable, any more than our current legal system does with regards to other human activities and harm.

Any future child would need to live with the (presumably irreversible) consequences of its parents GSA choices, permanently - good, bad or indifferent. IMO, allowing parents unrestricted GSA arguably violates the Kantian ethical principle of treating "[h]umanity as an End, never [m]erely as a Means" (ref: Shaw & Barry et al, Moral Issues in Business, pp. 68-69)

I don't agree that this is necessarily the case at all. If we take the example of genetic diseases for instance, would the medical intervention of genetic engineering constitute violating the Kantian principle any more than using non-genetic engineering medical interventions?

If anything, I'd say the genetic engineering option in these cases is the much more humane way of treating humans. Standard medical therapies are often invasive, unpleasant, and usually only borderline effective in the treatment of most genetic diseases.

I don't consider children, the "property" of their parents, and I don't accept that a child's genetic attributes, and subsequent life experiences, should be dictated by the parents, to the detailed level that GSA would permit. I'm in favour of gender selection as currently allowed by the legislation only, although I accept that I'm in the minority on this one. :)

That may be your opinion, but what of those with opposing opinions? That is, your position asks for your view to be enforced on the rest of society, whereas the pro-genetic engineering position will not and does not enforce anybody to engineer their children if they do not want it. Could you justify why this view is so important and so correct that it should be enforced on everybody?

Cheers

Logic please

8th March 2011, 10:13 AM

@stewie: thanks for your reply. I'm giving it some thought, and will reply soon. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring it, is all :)

Logic please

10th March 2011, 11:23 PM

Hi Logicplease,

Let me begin by apologising for replying so slowly to your post. I somehow missed your reply altogether (I have no idea how, it's very strange!).
No probs at all mate, thanks for clearly giving it a good deal of thought. Sorry to take a few days to reply, myself - bit busy, IRL :)

With regards to the difficult question of how to determine what constitutes harm or deficit, I would say it should be done by determining how the engineering in question affects the future ability of the individual in question to maximally participate in society (regardless of that individual may actually choose to do).

As such, things like engineering deafness constitutes a fairly clear (in my opinion) overall deficit. Being deaf automatically rules out a number of activities/careers/opportunities in society available to the individual, whereas being able to hear does not automatically exclude the individual from participating in the deaf community, or participating with their deaf parents.

Having said that, obviously there will be other examples of engineering where it will not be particularly clear if the overall effect is a benefit or a harm. Nonetheless, I don't regard that the mere fact that it is difficult to apply discrete categories (eg. legal vs illegal) to continuous variables (such as harm) should mean that it should be considered unworkable, any more than our current legal system does with regards to other human activities and harm.
All excellent points IMO, and that is as good a framework as I can think of, for making such decisions. My concern is that prospective parents may still want to argue for decisions which contravene this, or any other mandated criteria. A sufficiently robust and well designed set of criteria, backed by relevant laws, would go a long way towards allaying those personal concerns.

Any future child would need to live with the (presumably irreversible) consequences of its parents GSA choices, permanently - good, bad or indifferent. IMO, allowing parents unrestricted GSA arguably violates the Kantian ethical principle of treating "[h]umanity as an End, never [m]erely as a Means" (ref: Shaw & Barry et al, Moral Issues in Business, pp. 68-69)
I don't agree that this is necessarily the case at all. If we take the example of genetic diseases for instance, would the medical intervention of genetic engineering constitute violating the Kantian principle any more than using non-genetic engineering medical interventions?

If anything, I'd say the genetic engineering option in these cases is the much more humane way of treating humans. Standard medical therapies are often invasive, unpleasant, and usually only borderline effective in the treatment of most genetic diseases.
My bad, I haven't explained my point well enough. I wasn't saying that the choice of mode of treatment or therapy, might be "unethical". I was thinking that giving parents an unrestricted right to select attributes (regardless of method), opens the way for them to do so in purely their own interests, and without due thought and respect, for the legitimate interests of the child. In such a case, they might arguably be treating their child as a "means" to fulfil their own needs and preferences, rather than as an "end" in his/her own right.

I acknowledge that parents already have scope to do this in other ways, throughout a child's life (eg: pushy parent syndrome). My concern with unrestricted GSA is that poor choices by parents in this area, seem to me to be more integral and difficult to reverse, than other common or garden-variety parental decisions.

That may be your opinion, but what of those with opposing opinions? That is, your position asks for your view to be enforced on the rest of society, whereas the pro-genetic engineering position will not and does not enforce anybody to engineer their children if they do not want it. Could you justify why this view is so important and so correct that it should be enforced on everybody?
Absolutely, it is my opinion; I'm not claiming otherwise. At present, a somewhat similar view is already enforced on everybody, via NMHRC Ethical Guidelines (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e78syn.htm), which I'm guessing you're already familiar with:

The current guideline states that choosing embryos in IVF clinics on the basis of whether they are male or female must not be undertaken except in cases of serious genetic gender-linked conditions.
And if those guidelines were to change, I'd actually agree with you that wider GSA should be allowed:

Without resiling from my preferred selection demarcation of "medical need"... I accept that if a case is made for gender selection to be allowed purely on the parents' preference, that other types of preference-based genetic selection should also be allowed. This is not an argument against allowing genetic selection, per se - simply a recognition that I'm yet to be convinced of an objective difference between selecting gender, and selecting other genetic attributes (eg: why gender yes, hair colour no?).
Leaving aside the NMHRC Argument from Authority :o, I accept that I personally, do not have any right to impose on others. And if the interests and wishes of the parents are given priority over those of any future children, I acknowledge that my argument fails. This is what prompted this line in my previous post:
I'm in favour of gender selection as currently allowed by the legislation only, although I accept that I'm in the minority on this one. :)
And I suspect I'm still in the minority, but it's a pretty good discussion, regardless. ;)

Cheers :)

andrewk

28th March 2011, 07:59 AM

Like many others I am horrified at the couple's aborting healthy children for no better reason than a sex preference. But leaving aside the ethical viewpoint, there may be a very good economic argument for rejecting the couple's application, as follows:

My impression is that IVF services are a scarce resource, for which demand outstrips supply (this is based on casual discussions with people that have gone through it so I'm happy to be corrected on that). If so it would be a suboptimal allocation to provide those services to a couple that has a significantly greater than 50% chance (greater than because of Bayesian probability) of destroying the product of those scarce resources. It makes far better economic sense to provide the resource to someone who will make use of it with a probability close to 100%.

stewiegriffin81

22nd April 2011, 05:08 PM

Hi LogicPlease! With the holidays at hand, I now at last have enough time to give you a proper response to our discussion!

My concern is that prospective parents may still want to argue for decisions which contravene this, or any other mandated criteria. A sufficiently robust and well designed set of criteria, backed by relevant laws, would go a long way towards allaying those personal concerns.

Indeed, certainly I agree that legalising genetic engineering of humans will require an exhaustive set of well characterised laws.

My bad, I haven't explained my point well enough. I wasn't saying that the choice of mode of treatment or therapy, might be "unethical". I was thinking that giving parents an unrestricted right to select attributes (regardless of method), opens the way for them to do so in purely their own interests, and without due thought and respect, for the legitimate interests of the child. In such a case, they might arguably be treating their child as a "means" to fulfil their own needs and preferences, rather than as an "end" in his/her own right.

That is certainly possible. However, I'm not certain that being selfish in the context of creating a child is really such a bad thing that it would necessitate prohibition. The main value I have with regards to laws in general is that individual rights should only be curtailed by the state if there are significant and obvious dangers, and I don't consider being selfish or frivolous (even in something as important as having a child) as something that carries significant and obvious dangers.

One of the things I find most interesting by the majority (perhaps all?) of those who argue for the prohibition of genetic engineering is that while they argue it should be banned to ensure that children do not suffer from bad decisions made by their parents, they never follow through to the logical endpoint of that position, which is that prospective parents should be equally regulated in other ways to ensure that their bad decisions do affect their children.

That is, if it is the bad decision that is the main concern at hand, and it is so significant that it can justify prohibiting certain actions (eg. genetic engineering), why does not also justify prohibiting other certain actions?

In fact, by the same reasoning (that one should ban genetic engineering because of possible selfishness/frivolity) one could justify reversibly sterilising everybody, and only allowing those who are deemed by the state as worthy (in some sense) to be unsterilised so that they can have babies. Certainly it is the case that a penniless teenaged couple would be making a 'bad decision' in a socioeconomic sense if they were to decide to have children. Equally, couples at high risk of having genetically diseased children (eg. cystic fibrosis couples, women over 35 for Downs syndrome, etc etc) would also be making a 'bad decision' if they decided to risk having children (without screening).

So by this logic, why should one avenue of possible bad decision making be banned, but not the others? (of course, you don't need to answer this if you do not actually subscribe to this particular position!)

I acknowledge that parents already have scope to do this in other ways, throughout a child's life (eg: pushy parent syndrome). My concern with unrestricted GSA is that poor choices by parents in this area, seem to me to be more integral and difficult to reverse, than other common or garden-variety parental decisions.

I certainly agree that it would be difficult/impossible to reverse such decisions, but again, I'm not sure that this means it should be banned. As mentioned above, one could justify banning poor people from having children due to their increased risk of future crime. Should this 'poor decision' be banned though? I think most people would agree that it is not equitable, and by the same token I think it also applies to genetic engineering.

Absolutely, it is my opinion; I'm not claiming otherwise. At present, a somewhat similar view is already enforced on everybody, via NMHRC Ethical Guidelines (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e78syn.htm), which I'm guessing you're already familiar with:

And if those guidelines were to change, I'd actually agree with you that wider GSA should be allowed:

Just out of interest, do you mean to say that your position will change if the NHMRC's position changes? If so, why? I'm not certain why the mere view of this authority should sway your position so strongly

Leaving aside the NMHRC Argument from Authority :o, I accept that I personally, do not have any right to impose on others. And if the interests and wishes of the parents are given priority over those of any future children, I acknowledge that my argument fails.

ah, but what are the interests of children yet to be born????

Does leaving the conception of children to 'nature' align any more with the interests of children than specifically engineering them? I don't think there is any real way of claiming that it does...

Like many others I am horrified at the couple's aborting healthy children for no better reason than a sex preference. But leaving aside the ethical viewpoint, there may be a very good economic argument for rejecting the couple's application, as follows:

My impression is that IVF services are a scarce resource, for which demand outstrips supply (this is based on casual discussions with people that have gone through it so I'm happy to be corrected on that). If so it would be a suboptimal allocation to provide those services to a couple that has a significantly greater than 50% chance (greater than because of Bayesian probability) of destroying the product of those scarce resources. It makes far better economic sense to provide the resource to someone who will make use of it with a probability close to 100%.

Hi AndrewK,

I think the simpler solution to that issue is to simply allow IVF gender selection. That way, there are no abortions, and there are no wasted resources.

Logic please

9th May 2011, 09:54 PM

Hi stewie, thanks for your post :) and apols for the time taken to reply. :o At the pace I'm going, by the time we finish this discussion, the medical technology being discussed, might be long superseded... :D

A sufficiently robust and well designed set of criteria, backed by relevant laws, would go a long way towards allaying those personal concerns.
Indeed, certainly I agree that legalising genetic engineering of humans will require an exhaustive set of well characterised laws.
A point we can significantly agree on, it appears :)

I wasn't saying that the choice of mode of treatment or therapy, might be "unethical". I was thinking that giving parents an unrestricted right to select attributes (regardless of method), opens the way for them to do so in purely their own interests, and without due thought and respect, for the legitimate interests of the child. In such a case, they might arguably be treating their child as a "means" to fulfil their own needs and preferences, rather than as an "end" in his/her own right.
That is certainly possible. However, I'm not certain that being selfish in the context of creating a child is really such a bad thing that it would necessitate prohibition. The main value I have with regards to laws in general is that individual rights should only be curtailed by the state if there are significant and obvious dangers, and I don't consider being selfish or frivolous (even in something as important as having a child) as something that carries significant and obvious dangers.
I'm not sure that this part of our discussion addresses my original point, which referred to a Kantian ethical view of potentially treating a child as a "means" (ie: to directly fulfill a parent's needs, via direct selection of attributes) rather than valuing them as an "end" in themselves. Regardless, I acknowledge that we differ on this point, and based on our discussion to date, are unlikely to agree on it.

I acknowledge that parents already have scope to do this in other ways, throughout a child's life (eg: pushy parent syndrome). My concern with unrestricted GSA is that poor choices by parents in this area, seem to me to be more integral and difficult to reverse, than other common or garden-variety parental decisions.
In fact, by the same reasoning (that one should ban genetic engineering because of possible selfishness/frivolity) one could justify reversibly sterilising everybody, and only allowing those who are deemed by the state as worthy (in some sense) to be unsterilised so that they can have babies. Certainly it is the case that a penniless teenaged couple would be making a 'bad decision' in a socioeconomic sense if they were to decide to have children. Equally, couples at high risk of having genetically diseased children (eg. cystic fibrosis couples, women over 35 for Downs syndrome, etc etc) would also be making a 'bad decision' if they decided to risk having children (without screening).

So by this logic, why should one avenue of possible bad decision making be banned, but not the others? (of course, you don't need to answer this if you do not actually subscribe to this particular position!)

I certainly agree that it would be difficult/impossible to reverse such decisions, but again, I'm not sure that this means it should be banned. As mentioned above, one could justify banning poor people from having children due to their increased risk of future crime. Should this 'poor decision' be banned though? I think most people would agree that it is not equitable, and by the same token I think it also applies to genetic engineering.
Firstly, no, I don't subscribe to the "extended position" that you described. :D

Overall, I consider your scenarios above, a false analogy. There is a significant difference of degree between society electing not to extend a medical technology to give a couple greater reproductive options than what is "naturally" available, and a program of forced sterilisation or preventing people from exercising their reasonable reproductive rights (see below). Please treat my terminology here as purely descriptive.

Absolutely, it is my opinion; I'm not claiming otherwise. At present, a somewhat similar view is already enforced on everybody, via NMHRC Ethical Guidelines (http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e78syn.htm), which I'm guessing you're already familiar with:

And if those guidelines were to change, I'd actually agree with you that wider GSA should be allowed:
Just out of interest, do you mean to say that your position will change if the NHMRC's position changes? If so, why? I'm not certain why the mere view of this authority should sway your position so strongly
My original argument was not to simply mirror the position of the NHMRC, but noted the logical inconsistency of maintaining a stance against other forms of attributes selection, if something like gender selection becomes accepted and allowed, ie:
Without resiling from my preferred selection demarcation of "medical need", I do agree with you, in a fairly significant way. I accept that if a case is made for gender selection to be allowed purely on the parents' preference, that other types of preference-based genetic selection should also be allowed. This is not an argument against allowing genetic selection, per se - simply a recognition that I'm yet to be convinced of an objective difference between selecting gender, and selecting other genetic attributes (eg: why gender yes, hair colour no?).

Leaving aside the NMHRC Argument from Authority :o, I accept that I personally, do not have any right to impose on others. And if the interests and wishes of the parents are given priority over those of any future children, I acknowledge that my argument fails.
ah, but what are the interests of children yet to be born????

Does leaving the conception of children to 'nature' align any more with the interests of children than specifically engineering them? I don't think there is any real way of claiming that it does...
...or that it doesn't, for that matter. ;) I'm not sure that there is an objective answer to that question, apart from medical need criteria.

The interests (also referred to in the VCAT case as "welfare") of the future child, were a key determinant in the recent VCAT decision (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/couple-get-no-say-in-babys-sex/story-fn7x8me2-1226036253396) to uphold the Patient Review Panel's initial decision:
The panel - an independent, hospital-based authority - ruled that under Victoria's 2008 Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, any conflict between the welfare of the child to be born and the health of the person undergoing assisted reproduction must be resolved in favour of the child.
"They (the couple) believe having a child of the same sex as the one who died would assist their recovery from post-traumatic stress disorder, or assist their psychological health or wellbeing," the VCAT judgment read.
"The tribunal was not satisfied the matters relied upon by the applicants gave paramountcy to the welfare and interests of the child to be born."

I also referred to "reproductive rights" - the WHO view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights) of these:
Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.
From my reading of this article, WHO reproductive rights are not held to include guaranteed access to every possible reproductive technology choice. If so, arguably the couple's reproductive rights have not been violated (unlike the examples cited in your post). I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong on this point.

Even with lots of editing, probably still tl;dr. And still, it's a pretty good discussion :)

stewiegriffin81

22nd May 2011, 06:17 AM

Hi LogicPlease,

Thanks for your response, and here is my (also yet again) late response :)

I'm not sure that this part of our discussion addresses my original point, which referred to a Kantian ethical view of potentially treating a child as a "means" (ie: to directly fulfill a parent's needs, via direct selection of attributes) rather than valuing them as an "end" in themselves. Regardless, I acknowledge that we differ on this point, and based on our discussion to date, are unlikely to agree on it.

I suppose one way to explore this further without coming into too much disagreement would be to examine what you think of genetic engineering in cases where the child is (arguably) being treated as an ends in themselves. For example, if parents engineer their child to maximise their child's IQ, various athletic and creative abilities, and resistance to disease, specifically because they want the best possible life for their child, would this still constitute treating children as a means?

Additionally, what is your position of 'saviour siblings'?

In case you are not familiar, these are children selected (legally in this country) during IVF to be maximally immunologically compatible with pre-existing siblings, so that bone marrow transplants can be performed. This is specifically treating a child as a means.

Firstly, no, I don't subscribe to the "extended position" that you described. :D

Overall, I consider your scenarios above, a false analogy. There is a significant difference of degree between society electing not to extend a medical technology to give a couple greater reproductive options than what is "naturally" available, and a program of forced sterilisation or preventing people from exercising their reasonable reproductive rights (see below). Please treat my terminology here as purely descriptive.

I do agree that we (rightfully) treat not allowing an intervention to occur quite differently from forcing an intervention to occur. However, the main reason I mentioned this example (and do I agree that it is a false analogy in that sense, but I think it is correct in another that I will elaborate on) is that it simply gives an example of restricting reproductive liberty. In the sense of reproductive liberty only (ignoring the issue of forced intervention) it is identical.

I should add that specifically with your statement of things that are "naturally" available, this doesn't appear to make much sense, given that reproductive technologies are no more naturally available than genetic technologies. They may be more socially available, but that is because the laws have been deemed to be so.

Perhaps I should use an example that does not involve forced interventions:

For example, should IVF be refused to penniless teenaged women on the grounds that they are socioeconomically unlikely to be able to rise their child?

...or that it doesn't, for that matter. ;) I'm not sure that there is an objective answer to that question, apart from medical need criteria.

The interests (also referred to in the VCAT case as "welfare") of the future child, were a key determinant in the recent VCAT decision (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/couple-get-no-say-in-babys-sex/story-fn7x8me2-1226036253396) to uphold the Patient Review Panel's initial decision:

Yes, I agree with the medical need criteria as being relatively objective, and other criteria being relatively subjective. To some degree however, these kinds of ruling actually support genetic engineering of certain kinds, in that it both supports genetic engineering for diseases, but also genetic engineering designed to increase the social success of the child (for example, one could reasonably argue that being physically attractive would be in the child's interest versus being ugly, and that having an above average IQ would be in the child's interest versus having a below average IQ).

I also referred to "reproductive rights" - the WHO view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights) of these:

From my reading of this article, WHO reproductive rights are not held to include guaranteed access to every possible reproductive technology choice. If so, arguably the couple's reproductive rights have not been violated (unlike the examples cited in your post). I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong on this point.

I agree with your reading of the WHO reproductive rights. However, I don't agree that the WHO's view of reproductive rights is actually pertinent to this issue.

For example, most written instruments (including those by the UN) on other health rights don't state that individuals are entitled to any and every kind of health care possible, they merely state that humans are entitled to an adequate standard of healthcare (the WHO one doesn't, but the UN one does).

However, would an individuals right to healthcare be violated if they were not allowed to purchase more expensive and more effective healthcare? Perhaps not if one were to follow such declarations literally, but I think a more contextual interpretation on health rights would conclude that prohibiting more effective healthcare would be wrong.

The same goes for the WHO's reproductive rights. While it's true that banning genetic technologies would not violate such rights literally, I think it is a unacceptable violation of liberty otherwise. As such, I don't actually agree with the WHO's reproductive rights in that sense.

I should also mention that exactly what a given authority states on what constitutes a right is probably not the best thing to mention any, as I think it has a tendency to side track matters (eg. we then must determine if what they have said is correct or true in a sense etc.)