Right: Melbourne academic Julian Savulescu says that Western families' main concern for a "balanced family" is ethical, as it would not result in a gender imbalance in the wider community.
.
Arguments against Australian parents using IVF to select the gender of their children
1. A substantial majority of Australians are opposed to IVF being used to allow parents to select the gender of their child
This is not an option which the majority of Australians believe should be available to parents; therefore, to the extent that laws and regulations are an expression of popular values, it has been argued Australia should not make IVF available for the gender selection of children.
In December 2010 research led by Dr Rebecca Kippen (a University of Melbourne demographer) found that 80 per cent of people are against sex-selective abortions and 67 per cent are against the use of IVF for sex selection.
The findings are based on responses from more than 2,500 people in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, and a series of in-depth parental interviews. In addition to rejecting abortion and IVF being used to select for the sex of a child, 89 per cent of respondents were also opposed to the use of any hypothetical technology which might make it possible to select the sex of a child before conception (the so-called pink or blue pill option.)
Dr Kippen stated, We found a very high opposition to all three methods of sex selection. Dr Kippen went on to explain, Opposition to these technologies was grounded in three major concerns: the potential for distorted sex ratios; that sex selection can be an expression of gender bias; and a concern about designer infants being created, when parents should be happy with a healthy baby.
Both major political parties are also opposed to the use of IVF to select the gender of a child for any reason other than preventing the passing on of a sex-linked disease or disability.
In March 2010 the federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, stated that the federal government was not pushing for a ban on baby gender selection technology to be lifted and she personally was very uncomfortable with the proposal. She repeated this view in July 2010. At the same time the office of the federal Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, stated that he was on the record as being opposed to using IVF sex selection technology for social or family balancing reasons.
2. Gender selection reduces the value parents attach to their children
Opponents of the gender selection of children argue that it represents a misplacement of values. According to this line of argument children are to be valued in their own right, not as an expression of the gender preference of their parents.
The Australian Health Ethics Committee has stated that admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex. While the National Health and Medical Research Council has based its opposition to the use of IVF procedures for gender selection in part on the fact that the parent-child relationship should be unconditional. The council further stated, sex selection is incompatible with the parent-child relationship being one that involves unconditional acceptance.
Rebecca Wilson in an opinion piece published in The herald Sun on January 10, 2011, stated, The notion that women are terminating babies just because they are the "wrong" sex is abhorrent. Having babies is not like exchanging a bad Christmas present. Greedy consumerism should not be applied to embryos
Aborting twin boys and then being handed the right to have a female is modern science out of control. Being given what you want from IVF technology is an extension of the greed is good philosophy. This is not about shopping for the perfect plasma screen television
Having babies is not about picking and choosing. It is about the beautiful surprise of childbirth and the gift of healthy children.
The instance of a Melbourne couple who had IVF male twins aborted because they already had two sons has led some commentators to suggest that this demonstrates the manner in which the worth of individual lives can be diminished. In a letter published in The Courier Mail on January 10, Kerry Lawson stated, My heart breaks for the three living sons they have been blessed with. No matter how much they love their boys, the subtle message being conveyed is that their maleness is not valued.
3. Gender selection may entrench gender prejudice
National Health and Medical Research Council has stated, Sex selection may be an expression of sexual prejudice, in particular against girls.
It has been argued that allowing parents to give expression to this form of prejudice is both inequitable (as it assumes that one gender is in fact preferable to another) and could have adverse social consequences, leading to a gender imbalance and to the further entrenchment of prejudicial treatment of the less favoured gender.
In an opinion piece published in The Punch on January 10, 2011, Sam Cleveland stated, Regardless of the circumstances outside the womb, the very act of choosing gender can be seen as a perverse form of sex discrimination its already clear globally that the capacity to choose gender swings birth rates towards males.
Sam Cleveland went on to note, Widespread gender selection brings with it some pretty serious demographic imbalances, which were already seeing in China and India where boy babies are more valued than girl babies.
This quaint cultural standard will, according to the Chinese government, give China 30 million more men of marriageable age than women by 2020.
Sociologists have linked this imbalance to an increased demand for prostitution, a return to dowries or the selling of brides and social problems among unpaired men.
A background paper issued in July 2003 by the United Kingdoms Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and titled, Sex Selection included the following statistics, Chinese census data show that 20 years ago there were 108 boys under the age of 5 for every 100 girls, and that by 2000 this ratio had shifted to 117 boys to 100 girls [Data from] more prosperous regions [showed] ratios of up to 135 boys for every 100 girls.
It has been argued that in different cultures a gender prejudice could just as easily favour girls over boys.
The July 2003 United Kingdom parliamentary background paper further noted, It is interesting that 80% of parents approaching MicroSort clinics in the US want a girl. The reasons for this preference for girls have not been explored but some clinics suggest that it is linked to the improved status of women in US society and a belief that girls are easier to raise.
4. IVF was not developed to allow parents to discriminate between one child and another
It has been claimed that using IVF to allow parents to select for a particular gender of child is contrary to the rationale for which the procedure was developed and then made available to the public.
According to this line of argument the purpose of IVF is to allow otherwise infertile couples to have an opportunity to have children. Any use of the procedure by fertile couples to pick the particular type of child whom they will give birth to or by infertile couples who will only accept a particular type of child is seen as contrary to the purpose for which the medical technology was developed.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission released its Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) review in 2007. The review expressed serious reservations about any use of this technology to select the gender of a child. The Commission argued that the purpose of ART is to help people who cannot otherwise have children or whose children would be disadvantaged without the technology. Sex selection for non-medical reasons does not fit within this criterion, and diverts medical resources to a non-medical purpose. Public funding for non-medical sex selection is difficult to justify.
5. Gender selection could lead to using technology to achieve the prefect child
There are those who are concerned that the discretionary use of IVF to supply a couple with a child of the gender they prefer could lead to parents attempting to select children on the basis of other attributes such as intelligence, sporting ability or appearance.
Some see this as the thin edge of a discriminatory wedge which could lead to attempts to remove all variation from the human species and effectively eliminate conditions or attributes currently considered undesirable.
It has been suggested that the popularisation of such attitudes through some parents use of IVF to engineer the child of their choice could lead to heightened discrimination against those born with any sort of disability or perceived imperfection.
A background paper issued in July 2003 by the United Kingdoms Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and titled, Sex Selection included the following judgement, There is considerable debate in the media about designer babies, predicting that developments in genetics will allow parents to specify the type of child that they want. Many groups, including religious groups, regard sex selection to be the first (unacceptable) step along this pathway.
The background paper further noted, There is concern from disability groups that sex selection technology will be used to select against progressively milder conditions (an extreme example of this would be colour blindness). The definition of serious disease is not an issue specific to sex selection but applies to any medical intervention that aims to avoid the birth of people with disabilities.
Already in the United States parents of IVF babies are screening embryos for a wide range of conditions, some of which might be regarded as of relatively minor significance. In 2006 Slate reported the story of an American patient who plans to screen her embryos for an arthritis gene. The online magazine went on to note, The probability that the gene will cause the disease is only 20 percent, and if it does, the disease is highly manageable.