How governments conceptualize and deal with sex selection will have serious implications for the future, regardless of current cases of sex selection. Zarutskie et al., The Clinical Relevance of Sex Selection Techniques, 52 FERTILITY & STERILITY see also Austin L. Current in vivo posteonceptive sex selection methods involve learning the sex of a developing embryo or fetus, followed by abortion if it is "wrong sex.
Despite all this, it is fairly widely accepted that no one knows the true extent of sex selection abortions in the US surveys. The 120 remaining couples selected genders that were complementary to the genders they had at home, suggesting that gender balance could be one of the biggest motivations for gender selection in the US. For example, laws banning sex selection through abortion have been passed in Pennsylvania and Illinois.
SEX SELECTION: PROS AND CONS
In Arkansas, for example, a recent amendment to the state constitution essentially defines the beginning of life as the time of conception.79 Since such a definition could provide a mechanism to justify significant restrictions on in vitro, as well as abortion, sex selection, subsequent legislation may just as easily ban sex selection for the purpose of avoiding a sex-linked disease as for non-medical purposes. Of course, parents are not the only interested parties, and gender selection can provide some benefits to selected children and society as well. Grenier, The Economics of Sex Preference and Sex Selection, in SEX SELECTION OF CHILDREN 113 (Neil G. Bennett ed., 1983).
The most extreme perspective on sex selection that criticizes its use is one that sees it as fundamentally evil, a wrong so intrinsically heinous that it violates all principles of fairness, equal love and parenting.8 Proponents of this natural law view are against sex selection because they believe: it is unnatural, it plays God, it is inherently sexist, and, if accomplished through abortion, it is completely immoral." These rigid moral perspectives have already inspired considerable debate.'' A less extreme and a more utilitarian perspective on sex selection that criticizes its use emphasizes adverse consequences. In context, the costs to a parent of sex selection may include, among other things, the purchase of the necessary technology and services, the time involved (especially if repeated attempts are required ), and the "psychic" cost of overcoming any remaining debt.
For some, gender selection is “the original sexist sin.” Tabitha Powledge, Unnatural Selection: On Choosing Child Sex, in THE CUSTOM-MADE CHILD. First, he argues that 'prima facie examination of any argument for sex selection cannot overcome the unfair and sexist basis of a choice to select the sex of a child. The hypothesis that sex selection could reduce population in less developed or overpopulated countries cannot be proven. without violating the ethical principles of honesty and beneficence." ID card.
For women, some feel that the act of sex selection necessarily exacerbates already unfair sex discrimination, both because women are treated as perfect child-making machines and because boys are preferred over girls. Potter, Sex Selection Through Amniocentesis and Selective Abortion, in SEX SELECTION OF CHILDREN 47 (Neil G. Bennett ed., 1983).
EXISTING APPROACHES: NON- INTERVENTION OR PROHIBITION
34; On the one hand, banning gender selection compromises reproductive freedom, perhaps leading to further restrictions. Proponents of what can be loosely termed "doctors advise against". approach against legal prohibition, but favors the prevention of sex selection behavior through deterrence by the medical community. Other authors also stopped advocating a legal ban because. laws prohibiting abortion for sex selection are only appropriate where there is evidence of abuse of the medical indications for prenatal diagnosis.
Where there is no abuse, laws banning abortions based on sex selection are not only unnecessary, but can also set harmful precedents that limit abortion choices.” Many argue that physicians should combat sex selection by trying to discourage potential selectors, or even by deliberately omitting gender. For example, two researchers in this field not only suggested that prenatal diagnosis for sex selection “should be avoided” except in the context of gender-related diseases) but recommended that [if patients have a genetic reason for diagnosis and also show excessive interest in gender of the fetus, geneticists may consider delayed gender disclosure after timely disclosure of clinical findings.”4.
Reasoning that "renatal diagnosis for a nonmedical reason makes a mockery of medical ethics," these two advocate "the judicious use of hospital and laboratory policy" to prevent sex selection." 1 17 Second, those who consider sex selection sexists would have been invited to optimal sites to lecture on doctors' opposition to sex selection. In fact, legislation has already been passed in Illinois and Pennsylvania to outlaw sex-selection abortions.
Yet most of the reasons given for banning sex selection in the context of abortion extend equally to all sex selection behavior, suggesting that one should view this model of prohibition as a future vitality for sex selection in general. Shaibley, mll, Abortion by Sex Selection: A Constitutional Analysis of Abortion Freedom and a Person's Right to Know, 56 IND.
CRITIQUING EXISTING APPROACHES
A Venn diagram of abortion procedures and sex selection procedures would show two circles that overlap slightly. Little attention, however, has been paid to the separate but related issue of modern preconception sex selection. After consideration, we can conclude that the mix of advocates of banning gender selection contains:.
The absolutists in each camp, for whom the meaning of gender selection is independent of the frequency with which it occurs, cannot be satisfied with compromise. The eventual occurrence of gender selection could cause demographic shifts and corresponding disruption of unknown, but ominous, proportions. The second part of the two-part investigation, which looks for evidence indicating that gender selection is a basic societal value, requires more investigation.
However, a careful reading of Case suggests that the Court would not link abortion and sex selection in a deterministic way. At the same time, regarding bodily integrity, abortion and sex selection cannot be completely mixed. While the denial of sex selection is less intrusive than that of abortion, the state interest is also less important.
It is logical to recognize, for example, that the consequences of sex selection are not yet apparent. As a matter of time, then, it is not obvious that the consequences of gender selection can only be effectively addressed by immediate and aggressive government action. The laws enacted or proposed typically prohibit any abortion that the practitioner knows is being requested solely for the purpose of sex selection.'".
However, there are at least four reasons why gender selection should not be left to doctors alone.
PROPOSALS: REGULATION FOR CONSEQUENTIALISTS
Many assume that whether people will do so depends solely on the existence of gender selection procedures and gender preferences. All of these methods are, of course, designed to limit the supply of sex selection procedures. First, it may reduce the demand for sex selection procedures by increasing the cost of an excise tax.
Since neither the provider nor the consumer pays these costs, the demand for gender selection is greater than if consumers themselves had to bear the full cost of unwanted side effects. Left alone, market forces would normally bring about a balance between supply and demand for sex selection procedures. It therefore follows that those who will decide to choose sex despite the tax personally "value" sex choice more than those who renounce sex choice.
A decrease in the number of people who want sex selection results in a corresponding decrease in the number of sex selection procedures actually performed. This, however, depends on an estimate of how many individuals are harmed by sex selection (quantitative analysis) and in what relative sizes (qualitative analysis). If the tax effectively achieves actual sex-selection processes, then low income means low use.
If the income indicates that sex selection is widely used, or increases over time, the tax. Significantly, it ultimately puts the intrusive power of government in lock-step with the ebb and flow of sex-selection. The specification of the object determines the comprehensiveness of the regulation, while the specification of the quantity determines how often sex selection is practiced.
The use of gender selection technology does not seem to differ in any significant way: The emphasis is still one of the characteristics and not of the existence of the child.
CONCLUSION
The first claim concerns the very existence of a child, the second concerns merely the manipulation of one characteristic of that child, namely its gender. The manipulation of this characteristic of a child with money, which necessarily reduces the ability of the poor to exercise control, is not much different from similar situations currently occurring where no argument for equal protection is presented. For example, wealthy parents can more easily and dramatically influence the quality, scope, status, and exclusivity of their children's education than poor parents.
This control over education is then typically simply an unquestionable opportunity to influence a trait or manifestation of a child with money. Moreover, while limiting access to gender selection through price increases may appear unfair in part, it is relatively less so than doing so for other goods. For example, inability to afford sex choice may not provide a viable cause for alarm or subsidy when more tangibly important items such as homes, jobs and even nutritious food remain unaffordable for many.
Thus, a regulatory mechanism such as CEET is a constitutional tool available to reduce the demand for and consequences of gender selection without jeopardizing the freedom to choose gender.
