Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, Part 5

~Our next lecture in the course is about gender selection.  The first major idea is that despite technological advances in reproductive technology, gender selection has been going on for a very, very long time, usually in favor of male children.  Many societies, both past and present, either overtly or subtly favor having male children, or at least more males than females.  There are many reasons for this: the need for a male heir to carry on the family line, a greater perceived usefulness of a man in a labor-intensive and/or violent society, an unwillingness to pay a dowry for a daughter, and (perhaps most importantly) the tradition of sons caring for their parents in their old age.

For most of human history, the practice of gender "selection" was simple and brutal: infanticide (often by exposure).  But within the last few decades, the widespread availability of ultrasound technology has enabled gender identification in relatively early stages of pregnancy, widely influencing the decision of whether or not to abort.  Although many regard abortion as morally equivalent to murder, there are many who don't, and even for those that are squeamish, it's presumably less agonizing to abort an unborn child than it is to kill a newborn infant.

With this technology has come a significant and subtly dangerous side-effect: a gender imbalance in some societies.  The two nations most affected are India and China; the latter was especially affected by the One Child policy instituted in 1979 to control China's rapidly-rising population.  When you combine a society in which families need a son for a variety of cultural and economic reasons, with a policy harshly penalizing families that have more than one child, you end up with a lot of boys, and fewer girls.  Adding to the problem of gender imbalance is the transfer of unwanted girls to foreign parents via adoption; 99% of such foreign adoptions are of girls.

Although the One Child policy has been largely phased out, the gender gap was created over decades and has yet to play out.  But is a gender imbalance in a given population really a problem?   Consider this:  In 2009, for every 100 girls born in China, 119.5 boys were born (the usual ratio is 105:100).  By 2020, the nation is expected to have 24 million men of marriageable age unable to find a wife.  The effects are already being seen: a rise in the trafficking of women from other countries, increased migration (and overpopulation) from rural to urban areas, economic strains as elderly single men have no family to support them, and possible correlations to increases in crime.  While some have argued that the gender gap helps empower women (as they are in a better bargaining position for selecting a mate), others have argued the opposite (i.e. the aforementioned trafficking of women).

I think it's reasonable to assume that a healthy society has a fairly equal ratio of males to females.  Significant gender gaps correlate to societal problems, while extreme gender gaps (often the subject of speculative fiction), are disastrous.

The problem is widely recognized, and there have been steps to correct the ratio.  For example, China has outlawed sex-selective abortions (although the problem persists), and the nation is attempting to reform its pension system (leaving the elderly less dependent on sons to care for them in their dotage).  Assuming gender-imbalanced nations can weather their gap-related issues, I think (hope?) the problem will eventually solve itself as cultures mature towards equality of the sexes, where girls are as valued just as much as boys.

Now, consider this question: given the effects of a gender imbalance, is sex selection ever ethically acceptable?  I think many people, especially readers from Western nations, would quickly come to the conclusion that it is not, and that it should be illegal (or at least severely frowned upon), even for pre-pregnancy procedures such as In-Vitro Fertilization.  However, remember that it's very, very easy to judge others when we ourselves are not faced with the same problems.

Imagine a poor farming family in rural India with several daughters and no sons.  To have the girls marry well, dowries must be paid, and the family has no savings or pension for their impending old age, and equally-poor relatives.  If the means are available, can we really blame the parents for ensuring their next-born child is a boy?   The course presented another difficult scenario: a married woman in a misogynist culture (I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia), who has given birth to several daughters, angering her potentially-violent husband who wants a male heir.  Can we really blame her for using assistive technology to ensure her next child is a son?  Is sex selection always wrong, or are there cases when it might be acceptable?

Summary:

• Gender selection is an old issue that has been a problem for a long time, and some cultures are still adjusting to its effects.  Although the morality of the issue may seem clear-cut to many, as with so many ethical issues, it's important to take personal and cultural realities into account before we condemn.

• A better approach to the problem is to focus on the underlying societal pressures which cause parents to practice sex selection, rather than condemning the practice outright.  For example, pension reforms to support the elderly in developing nations, giving parents there less reason to prefer having a boy.