Various opponents of gender selection argue that it should not be practiced because the modification is discriminatory, unnecessary, and unnatural. First, these individuals believe the process could be a form of gender discrimination. Newsweek scientific writers Claudia Kalb and Karen Springen believe that selecting one sex over the other could become today’s form of sexism (Kalb and Springen par. 4). In addition, another viewpoint is that gender selection is cosmetic driven and purely unnecessary. An official at Wayne State University School of Medicine named Dr. Mark Hughes asserts, "The last time I checked, your gender wasn't a disease. There is no illness, no suffering and no reason for a physician to be involved” (qtd. in Kalb and Springen par. 9). Also, other opponents argue that gender selection changes the definition of procreation. In other words, the opposition made is that reproduction should be a natural process that is not shaped by a parent’s desire but by random chance (Egendorf par. 22). Consequently, these critics believe that a baby should only be developed from the result of sexual intercourse through a man and a woman. But above all, these purely predictive and significantly miniscule arguments are outweighed by the benefits of gender selection.
The selection of a child’s gender before birth should be legal because it is a natural desire and a beneficial procedure. Humans in cultures around the world have always wanted to be able to select their child’s gender. Kalb and Springen state, “Throughout history, humans have wished for a child of one sex or the other and have been willing to do just about anything to get it” (par. 3). In making this comment, Kalb and Springen urge opponents of gender selection to realize that the practice is a simple want. If individuals were allowed to certainly know the gender of their offspring, they may be more content with producing a child. Consequently, the decision to select gender could lead to less abortions (Kalb and Springen par. 11). One counterargument still made is that the practice could skew the gender ratio. Although, currently, this argument is unsubstantiated because there is no evidence that gene editing would cause an imbalance (Dahl par. 23). However, the procedure would lead to a reduction in overpopulation (Kalb and Springen par. 11). Furthermore, using new gene editing techniques is simply an updated method of currently used processes.
Gender selection should be licit because it is has been already been used for years: just in a more difficult process. Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg explains that for 20 years, he and others have been gender sorting sperm without any regulations (Kalb and Springen par. 8). However, now with the updated technique, Steinberg can more easily and accurately select the gender of a child (Kalb and Springen par. 8). Also, some countries have already implemented the use of gender selection through gene engineering. In February, the United Kingdom supported the procedure to edit genes in human embryos (Smaglik par. 6). Inevitably, critics will argue that the permittance of gender selection will be the first step to the legalization of all gene editing.
The selection of a child’s gender before birth should be legal because it is a natural desire and a beneficial procedure. Humans in cultures around the world have always wanted to be able to select their child’s gender. Kalb and Springen state, “Throughout history, humans have wished for a child of one sex or the other and have been willing to do just about anything to get it” (par. 3). In making this comment, Kalb and Springen urge opponents of gender selection to realize that the practice is a simple want. If individuals were allowed to certainly know the gender of their offspring, they may be more content with producing a child. Consequently, the decision to select gender could lead to less abortions (Kalb and Springen par. 11). One counterargument still made is that the practice could skew the gender ratio. Although, currently, this argument is unsubstantiated because there is no evidence that gene editing would cause an imbalance (Dahl par. 23). However, the procedure would lead to a reduction in overpopulation (Kalb and Springen par. 11). Furthermore, using new gene editing techniques is simply an updated method of currently used processes.
Gender selection should be licit because it is has been already been used for years: just in a more difficult process. Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg explains that for 20 years, he and others have been gender sorting sperm without any regulations (Kalb and Springen par. 8). However, now with the updated technique, Steinberg can more easily and accurately select the gender of a child (Kalb and Springen par. 8). Also, some countries have already implemented the use of gender selection through gene engineering. In February, the United Kingdom supported the procedure to edit genes in human embryos (Smaglik par. 6). Inevitably, critics will argue that the permittance of gender selection will be the first step to the legalization of all gene editing.