Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Chance or Choice - Why Not Pick Our Children's Gender?

Chance or Choice - Why Not Pick Our Children's Gender? Open Pe er C ommentaries Chance o r Choice Ð Why N ot Pick Our Childrens’ Gender? Gregory Sto ck, University of C alifornia a t Lo s An geles John Robertson suggests that preconception sex s election paper splitting hairs about potential sexism in gender se- (PSS), the budding technology of s perm so rting, embodies lection without focusing on how much it would con ict a dilemma between “individual desires and the larger with a woman’s r ight to m ake her own reproductive common g ood” and could “acceler ate the trend toward ge- choices. The omission is s erious, because as l ong as a bor- netic selection of of fspring characteristics” (Ro bertson tion for g ender selection is leg al, the argument for t he pro- 2001). hibition of PSS is more dif cult. The dilemma of PSS is mo re a ccurately one between The technology of PSS allo ws us to m ove b eyond abor- choice and chance in the determination of our children. tion politics and look directly at the heart of the issue of Widespread conscious selection of the genetic constitu- gender selection: should parents be allowed to http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Bioethics Taylor & Francis

Chance or Choice - Why Not Pick Our Children's Gender?

American Journal of Bioethics , Volume 1 (1): 2 – Jan 1, 2001
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/chance-or-choice-why-not-pick-our-children-apos-s-gender-H200GPnNr0

References (1)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1536-0075
eISSN
1526-5161
DOI
10.1162/152651601750079005
pmid
11808591
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Open Pe er C ommentaries Chance o r Choice Ð Why N ot Pick Our Childrens’ Gender? Gregory Sto ck, University of C alifornia a t Lo s An geles John Robertson suggests that preconception sex s election paper splitting hairs about potential sexism in gender se- (PSS), the budding technology of s perm so rting, embodies lection without focusing on how much it would con ict a dilemma between “individual desires and the larger with a woman’s r ight to m ake her own reproductive common g ood” and could “acceler ate the trend toward ge- choices. The omission is s erious, because as l ong as a bor- netic selection of of fspring characteristics” (Ro bertson tion for g ender selection is leg al, the argument for t he pro- 2001). hibition of PSS is more dif cult. The dilemma of PSS is mo re a ccurately one between The technology of PSS allo ws us to m ove b eyond abor- choice and chance in the determination of our children. tion politics and look directly at the heart of the issue of Widespread conscious selection of the genetic constitu- gender selection: should parents be allowed to

Journal

American Journal of BioethicsTaylor & Francis

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.