Autonomy and sexism.
According to John Stuart Mill, when it comes to autonomy and liberty in democratic countries, restriction can be only posed when it affects the freedom of others. Sex-selection is considered by many as a private matter, harmless to other individuals and therefore acceptable.
However, many argue that gender choosing can be a possible “harm” for both sex-selected children and society as a whole (Jackson, 2013). Individuals embraced for their gender may be psychologically burdened by the realization that they have been chosen solely for that purpose. They might be brought up in a prejudiced way, trying to live up to their parents’ expectations (Kanellopoulou, 2004). This is problematic, since it contradicts the virtue of parental acceptance, which is linked with the flourishing of the child. Every naturally conceived individual has unpredictable characteristics. When the gender is perquisite for parental recognition, the altruistic aforementioned virtue is disturbed (McDougall, 2005). Moreover, it is possible that existing …show more content…
The threat to liberal democracy is much more realistic. Defenders of gender selection do not attempt to restrict anyone’s freedom, whereas opponents are. There is therefore a fear that by formalizing the absoluteness of the majority, the democratic principle of autonomy will be endangered (Harris, 2005).
As a result, many have argued that restriction should not be unconditional, suggesting that sex-selection as part of “family-balancing”, should be acceptable. Supporter of this view is the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which perceives this idea as a method of promoting “gender variety” within a family. Israel seems to have a similar stance, permitting sex selection in case there are three individuals of the same gender within a family, but no offspring of the other (Jackson,
According to John Stuart Mill, when it comes to autonomy and liberty in democratic countries, restriction can be only posed when it affects the freedom of others. Sex-selection is considered by many as a private matter, harmless to other individuals and therefore acceptable.
However, many argue that gender choosing can be a possible “harm” for both sex-selected children and society as a whole (Jackson, 2013). Individuals embraced for their gender may be psychologically burdened by the realization that they have been chosen solely for that purpose. They might be brought up in a prejudiced way, trying to live up to their parents’ expectations (Kanellopoulou, 2004). This is problematic, since it contradicts the virtue of parental acceptance, which is linked with the flourishing of the child. Every naturally conceived individual has unpredictable characteristics. When the gender is perquisite for parental recognition, the altruistic aforementioned virtue is disturbed (McDougall, 2005). Moreover, it is possible that existing …show more content…
The threat to liberal democracy is much more realistic. Defenders of gender selection do not attempt to restrict anyone’s freedom, whereas opponents are. There is therefore a fear that by formalizing the absoluteness of the majority, the democratic principle of autonomy will be endangered (Harris, 2005).
As a result, many have argued that restriction should not be unconditional, suggesting that sex-selection as part of “family-balancing”, should be acceptable. Supporter of this view is the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which perceives this idea as a method of promoting “gender variety” within a family. Israel seems to have a similar stance, permitting sex selection in case there are three individuals of the same gender within a family, but no offspring of the other (Jackson,