Many people believe that a person's sexual orientation is genetic. Given the widespread prejudice against, and hatred of, homosexuals in many societies, it seems likely that many parents will be interested in using genetic technologies to prevent the birth of children who will not be heterosexual. This paper considers the moral and legal implications of such procedures (whether or not they would work). It is argued that the availability of procedures to select the sexual orientation of children would contribute to (...) discrimination and prejudice against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals and, more generally, undermine the maintenance of a just society. These effects carry significant weight in determining whether genetic technologies should be developed and whether their use is, or should be, legally permissible and morally acceptable. (shrink)

This article explores the moral significance of technology, reviewing a microfluidic chip for sperm sorting and its use for non-medical sex selection. I explore how a specific material setting of this new iteration of pre-pregnancy sex selection technology—with a promised low cost, non-invasive nature and possibility to use at home—fosters new and exacerbates existing ethical concerns. I compare this new technology with the existing sex selection methods of sperm sorting and Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis. Current ethical and political debates on emerging (...) technologies predominantly focus on the quantifiable risk-and-benefit logic that invites an unequivocal “either-or” decision on their future and misses the contextual ethical impact of technology. The article aims to deepen the discussion on sex selection and supplement it with the analysis of the new technology’s ethical potential to alter human practices, perceptions and the evaluative concepts with which we approach it. I suggest that the technological mediation approach can be useful to ethically contextualize technologies and highlight the value of such considerations for the informed deliberation regarding their use, design and governance. (shrink)

Sex selection, which refers to the attempt to choose or control the sex of a child prior to its birth, has become the subject of increasing ethical scrutiny and many jurisdictions have criminalized it except for serious sex-linked diseases or conditions that cannot easily be ameliorated or remedied. This paper argues that such a blanket prohibition is ethically unwarranted because it is based on a flawed understanding of the difference between sexist values and mere sex-oriented preferences. It distinguishes between ethics (...) and public policy, and suggests a way of allowing preference-based sex selection as a matter of public policy without permitting value-based sex selection. It further argues that medically-based sex selection should be publicly funded but that preference-base sex selection should not be paid for by society, and that the prohibition against value-based sex selection should be enforced through legislation that controls the licensing of health care facilities and through disciplinary procedures against health care professionals. (shrink)

This paper examines dominant arguments advocating for the procreative right to undergo sex selection for social reasons, based on gender preference. I present four of the most recognized and common justifications for sex selection: the argument from natural sex selection, the argument from procreative autonomy, the argument from family balancing, and the argument from children’s well-being. Together these represent the various means by which scholars aim to defend access to sex selection for social reasons as a legitimate procreative choice. In (...) response, I contend that these justifications are flawed and often inconsistent and therefore fail to vindicate the practice. (shrink)

Zwischen Medizinethik und Behindertenbewegung besteht Uneinigkeit darüber, ob von einer Diskriminierung von behinderten Menschen durch biomedizinische Verfahren, wie der Pränatal- und der Präimplantationsdiagnostik, gesprochen werden kann. Dieser Konflikt beruht u. a. darauf, dass sich gesellschaftspolitische und ethische Argumente oft auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen bewegen. Während in der Ethik danach gefragt wird, ob durch die genannten Verfahren unmittelbar individuelle Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen verletzt werden, scheint es der Behindertenbewegung um die Verletzung des kollektiven Anspruches auf kulturelle Anerkennung zu gehen. Mit der (...) Unterscheidung verschiedener Anerkennungsverhältnisse in zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen beabsichtigt der Beitrag, einen Rahmen für das Verständnis der Anliegen der Behindertenbewegung bereitzustellen. Daran anschließend wird eine Ethikkonzeption skizziert, die geeignet ist, die Argumente der Behindertenbewegung für eine konstruktive ethische Diskussion fruchtbar zu machen. (shrink)