Sex Selection

[IanWatson]

The fruit of the womb is God's provenance and we should not try to manipulate it in any way, shape, or form. To do so is to usurp his power and take it for yourself. Utter blasphemy In my humble opinion.

What about tylenol? People use that to minupulate nature.
If an issue is not clearly stated or implied in scripture than it should be a matter of conscience. If this affects your conscience you should not do it. But I would not call it blasphemy.

 

[IanWatson]

But i personally would not do it.

 

[larryjf]

What about tylenol? People use that to minupulate nature.

Interesting point. I would suggest that taking tylenol implies that pain is bad and something to be avoided. Choosing one gender over the other implies that one gender is superior to the other on some level.

 

[IanWatson]

http://www.microsort.net/




It's not so much that you can point to a specific law against it in scripture, but it is a matter of the state of ones heart and faith in God that shows forth. Trying to wrest control of your life from God and his providence, trying to be sovereign in your own life when it is not your own. We have been bought with a price.

God is sovereign no matter what we do. We cannot change God's providence.

 

[Theoretical]

Interesting point. I would suggest that taking tylenol implies that pain is bad and something to be avoided. Choosing one gender over the other implies that one gender is superior to the other on some level.

That's a good distinction between something that is a negative and consequence of the Fall and making a judgment of inherent superiority (in terms of inherent worth) in the area of gender where there is none to be made, since both men and women are made in the image of God.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Boys and girls are different. This difference matters to different families and cultures. It is totalitarian for a state to control procreation, but I don’t think this means sex selection is wrong in itself, but only that it can lead to social ills if abused on a wide scale. In Asia this could perhaps be a problem. To play devil’s advocate, Savulescu says that “advantages which have been postulated [of disturbed sex ratios] include increase in the influence of the rarer sex, reduced population growth and interbreeding of different populations”.

As far as the superiority claim goes, to quote S. again, “a false belief in the inferiority of women is not a product of sex selection – sex selection is the product of that belief. Education and improving social and employment arrangements for women are more important in correcting these false beliefs than preventing sex selection.”

Also in many cases of sex selection in Asia, abortion and infanticide is used. But then emotional attachments start to get into the argument. Sex selection in such cultures could cause problems, but in places like the US and UK most people would like to use it for family balancing. That is, have an equal number boys and girls, or something to that effect. Especially in such cases as family balancing, I don’t see how the argument from ‘superiority’ can get through.

 

[larryjf]

Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean they should have it.

If a family wants to be balanced and have equal girls and boys, does that mean that they should have a balanced family?

What if after they have the family they change their minds on the importance of balance?

We are not omniscient so we have no way of telling what our future holds. If we choose to have only girls because we live in a culture that looks down on boys...what would happen if in the near future we move to a culture that looks down on girls? Then our whole argument for choosing the gender is thrown out the window.

Say we think a balanced family is the way to go because we think children will end up better socially acclimated. And later studies come out that prove they do worse socially. Once again our reasons for choosing are thrown out the window.

As fallen creatures we are always trying to take matters into our own hands...this is just more of the same.

 

[Augusta]

What about tylenol? People use that to minupulate nature.
If an issue is not clearly stated or implied in scripture than it should be a matter of conscience. If this affects your conscience you should not do it. But I would not call it blasphemy.

Hello Ian, I have already addressed this above. You cannot pigeon hole my stance into an anti-medical interventionist stance. God did give us dominion over creation. Plants, animals, etc. are ours to do with as we please aside from breaking God's laws of course.

It is when people move in on manipulating the birth process that I believe they are overstepping their bounds.

 

[Augusta]

Ask the Chinese.

The Chinese have had a one child rule for a while and the desire for male children has combined in a judgment that will show their folly for what it is in the judgment they are reaping now. Many female babies were aborted or killed in infancy.

There are too many men and not enough women. There are already reports of women being kidnapped and the bow wave of this problem has not even hit yet.

I have a good friend who speculates that part of the reason for Middle Eastern violence is sexual frustration. Sure, everybody is ticked off but it's always young men with too much testoterone that are usually dumb enough to blow themselves up. Middle age men just don't commit like that anymore. The whole dynamic of the angry youth is fueled, in no small part, by the fact that some of them cannot marry because some of the more well-to-do, who can provide for multiple wives, take them "off the market" so to speak.

Wives and families are a calming and moderating influence for young men. China is going to reap the whirlwind for their stupidity and sin and its coming pretty quickly. This factor, combined with their increasing stress on the oil in the Middle East, is reason for long term concern.

This is a good point. We know from history that too few women can lead to kidnapping. Just look at the rape of the Sabine women. It's a comical story but it was because of too many men without the stablilizing effect of wives and families that Romulus instigated the whole affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

 

[Me Died Blue]

Interesting point. I would suggest that taking tylenol implies that pain is bad and something to be avoided. Choosing one gender over the other implies that one gender is superior to the other on some level.

What about growing certain fruits to turn out different ways (e.g. seedless). Take a watermelon - many people don't want to deal with the seeds, while others say the fruit is more flavorful with the seeds.

Of course people are qualitatively different in creation from such things, but the point is that there are in fact lawful cases of deciding which way something in nature will turn out (rather than changing it once it is already formed) in which neither outcome is viewed as inherently superior to the other.

 

[larryjf]

What about growing certain fruits to turn out different ways (e.g. seedless). Take a watermelon - many people don't want to deal with the seeds, while others say the fruit is more flavorful with the seeds.

Another interesting point.
I don't think it's good that we make fruits and such without seeds. After all, that's how we are able to grow those fruits again.
But i do think there should be more liberty with how we grow fruits than how we grow children. In Japan they also make watermelons square to better stack up. I would hate to think of someone taking such liberties with the creation of children. Perhaps down the road a gay couple will want a child who is genetically engineered to by gay?? It certainly wouldn't end with controlling the gender, and perhaps we should ask the question of where the line would be drawn?


This brings up a related question about hybrid foods being grown and how it relates to...

[bible]Deut 22:9[/bible]

 

[Davidius]

All I've seen so far is people make good cases that sex selection can be used for sinful reasons. That doesn't make it inherently sinful. Let's not teach the doctrines of men as the commandments of God.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean they should have it.

If a family wants to be balanced and have equal girls and boys, does that mean that they should have a balanced family?

No, but that’s not my position. My position is that they should have the right to choose to do so. Unless somebody offers good arguments for why they shouldn’t have that right, and it should be illegalized. I have not seen any good arguments for such a position in this thread (at least for countries where a government doesn’t take a totalitarian stance on gender).

What if after they have the family they change their minds on the importance of balance?

I fail to see how this is an argument against sex selection.

We are not omniscient so we have no way of telling what our future holds. If we choose to have only girls because we live in a culture that looks down on boys...what would happen if in the near future we move to a culture that looks down on girls? Then our whole argument for choosing the gender is thrown out the window.

In many cases of sex selection, it is for the purposes of “family balancing”. Besides, I am merely defending the claim that sex selection should not be made illegal.

Say we think a balanced family is the way to go because we think children will end up better socially acclimated. And later studies come out that prove they do worse socially. Once again our reasons for choosing are thrown out the window.

Most of your hypotheticals are instances where the parents choose sex selection for reason x, and later x turns out not to be the case. But this is a simplistic view of sex selection. Parents choose sex selection for many different reasons, and it hardly seems to be the case on the face of it that all of these reasons will turn out to be false. Perhaps they want to have a boy to carry on the family name, and they already have 3 daughters. They still love their daughters, and such a choice says nothing about superiority one way or the other.

It is when people move in on manipulating the birth process that I believe they are overstepping their bounds.

If a person is not being harmed, then how are they overstepping their bounds?

All I've seen so far is people make good cases that sex selection can be used for sinful reasons. That doesn't make it inherently sinful. Let's not teach the doctrines of men as the commandments of God.

Yes, the reasoning is that because ‘X’ can be used for sinful reasons, ‘X’ should be made illegal. Which doesn’t really follow.

I think Rich’s argument is the best, but that only holds water in places with severe pressure on selecting a certain gender. In the US at least this is not a problem.

 

[larryjf]

Just out of curiosity for all those who don't think it should be an issue because the Bible does not specify that it is wrong, could the same be said of placing an embryo into a dogs womb? Since the Bible does not specify that it is wrong could it be considered unethical?

 

[Davidius]

Yes, the reasoning is that because ‘X’ can be used for sinful reasons, ‘X’ should be made illegal. Which doesn’t really follow.

Yes, and it's not just an issue of civil legality unfortunately. Augusta said that doing it would be a sure sign of a bad heart and lack of faith.