Owner Bert van Dalen (Utrecht) has reopened the Gender Clinic in Utrecht last week, but since 1998 sex selection has been obliged by law in the Netherlands. Although it is still not allowed to determine the sex of a child with the use of medical science, he currently advices couples on gender selection and shares his knowledge about institutions of sex selection internationally. By opening the Gender Clinic again he hopes to raise the question within the Parliament whether it is still not permissible to use medical methods to “design” your baby.
With the current techniques on gender selection you can ensure the sex of a baby with 90 % accuracy for the price of 4000 pounds, according to West Mistlands clinic located in Great-Britain. Clients visit a gender clinic for various reasons. Some people want to avoid sex-linked diseases, like hemophilia and color blindness. Others want to balance their families and wish to have sons and daughters both in an equal amount. Another potential reason was noted in the sense of population control. People do not have the need to continue to have children until they have one of the desired genders.
One of the ethical issues raised in this topic is sexual discrimination. The idea that one sex is appreciated above another sex, those individuals in the non-preferred sex would be at a disadvantage and I think it is not accepted to create a society artificially. Theories exist that those people would be victims of discrimination, potential violence and even abuse. Another moral question you could ask is: What kind of society would you get if they don’t? Isn’t it a moral duty of entrepreneurs to accept the ‘natural’ birth of a child and should those initiators be punished by law for their actions? In my opinion it is very immoral to make money out of such a business, because it harms the society in the long-term and it will move the line what is morally acceptable and what is not.
Background article
4 comments:
I agree that when it’s done for sex manipulation that could eventually lead to a non-durable society at large than the company acts morally wrong. According to the functional perspective the total social interactions must aim at a system geared at survival, stability and growth. If society becomes non-durable than it is in conflict with the functional perspective and it is morally wrong.
Yet experts in the field of human reproduction insist that there is no independent data to suggest such accurate sex selection is possible. Experts like Chris Barratt comes to one conclusion: “it’s basically tossing a coin.” Let’s assume that this statement is true. Than from the hermeneutic perspective the company is deceiving. Reasonable people living in a well-ordered society would reject deceiving as a general principle upon which people ought to act. I thereby conclude that if Chris Barratt is right the company acts morally wrong.
U1236227
ANR: 792563
Martijn Stouthart
The Business discourse is a discourse that is focussing on individual profit maximizing. But in this case I don’t think that is a good idea to focus only on profit maximizing, because it is something about humans lives. Even if it is allowed by law to determine the sex of a child with the use of medical science, I think that it is then still morally wrong. If we look at the hierarchy, morality stands higher than the law and the business discourse. That means that morality is valid. From Morality, human beings are free in their choice, but in this case it seems that people have the ability to choose for the lives of people that aren’t even born yet. I think that this view of human beings is morally wrong and I think it is not acceptable in this well-ordered-society.
ANR: 518127
U1237210
Maarten Wesseloo
This case can also be looked upon as a morally hard case. A good moral reason against the existence of the gender clinic is indeed that it can harm the society in the long term IF one sex is preferred over another. However, studies have proved that when people can choose the sex of their children, both sexes are equally preferred in a large society. Thereby, creating the same situation as it is now. Furthermore, there is a good moral reason before the existence of the gender clinic, namely that it can prevent sex-linked diseases. Preventing people from health or physical problems is a morally right thing. Since the gender clinic is doing something morally right and the moral reason against its existence is not proven, I think the gender clinic should be seen as morally permissible.
I believe to open such a clinic is morally right. If we as human beings have the knowledge to select a healthy child, without Huntington, we must use this knowledge. Artificial insemination is not just something smalls, it is going about people who are infertile. A clinic like this could realize the wish of people, who had the wish to have a child. This moral case must be seen from hermeneutical perspective instead of functional perspective. You create a life, this is not something about deciding, because there is no life yet. Nobody wants a child with Huntington if you can avoid it, so it is good that there is the possibility to inspect the part of cells to see if there is something wrong, which is only a benefit for the child. At the end, the child can do everything in her/his life, and you have a happy family.
Post a Comment