The Sex-Selection Market

Many of our most astute social critics, such as the Harvard progressive communitaran Michael Sandel, have warned us about recent trends that have allowed the pro-choice, “cash nexus” logic of the market to take over parts of our lives that can’t or shouldn’t be reduced to the domains of contract and consent.  Jasmett Sidhu has meticulously and provocatively described the way in which pre-implantation (of the embryo) genetic diagnosis allows our fertility clinics to offer parents—and especially mothers—the ability to choose the sex of their children.  This techno-ability to exercise choice for a price flourishes unfettered in our country:


A lack of regulation in the U.S. allows prenatal sex selection to be left to the market. In contrast, Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act states that no person shall "for the purpose of creating a human being, perform any procedure or provide, prescribe or administer anything that would ensure or increase the probability that an embryo will be of a particular sex." Similar restrictions on sex selection also exist in Australia and Britain. . . .

"There is a reluctance among Americans to think about these issues as a business. As a result, no one is minding the store.  . . .  The response, then, is to look for more revenue, more customers. But how much can we leave to the market?"

Many of the recent efforts to regulate sex selection in the United States have focused on the other end of the human reproduction spectrum. This past May a Republican-sponsored bill aiming to ban sex-selective abortions failed to pass in Congress. The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would have made it illegal to perform an abortion on a woman if the reason for the abortion was because of the gender of the fetus.

But many argue that sex-selective abortion is not the same as prenatal sex selection. Weeding out the "boy embryos" from the "girl embryos" in a petri dish in a laboratory seems a far cry from the seemingly ruthless sex-selective abortion phenomenon that has haunted India and China and has been blamed for millions of "missing girls" in the region.  . . . 

In the meantime, however, women will continue to turn to doctors who enthusiastically advertise the practice within their fertility clinics. It is yet to be seen whether this will lead to a world where wondering about the gender of a prospective child will be a thing of the past.

Opposition to this aggressive unregulated marketing comes from both the left and the right.  European social democracies—thinking that individual choice can be limited according to personal dignity and the common good—oppose eugenics schemes that would turn children into manufactured commodities.  For our libertarians, of course, these Europeans have old-fashioned ideas about personal dignity and all that.  But even some of our feminists worry about the burden placed on girls who were consciously made to be girls.  Won’t the pressure be on them to conform to their parents’ stereotypes about feminine behavior?  How can I be my own person—autonomously transcending the limits of my biological being as a man or woman—if my biological being was chosen for me as the key to who I will be?

From the pro-life (or anti-abortion) right, being pro-choice on sex selection immediately calls to mind the people in India and China who have employed abortion to take out girls in favor of boys. Sidhu calls sex-selection abortion “ruthless.”  And our feminists, of course, are horrified that patriarchal prejudices would cause parents to prefer sons over daughters.

But our pro-choicers say there’s nothing wrong with abortion.  Our Democrats in their most recent platform have even eliminated their traditional admonition that it’s desirable that abortion should be “rare.”  So if there’s nothing wrong with abortion and nothing wrong with sex selection, why can we criticize the Indian or Chinese preference for boys and not the American woman’s preference for a girl?  Abortion or implantation?  Who’s to say which method is better?  It’s clear enough, though, which one is cheaper.

It’s that line of thinking that causes many Republicans to oppose the logic of “market forces” when it comes to parental choice in general.  These Republicans, who are so contemptuous of the economic paternalism of European social democracies, affirm their impulse to regulate when it comes to constraining reproductive choice.  Some of our Democrats, of course, do share the eugenics worries of the Europeans.

It does seem, as Sidhu observes, that even this bipartisan alliance in our country is very unlikely to become powerful enough to regulate effectively the sex-selection market.

We’ve seen in India and China that sex selection has produced all sorts of social pathologies connected with the dearth of women.  Might we see in America, eventually, the social pathologies that come with the dearth of men?   I admit, of course, I just don’t know.  (But consider that men are gradually disappearing from our better colleges already.)  I do know that conscious human choice by free individuals is much less likely to produce the roughly 50-50 result that seemingly blind nature does when it comes to sex selection.

'Upstreamism': Your zip code affects your health as much as genetics

Upstreamism advocate Rishi Manchanda calls us to understand health not as a "personal responsibility" but a "common good."

Sponsored by Northwell Health
  • Upstreamism tasks health care professionals to combat unhealthy social and cultural influences that exist outside — or upstream — of medical facilities.
  • Patients from low-income neighborhoods are most at risk of negative health impacts.
  • Thankfully, health care professionals are not alone. Upstreamism is increasingly part of our cultural consciousness.
Keep reading Show less

Meet the Bajau sea nomads — they can reportedly hold their breath for 13 minutes

The Bajau people's nomadic lifestyle has given them remarkable adaptions, enabling them to stay underwater for unbelievable periods of time. Their lifestyle, however, is quickly disappearing.

Wikimedia Commons
Culture & Religion
  • The Bajau people travel in small flotillas throughout the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Indonesia, hunting fish underwater for food.
  • Over the years, practicing this lifestyle has given the Bajau unique adaptations to swimming underwater. Many find it straightforward to dive up to 13 minutes 200 feet below the surface of the ocean.
  • Unfortunately, many disparate factors are erasing the traditional Bajau way of life.
Keep reading Show less

Golden blood: The rarest blood in the world

We explore the history of blood types and how they are classified to find out what makes the Rh-null type important to science and dangerous for those who live with it.

Abid Katib/Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • Fewer than 50 people worldwide have 'golden blood' — or Rh-null.
  • Blood is considered Rh-null if it lacks all of the 61 possible antigens in the Rh system.
  • It's also very dangerous to live with this blood type, as so few people have it.
Keep reading Show less

Scientists create a "lifelike" material that has metabolism and can self-reproduce

An innovation may lead to lifelike evolving machines.

Shogo Hamada/Cornell University
Surprising Science
  • Scientists at Cornell University devise a material with 3 key traits of life.
  • The goal for the researchers is not to create life but lifelike machines.
  • The researchers were able to program metabolism into the material's DNA.
Keep reading Show less