Gender pre- determination

IS now this so-qualified “modern” possibility or a considered deliberate option for a man and woman, a husband and a wife, to choose the sex of their yet unborn child.

Needless to say, such a possibility, when made an actuality, remains subject to the realistic analysis of reason and ethics. Is it right or wrong? Is it good or bad?

The aforesaid option is not something readily accessible to the poor, available to observance of the wanting, the needy, the miserable. Rather, it is a recourse made available to the well- to- do, the wealthy, the affluent. For what reason or purpose such an option is in fact made, only those concerned really know why.

The intricate as well as delicate process, which is understandably anything but available to all, appears to be now known with the generic nomenclature of “Male-Sperm-Separation” from all female potentials for insemination into the woman or wife in order for the latter to have a male offspring – or the other way around, i.e., the “Female-Sperm-Separation” for insemination into the woman or wife with the desire and design for the woman to have a female child. This process then is ultimately about deliberately choosing the gender identity of a child in accord with the father’s and/or mother’s deliberate option – something that is wherefore optional and artificial under the deliberate design and control of the man/ woman or husband/wife concerned in every case.

There are three main ethical questions arising in such a personal determination or pre-determination of someone’s sexual identity. One, it implies the deliberate killing of the unwanted and thus separated sperm elements through but a personal choice. Two, it is a man- and/or a woman-made option outside, if not contrary, to the sphere of nature that follows a course of its own in the matter of the sexual identity of the yet unformed and unborn child. Three, for one reason or another, it could in effect be a given cause of Gender Identity Difficulty on the part of the child born through unnatural human intervention via the said deliberate and artificial sperm separation.

It is not really far-fetched to think that if in the course of time, the fetus – after due examination of the pregnant woman or mother – prove to have precisely the opposite sex desired and designed by the man-woman or husband- wife concerned, the same would be disposed off through downright abortive means which thus have the substantive features of downright murder.

This is but one of those instances when science or scientific interventions become a means of demeaning, undermining if not downright killing instead of serving and saving human life. Or if the fetus thus conceived were allowed to be born, would the child concerned eventually have a given psychological liability of one kind or another?

These days, it is clearly and candidly noted that when people mess with nature, the eventual effect thereof is precisely contra their good and welfare. The truth is nothing that profound or mystical. It’s a day and night reality such as in conjunction with the natural environ./

PN