The act of selecting the sex of a child has been around for a long time in different forms, such as through the abandonment of babies, abortion, and infanticide. A relatively new medical technology known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows the sex of an embryo to be selected when using in vitro fertilization.  John A. Robertson argues that although sex selection through PGD will likely become widespread and result in an alteration of prospective offspring, the overall impact of this procedure will be minimal. Since PGD is used to screen for several diseases and results in the prevention of birth of children with conditions that some parents might perceive as problematic, it is reasonable to use this method when assessing later onset conditions and HLA matching as well. Although these practices represent the medical uses of PGD and are widely accepted, the non-medical uses of PGD, such as for gender selection and perfect pitch are not as accepted due to ethical and moral concerns. Robertson argues that the belief and fear many people hold that PGD will be used to screen for non-medical traits such as height, beauty, intelligence, and other similar factors is unrealistic because it is impossible to screen for these characteristics. He argues that although many believe gender selection will lead to sex ratio disparities, due to the cost of PGD, the effect will be small. Sexism cannot be held as a reason against PGD if it is used to choose the gender that is the opposite of an existing child because the parents will likely already have a child of the same gender. Many feminists believe it is sexist to choose a gender while other feminists believe it is not sexist as long as the intention and results are not sexist. The author concludes that sex selection for firstborns might facilitate sexist beliefs but sex selection for selecting the gender of children born second or third would not promote sexist beliefs. Robertson states that people have valid reasons, such as cultural and political pressures, to seek sex selection and it is not a particularly harmful practice.

On the other hand, Marcy Darnovsky argues that sex selection is harmful because it is being sold as a social practice by industries who are promoting the idea that our appearance must be enhanced. She argues that because of this practice, sexism, misogyny, and gender stereotypes will be promoted and children’s well-being will diminish as they will be treated as commodities. In addition to this, sex ratios will be skewed, reproduction will be commercialized even further, and eugenics is likely to result. Darnovsky states that sex selection has been an issue since the 1980s and was not highly supported by feminists because it promoted a sexist society and it was considered a form of eugenics. However, many feminists at the time were worried that the limitation of sex-selection abortions would be a threat to the reproductive rights of a woman. Darnovsky points out the importance in separation sex selection from the political discussion of abortion because they are not the same thing especially when there is an absence of pregnancy. Therefore, the rights of women and their right to abortion should not be threatened. Darnovsky asserts that accepting sex selection will lead to the acceptance of eugenics. Her assumption is based on statements made by powerful figures that have expressed interest in genetic castes and sub-species. She argues that if sex selection becomes accepted in the United States, it will legitimize the practice in other countries and threaten the women’s rights in these countries. Darnovsky analyzes the effect sex-selection would have on immigrants and whether or not the practice which is illegal in their homelands, should be accepted in the West. She also cites a study that found that 81% of women and 94% of men would use selection to have a boy as their firstborn, leading to gender stereotyping.  She concludes by saying that the well-being of children and the consequences of technology are more important than the preferences of parents.

I found the ‘Yes’ argument to be more convincing because it provided arguments I found to be sound for why people seek sex selection, such as cultural, economic, and political pressures. This side was more convincing to me because it took into consideration the arguments made by people who would side with the ‘No’ section and rebutted the arguments, providing reasons why the arguments were not plausible. The examples given showed how sometimes the reasons parents seek sex selection are selfless and not sexist and did not promote any negative stereotypes, sexism, or misogyny. I did not find the ‘No’ side to be convincing because although she did provide a few thought-provoking arguments, overall her side focused too much on the worst possible scenario. I found that she did not stay within a realistic outcome of what could happen. I did not find that she considered the arguments of the other side, making her overall argument weak because her arguments did not have substance. In addition to this, at the end of her section, she listed reasons why people seek sex selection, which I found to be counter-productive to her arguments. Had she analyzed the arguments instead of the reasons, I would have found her argument to be more complete.

I will relate sex selection back to my personal experiences by imagining if I could purse it. I don’t think I would because none of the reasons listed in the book as to why people seek sex selection apply to me. I can’t see myself in the future wishing to even out the gender composition of my gender or trying to have a male firstborn. These reasons aren’t enough for me and although I understand the logic, I don’t see the importance of them. I can’t imagine ever saying no to having a baby because he/she is not the gender the father and I desired. I have a sister who is 11 months old and I can’t imagine not having her as a sister because our parents had wished for a boy. I have a 13 year old sister and because of this, my parents wished for a boy when my mom got pregnant last year but when we found she was having a girl, we were thrilled. It almost brings me to tears to think my parents would have said no to having her because they had wanted a boy. I personally think that nature should take its course and babies should be born regardless of their gender. However, I understand that other people have different morals and feel they have legitimate reasons for seeking sex selection, but it is not something I see myself participating in.