Throughout recorded history, humans have tried to influence the sex of their offspring, through pregnancy injunctions, infanticide, and infant/child neglect. Reproductive technologies developed in the late 20th century allow determination of the sex of the offspring during pregnancy, making “sex selection” through abortion possible. Especially in parts of East and South Asia, sex selection against female fetuses has had dramatic consequences for male/female sex ratios. However, “newer” new reproductive technologies, such as prenatal genetic diagnosis and DNA-weighted semen selection, can now be applied for sex selection; eventually, the latter technology may become easily accessible as a noninvasive method. The prospects of these new technologies for sex selection must be considered in the light of cultural values surrounding son preference / daughter discrimination in many parts of the world, most notably Asia, as well as preferences for a “gender-balanced” family in much of the West. The ethical issues surrounding these technologies, such as the right to life and the equal treatment of female children, are potentially profound, but legislating the appropriate use of these “newest” new reproductive technologies will be difficult.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HillK.UpchurchD. M.Gender differences in child health: Evidence from the demographic and health surveys. Popul. Dev. Rev.21: 127–151, 1995.
2.
NathV.Female infanticide and the Lewa Kanbis of Gujarat in the nineteenth century. Indian Econ. Soc. Hist. Rev.10: 386–404, 1973.
3.
BharadwajA.Why adoption is not an option in India: The visibility of infertility, the secrecy of donor insemination, and other cultural complexities. Soc. Sci. Med.2003, in press.
4.
Das GuptaM.Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Popul. Dev. Rev.13: 77–100, 1987.
5.
JefferyR.JefferyP.LyonA.Female infanticide and amniocentesis. Soc. Sci. Med.19: 1207–1212, 1984.
6.
WadleyS. S.Family composition strategies in rural North India. Soc. Sci. Med.37: 1367–1376, 1993.
7.
KhannaS. K.Traditions and reproductive technology in an urbanizing North Indian village. Soc. Sci. Med.44: 171–180, 1997.
8.
ChunkathS. R.AthreyaV. B.Female infanticide in Tamil Nadu: Some evidence. Econ. Polit. Wkly.32: 21–26, April 26, 1997.
9.
LeeJ.WangF.CampbellC.Infant and child mortality among Qing nobility: Implications for two types of positive check. Popul. Stud.48: 395–411, 1994.
10.
CoaleA. J.BanisterJ.Five decades of missing females in China. Demography31: 459–479, 1994.
11.
JohanssonS.NygrenO.The missing girls of China: A new demographic account. Popul. Dev. Rev.17: 35–51, 1991.
12.
YiZ., Causes and implications of the recent increase in the reported sex ratio at birth in China. Popul. Dev. Rev.19: 283–302, 1993.
13.
CrollE.Endangered Daughters: Discrimination and Development in Asia. Routledge, London, 2000.
14.
ObermeyerC. M.Fairness and fertility: The meaning of son preference in Morocco. In Dynamics of Values in Fertility Change, ed. LeeteR., pp. 275–292. Oxford University Press, London, 1999.
15.
InhornM. C.Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cultural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1996.
16.
InhornM. C.Quest for Conception: Gender, Infertility, and Egyptian Medical Traditions. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1994.
17.
GadallaS.McCarthyJ.CampbellO.How the number of living sons influences contraceptive use in Menoufia Governorate. Egypt. Stud. Fam. Plann.16: 164–169, 1977.
18.
United Nations. Fertility Behaviour in the Context of Development: Evidence from the World Fertility Survey. New York, 1987.
19.
Veldkamp Marktonderzoek. Geslachtkeuze om niet-medische redenen, de mening van de Nederlandse bevolking (Sex Selection on Non-medical Indications, The Opinion of the Dutch Population). Rathenau Institute, The Hague, 1996.
20.
NIPO. Kinderwens in Nederland, een tijdloze wens? (The Desire to Have a Child in the Netherlands: An Unchanging Desire?). Amsterdam, 1997.
21.
SteinbacherR.EricssonR.Should parents be prohibited from choosing the sex of their child?Health8: 24, 1994.
22.
SteinbacherR.GilroyF. D.Preference for sex of child among primaparous women. J. Psychol.119: 541–547, 1996.
23.
GilroyF.SteinbacherR.Preselection of child's sex: Technological utilization and feminism. Psychol. Rep.53: 671–676, 1983.
24.
PebleyA. F.WestoffC. P.Women's sex preferences in the United States 1970–1975. Demography19: 177–189, 1982.
25.
ArnoldF.Sex preference and its demographic and health implications. Int. Fam. Plann. Perspect.18: 93–101, 1992.
26.
RahmanM.DaVanzoJ.Gender preference and birth spacing in Matlab, Bangladesh. Demography30: 315–322, 1993.
27.
SargentC.HarrisM.Gender ideology, childrearing and child health in Jamaica. Am. Ethnol.19(3): 523–537, 1992.
28.
HullT. H.Recent trends in sex ratios at birth in China. Popul. Dev. Rev.16: 63–82, 1990.
GoodkindD.On substituting sex preference strategies in East Asia: Does prenatal sex selection reduce postnatal discrimination?Popul. Dev. Rev.22: 111–125, 1996.
31.
HandwerkerL.The politics of making modern babies in China: Reproductive technologies and the “new” eugenics. In Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies, ed. InhornM. C.van BalenF., University of California Press, Berkeley, 2002.
32.
ParkC. B.ChoN.-H.Consequences of son preference in a low fertility society: The imbalance of the sex ratio at birth in Korea. Popul. Dev. Rev.21: 59–84, 1995.
33.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Levels and trends of fertility in India: Using the census data of 1971 and 1981. Asian Popul. Stud. Ser., no. 62-B, 1985.
34.
AggarwalJ. C. A.ChowdryN. L.Census of India 1991: Historical and World Perspectives. Chand, New Delhi, 1991.
35.
RamanaA.BambawaleR.The mania for sons: An analysis of social values in South Asia. Soc. Sci. Med.14B: 107–110, 1980.
36.
BoothB. E.VernaM.BeriR. S.Fetal sex determination in infants in Punjab, India: Correlations and implications. BMJ309: 1259–1261, 1994.
BurkeB. M.Genetic counselor attitudes toward fetal sex identification and selective abortion. Soc. Sci. Med.34: 1263–1269, 1992.
39.
KolkerA.BurkeB. M.Sex preference and sex selection: Attitudes of prenatal diagnosis clients. Res. Sociol. Health Care10: 213–231, 1993.
40.
WertzD. C.FletcherJ. C.Ethical and social issues in prenatal sex selection: A survey of geneticists in 37 nations. Soc. Sci. Med.46: 225–273, 1998.
41.
GriffinD.Dual fluorescent in situ hybridisation for simultaneous detection of X and Y chromosome specific probes for sexing of human preimplantation embryonic nuclei. Hum. Genetics89: 18–22, 1992.
42.
HandysideA. H.Biopsy preimplantation embryos and sexing DNA amplification. Lancet333: 347–349, 1989.
43.
HandysideA. H.Pregnancies from biopsied human preimplantation sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature344: 768–770, 1990.
44.
MunnéS.The use of first polar bodies for preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy. Hum. Reprod.10: 1014–1020, 1995.
45.
VerlinskyY.Pregnancies following preconception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Hum. Reprod.10: 1923–1927, 1995.
46.
MartinE.The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs16: 485–501, 1991.
47.
FlahertyS. P.MatthewC. D.Application of modern molecular techniques to evaluate sperm sex selection methods. Mol. Hum. Reprod.2: 937–942, 1996.
48.
DayB. N.Birth of piglets preselected for gender following in vitro fertilization of in vitro maturated pig oocytes by X and Y bearing spermatozoa sorted by high speed flow cytometry. Theriogenology47: 360, 1998.
49.
EdwardsR. G.BeardH. K.Sexing human spermatozoa to control sex ratios at birth is now a reality. Hum. Reprod.10: 977–978, 1995.
50.
JohnsonL. A.Sex preselection by flow cytometric separation of X and Y chromosome-bearing sperm based on DNA difference: A review. Reprod. Fertil. Dev.7: 893–907, 1995.
51.
JohnsonL. A.Enhanced flow cytometric sorting of mammalian X and Y sperm: High speed sorting and orienting nozzle for artificial insemination. Theriogenology49: 361, 1998.
52.
JohnsonL. A.Sexing mammalian sperm for the production of offspring: The state-of-the-art. Anim. Reprod. Sci.60–61: 93–107, 2000.
53.
LevinsonG.DNA-based X-enriched sperm separation as an adjunct to preimplantation genetic testing for the prevention of X-linked disease. Mol. Hum. Reprod.1: 978–982, 1995.
54.
FuggerE. F.Clinical experience with flow-cytometric separation of sperm in man. In Sex Ratio and Sex Selection, ed. GeraedtsJ. P. M.EversJ. H. L., pp. 21–23. ESHRE, Maastricht, 1997.
55.
JohnsonL. A.Flow cytometric separation of sperm in domestic animals. In Sex Ratio and Sex Selection, ed. GeraedtsJ. P. M.EversJ. H. L., pp. 15–20. ESHRE, Maastricht, 1997.
56.
FuggerE. F.Clinical experience with flow cytometric separation of human X- and Y-chromosome bearing sperm. Theriogenology47: 267, 1999.
57.
FuggerE. F.Births of normal daughters after MicroSort sperm separation and intrauterine insemination, in-vitro fertilization, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod.13: 2367–2370, 1998.
Department of Health and Security, Chairman Dame Mary Warnock. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. London, 1984.
60.
JonesO. D.Reproductive autonomy and evolutionary biology: A regulatory framework for trait selection technologies. Am. J. Law. Med.19: 187–231, 1993.
61.
SenA.Missing women: Social inequality outweighs women's survival advantage in Asia and North Africa. BMJ304: 587–588, 1992.
62.
OkojeiC. E. E.Gender inequalities of health in the Third World. Soc. Sci. Med.39: 1237–1247, 1994.
63.
VlassoffC.Gender inequalities in health in the Third World: Uncharted ground. Soc. Sci. Med.39: 1249–1259, 1994.
64.
SantowG.Social roles and physical health: The case of female disadvantage in poor countries. Soc. Sci. Med.40: 147–161, 1995.
65.
Van BalenF.InhornM. C.Introduction—Interpreting infertility: A view from the social sciences. In Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies, ed. InhornM. C.van BalenF., University of California Press, Berkeley, 2002.
66.
ReameN. K.Making babies in the 21st century: New strategies, old dilemmas. Women's Health10: 152–159, 2000.
67.
BeckerG.The Elusive Embryo: How Women and Men Talk about New Reproductive Technologies. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2000.
68.
RobertsonJ. A.Legal troublespots in assisted reproduction. Fertil. Steril.65: 11–12, 1996.
