Outside the Beltway

SEX SELECTION

James Joyner · Wednesday, November 12, 2003 · 2 comments

Chris Bertrampoints to a Guardian report

Selecting the sex of a child is to be banned in the UK after a consultation exercise found the public outraged by the idea.

Yesterday the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates fertility treatment, announced that it would recommend a ban on sex selection, except in families where one gender would risk inheriting a serious genetic disorder. Haemophilia and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for instance, affect only boys.

“Family balancing” will not be allowed, inevitably leading some parents to head for the United States, where sex selection is practised.

The HFEA’s decision surprised some observers, who thought there might be a liberal consensus among experts on the issue of parents who have tried many times to have a son to balance the number of daughters in their family, or vice versa. But the strength of public opinion left the HFEA little choice.

***[I]t is clear that there is a substantial public consensus against sex selection for social reasons.

“We are not persuaded that the likely benefits of permitting sex selection for social reasons are strong enough to sustain a policy to which the vast majority are overwhelmingly opposed.”

Says Chris,

I don̢۪t know whether there are other, good reasons, for banning sex selection, but I do believe that the reasons as stated are outrageous. The HFEA is arguing (and the Secretary of State is agreeing) that acts should be prohibited where a majority opposes them unless permitting those acts would have definite benefits for society at large. But this is to get the burden of proof completely the wrong way round. Whatever majorities think about some aspect of individual conduct, in a liberal society it has to be clearly demonstrable that an action would be harmful if prohibition is to be justified. No such justification has been produced.

Agreed. I’m personally leery of letting people choose the sex of their babies, but can’t think of any really compelling public policy rationale for a ban. And an adverse impact on society should be the only rationale for restrictions on liberty.