Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on February 23, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(7):1659-1661; doi:10.1093/humrep/del050
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OPINIONS |
Sex predetermination and the ethics of sex selection
Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1, New Zealand. E-mail: vj.grant{at}auckland.ac.nz
At present there appear to be two main categories of problems involved in the ethics of sex selection. The first has to do with the status of the embryo, and the second has to do with the social consequences of making sex selection widely available. However, these may not be the only issues. There is growing evidence from evolutionary psychology and biology, which suggests that the sex of the offspring in mammals may not, after all, be a matter of chance. Instead, sex allocation in mammals may be the result of a finely tuned adaptive process involving the current suitability of a mother to conceive an offspring of a particular sex. If so, we need to know more about this process before embarking on a social policy that could have disadvantageous outcomes for children, their parents and society as a whole.
Key words: ethics/sex allocation/sex determination/sex preferences
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
E. Dahl Evolution, morality and the law: on Valerie J. Grant's case against sex selection Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2006; 21(12): 3303 - 3303. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V.J. Grant Reply: Evolution, morality and the law: on Valerie J. Grant's case against sex selection Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2006; 21(12): 3303 - 3304. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
