Escoger sexo de los hijos

1. OPYRIGHT 2003 The Population Council, Inc.
The ideology of eugenics as it arose in the late nineteenth century was concerned with the perceived negative effects of differential fertility on the "quality" and composition--variously defined--of future generations. Quality was to be raised by preventing or discouraging the "less fit" from propagating themselves and by encouragingchildbearing among couples seen as carriers of desirable genetic endowments. Thus, this old-fashioned eugenics was directed, at least by intent and sometimes in practice, to select among parents and influence their procreative behavior. The rules for such selection were typically decided, democratically or otherwise, on the advice of anointed "experts." By the mid-twentieth century these programs hadcome to be thoroughly discredited, both because they were seen to lack scientific validity and, perhaps especially, as a result of Nazi racial policies.

Modern technological developments have given rise to, or created the realistic prospect of, a different, " grassroots " eugenics: parents voluntarily choosing qualities they would prefer their offspring to possess. Their right to do sowould seem to be a straightforward extension of the principle, endorsed by numerous international declarations, that "all couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children. " Parents might exercise that right by seeking to improve their children's chances for a healthy and successful life or merely by following their ownprejudices. But the application of this principle tacitly assumes that the aggregate outcome of individual reproductive decisions is in reasonable harmony with the collective interest.

The technological means now available for parents to select preferred physical and intellectual characteristics of their children--to improve on the outcome of the natural genetic lottery--are rudimentary. Many ofthem are still in the domain of science fiction. But in one major instance the technology already exists: selecting the sex of children, especially through early determination of the sex of the fetus, which then may be followed by sex-selective induced abortion. This option has become widely available in recent years. In societies in which there is strong preference for offspring of aparticular sex--usually for boys--the result has been a marked deviation from the normal sex ratio at birth. The social implications of such uncoordinated individual choices are perceived as clearly deleterious, hence the practice of sex-selective abortion is commonly outlawed even when abortion is otherwise permitted. Invoking a social interest that overrides the right of voluntary parental choiceof course raises the question whether other untoward effects of socially unregulated fertility might also be grounds for circumscribing parental freedom of choice in childbearing. Socially undesirable patterns of childbearing could be defined as "non-responsible."

In the United States, the President "s Council on Bioethics, appointed in November 2001, is one of the many committeesadvising the US President on important social issues. The Council consists of 17 members, including noted scientists, physicians, ethicists, social scientists, legal experts, and theologians. It had the mandate, inter alia, to inquire into the human and moral significance of developments in biomedical and behavioral science and technology and to explore specific ethical and policy questions relatedto these developments. The Council was chaired by Professor Leon R. Kass, a prominent bioethicist from the University of Chicago. Its report, under the title, Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness, was submitted to the President in October 2003. This massive document, which will also be published in book form by a commercial publishing house, is available online at:...