Law and Philosophy

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 125–159 | Cite as

Sex-Selective Abortion: A Matter of Choice

Article

Abstract

This paper argues that, if we are committed to a Pro-choice stance with regard to selective abortion for disability, we will be unable to justify the prohibition of sex-selective abortion (SSA), for two reasons. First, familiar Pro-choice arguments in favour of a woman’s right to select against fetal impairment also support, by parity of reasoning, a right to choose SSA. Second, rejection of the criticisms of selective abortion for disability levelled by disability theorists also disposes, by implication, of the key objections to SSA, as developed, most notably, by feminists. The paper, then, consists of a conditional defence of SSA, under which SSA should be available, and protected by a right, if selective abortion for disability is. Opponents of SSA might respond by conceding additional restrictions on selection against disabled fetuses. It should become clear throughout the paper, however, that any such new restrictions would be unacceptably onerous for women.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arora, D., ‘The Victimising Discourse: Sex-Determination Technologies and Policy’, Economic and Political Weekly, 17 February (1996): 420–424.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, A., ‘Disability Equality and Prenatal Testing: Contradictory or Compatible?’, Florida State University Law Review 30 (2003): 315–342.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, A., and Wasserman, D., ‘Where is the Sin in Synecdoche?’ In Wasserman, D., Bickenbach, J., and Wachbroit, R. (eds.), Quality of Life and Human Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 172–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bubeck, D., ‘Sex Selection: The Feminist Response’. In Burley, J., and Harris, J. (eds.), A Companion to Genethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), pp. 216–228.Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N., and Wikler, D., From Chance to Choice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, C., ‘Autonomy and Equality in Cultural Perspective: Response to Sawitri Saharso’, Feminist Theory 5 (2004): 329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corea, G., The Mother Machine (London: Women’s Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  8. Dworkin, R., Life’s Dominion (New York: Vintage Books, 1994).Google Scholar
  9. Efrat, Z., Perri, T., Ramati, E., Tugendreich, D., and Meizner, I., ‘Fetal Gender Assignment by First-Trimester Ultrasound’, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 27 (2006): 619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enoch, D., ‘A Right to Violate One’s Duty’, Law and Philosophy 21 (2002): 335–394.Google Scholar
  11. Every Disabled Child Matters (EDCM), Disabled Children and Child Poverty (London: EDCM, 2007).Google Scholar
  12. Goodkind, D., ‘On Substituting Sex Preference Strategies in East Asia: Does Prenatal Sex Selection Reduce Postnatal Discrimination?’, Population and Development Review 22 (1996): 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanmer, J., and Allen, S., ‘Reproductive Engineering: The Final Solution’, Gender Issues 2 (1982): 53–74.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, E., Regulating Reproduction (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001).Google Scholar
  15. Jones, P., ‘Group Rights and Group Oppression’, Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (1999): 353–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamm, F. M., Intricate Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kukathas, C., ‘Genocide and Group Rights’, unpublished ms.Google Scholar
  18. McMahan, J., The Ethics of Killing (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McMahan, J., ‘Causing Disabled People to Exist, and Causing People to be Disabled’, Ethics 116 (2005a): 77–99.Google Scholar
  20. McMahan, J., Preventing the Existence of People with Disabilities. In Wasserman, D., Bickenbach, J., and Wachbroit, R. (eds.), Quality of Life and Human Difference, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005b) pp. 142–171.Google Scholar
  21. Overall, C., Ethics and Human Reproduction: A Feminist Analysis (Boston, PA: Allen and Unwin, 1987).Google Scholar
  22. Parens, E., and Asch, A., ‘The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Testing: Reflections and Recommendations’. In Parens, E., and Asch, A. (eds.), Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000), pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
  23. Parfit, D., Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saharso, S., ‘SSA: Gender, Culture and Dutch Public Policy’, Ethnicities 5 (2005): 248–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Savulescu, J., ‘Sex Selection: The Case For’. In Kuhse, H., and Singer, P. (eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), pp. 145–149.Google Scholar
  26. Saxton, M., ‘Why Members of the Disability Community Oppose Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion’. In Parens, E., and Asch, A. (eds.), Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000), pp. 147–164.Google Scholar
  27. Shakespeare, T., ‘The Social Context of Individual Choice’. In Wasserman, D., Bickenbach, J., and Wachbroit, R. (eds.), Quality of Life and Human Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steinbacher, R., ‘Sex Preselection: From Here to Fraternity’. In Gould, C. (ed.), Beyond Domination (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1984), pp. 274–282.Google Scholar
  29. Steinbock, B., Life Before Birth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  30. Steinbock, B., ‘Disability, Prenatal Testing, and Selective Abortion’. In Parens, E., and Asch, A. (eds.), Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000), pp. 108–123.Google Scholar
  31. The Economist, ‘Gendercide: The Worldwide War on Baby Girls’, 4 March 2010.Google Scholar
  32. Thomson, J. J., ‘A Defense of Abortion’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1971): 47–66.Google Scholar
  33. Tomlinson, S., ‘Genetic Testing for Cystic Fibrosis: A Personal Perspective’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 11 (1998): 551–564.Google Scholar
  34. United Nations Population Fund (UNFP), Report of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 5–13 September 1994 (New York: United Nations, 1995).Google Scholar
  35. Visaria, L., Ramachandran, V., Ganatra, B., and Kalyanwala, S., ‘Abortion in India: Emerging Issues from Qualitative Studies’, Economic and Political Weekly 39 (2004): 5044–5052.Google Scholar
  36. Waldron, J., ‘A Right to do Wrong’, Ethics 92 (1981): 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warren, M. A., Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1985).Google Scholar
  38. Warren, M. A., ‘Sex Selection: Individual Choice or Cultural Coercion?’ In Kuhse, H., and Singer, P. (eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (1st ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), pp. 137–142.Google Scholar
  39. Wasserman, D., ‘A Choice of Evils in Prenatal Testing’, Florida State University Law Review 30 (2003): 295–313.Google Scholar
  40. Wertheimer, A., Coercion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  41. Wertheimer, A., Consent to Sexual Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wertz, D. C., and Fletcher, J. C., ‘Sex Selection Through Prenatal Diagnosis: A Feminist Critique’. In Holms, H. B., and Purdy, L. M. (eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992), pp. 240–253.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, School of LawKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations