Thursday
Aug112011
Learning Sex of Fetus at 7 Weeks: Medical Progress or Ethical Nightmare?
Thursday, August 11, 2011 
A new study was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association about a blood test that can predict the sex of a fetus using a non-invasive procedure (blood test) at 7 weeks pregnancy. My colleague Kristina wrote a post explaining more about the procedure and technology at Care2. I have mixed feelings about it, just as I did with the expanded prenatal genetic testing that I wrote about in January.On being pro-choice...
I am pro-choice. I trust women. I trust women to make good decisions about what is right for themselves and for their bodies. While I do not think that I could get an abortion, that is just me trusting myself to make the right decision for myself and my body. In the same way that I trust myself, I trust other women to make the right decisions for themselves, which may mean getting an abortion.
I understand that a lot of women get pregnant at a time in their lives when they are not ready for it. Whether they feel like they are too young, too poor, or simply not ready, I'm okay with that and realize it is simply none of my business. If they were raped or are in an abusive situation, I completely understand the decision to have an abortion. In fact, I cannot say that I with certainty that I wouldn't choose that route too in an abusive situation.
I support women. I trust women. I am 100% pro-choice (even if that sometimes surprises my readers).
On shopping for the "right" baby...
I understand people wishing for a baby of a particular gender. We wanted to have two children and had a boy first. With our second child, I definitely wished for a girl (and I got my wish). If we'd ended up with a second boy, I would have welcomed him into our family and we would have then had the discussion about whether we want to try for a third in order to have a girl. We would have talked about how that would change our lifestyle (would need a bigger car, bigger house, may not be able to afford some of the thing we can now, etc.) and we would have talked about the risk of having twins or triplets and ending up with more children than we bargained for. I don't know what we would have decided, but the discussion definitely would have been about whether to try to conceive a third child, not about whether to abort the fetus that was the wrong sex.
Because I am pro-choice, I would support another woman's choice to have an abortion because the baby didn't have the sex that she hoped for. But I would cringe inside. Is gender really that important? Couldn't the family just love the baby no matter what? What happens if she aborts a baby for having the wrong sex, only to get one that has the genitals she hoped for, but that turns out to be transgender? How would she treat that child?
On societal pressure for gender selection...
I trust women. I support women. That means that I am pro-choice, but it also means that I believe they deserve to be protected from patriarchal power systems that seek to control their bodies and their decisions. If a woman truly wants a baby of a particular sex, I will cringe but support her in her decision.
My bigger worry, however, is that women will be forced to abort female fetuses because the patriarchal society that they live in places higher value on boy children than it does on girl children. Ultimately, I worry that this early sex detection will be used as a tool to control women, rather than as one that gives them more freedom.
What do you think?
How do you feel about this new test? Would you have used it to learn the sex of your fetus? Would it have impacted your decision about whether to carry the baby in any way?
Image credit: lumaxart on flickr
Reader Comments (74)
I know that there are some genetic conditions that are passed onto to only certain sexes. This would be a test helpful to those famillies.
@BHN That's not true. There are some cities in BC that will tell and others won't. In most cases the ultrasound technician won't tell you directly but tell your doctor. But when I had to go in for a 2nd ultrasound at 28 weeks they told us. They usually wait until after a certain point so that you don't have a chance to abort.
This! In my Constitutional Law class, my professor explained that the reason certain rights should not be subject to legislation (this was in the context of a discussion over abortion/contraception/forced sterilization cases) is that neither side wants the other side to mandate that they do the thing they find abhorrent. I find abortion distasteful and can only think of a couple scenarios in which I would consider having one. That being said, I would not want to find myself in a scenario in which I felt it necessary and be told that I could not legally have one. I also would not want to find myself pregnant and being told that I had to abort because I already had too many children/because I was on welfare/because the fetus was a girl (or a boy)/because the fetus would have a disability/because I was too old, too young, too disabled, too unmarried, too whatever to be allowed to reproduce.
I think knowing the sex benefited my son. My brother and maternal uncle both have significant (and similar) disabilities. While there hasn't been any test that has proved it's genetic, there hasn't been a confirmed diagnosis that *isn't* genetically linked either. I knew I would have some mental hurdles to get over as far as concerns about the possibility of raising a child with those same disabilities. Knowing made it possible for me to think about my baby not as a sex-neutral baby (like an anatomically incorrect doll) but as a son, as *my* son. Actually, I think the thing that helped the most was that we agreed on a name pretty much in the waiting room after the ultrasound, so not only did I know we were having a boy, but he had a name. That really cemented in my mind his person-hood. Those mental hurdles just dropped away once he was a real person in my mind instead of a theoretical set of risks and possibilities.
Sex selective abortions are reprehensible. Look at China and India..where girls are valued less than boys. The problem is so bad in China now that men now outnumber women and many men are having a difficult time finding a spouse. This is one of the ultimate crimes against girls and it pains me that any woman could support such an act. I only "support" abortion in cases of rape incest, fetal deformity and a physical threat to the womans life. Abortion is legal and even if made illegal they wont go away. Any doctor who would perform a sex selective abortion should have their liscence pulled.
Not to derail the thread...but did anyone see the New York Times magazine article on selective reduction?
If it should be up to the woman than a man should have the right to go to court and terminate his obligations before the child is born if he doesnt want to be a father. Its reprehensible that a man has no say in the fate of his unborn child, but if she wants to keep it then she can demand he pony up that child support. Men often have little chance in courts of getting custody of their kids even if they can provide the better home for the child. Judges often side with women simply because she is the mother. Can we also not forget that most kids especially girls arent abused by their fathers but my moms bf or stepdad du jour? Men should have as much say as the woman, especially if they are married or he wants the child and is willing to pay her medical expenses and take custody after birth. Modern feminist have reduced men to sperm donors and cash machines and convinced themselves that men are wife beaters and rapists. Its hypocritical to expect a man to think carefully about who he has sex with if he doesnt want to be a parent and not hold women to the same standard. Barring rape two consent to sex and both should in a perfect world be adults and take care of their kids. With all of the methods of birth control on the market there is no excuse for the number of elective abortion in this country. Yes I know some women cant afford birth control, but is a box of condoms from CVS that expensive? If a man refuses to wear one, dont sleep him with that simple. I heard that over the years that the male wont wear a condom, yet they sleep with them anyway. Reproductive freedom should go both way for men and women if neither want the child they should be able to abort their responsibilities prior to the childs birth.
I know how passionate many women here are about breastfeeding and yet claim to be pro choice. Many lactavists are pro choice for a womans right to abortion, but many sadly dont extend that to women and their breasts after they have a child. If one believes in true reproductive freedom wouldnt that include her right to make the choice to breastfeed or not? How can one say women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy because its her body then turn around and tell a new mother she must breastfeed her child, hence telling her what to do with her body. Breasts are part of the reproductive system and the right to choose should extend to that as well, not just the ovaries and uterus. My breasts, my body, none of your business what I do or dont do with them.
I'd have to say I'm with Lisa... I'm also pro-choice, and I don't think it makes me any less pro-choice to say that I don't think I could support aborting a fetus that happens to be of the "wrong" sex. Concerns about keeping women down aside, let's be honest: most sex-based abortions would be of female fetuses, because in many cultures, boys are simply preferred. I don't know of any cultures who prefer girls over boys... they may exist, but I don't know of any. And certainly, if they do exist, they don't get as much press, and haven't caused as many (potential) social (gender imbalance) problems -- but that's a whole other topic.
Aborting based on sex alone makes me uncomfortable because it inherently judges one sex more worthy, more valuable than the other. And while I hate to make a "slippery slope" argument, it feels like a pretty short step from selection based on sex to selection based on other factors.
I'm pro-choice, but it doesn't mean that I have to like all the reasons people make those choices.
In BC, it used to be policy not to tell the gender of the fetus unless medically necessary. Now, parents can find out for $50. However, it really comes down to the technician. Mine was willing to tell me (I didn't want to know)... but many of my friends had their technicians refuse to look. That said, if you really want to know, there is nothing to stop you from going to a private clinic and paying to find out.
"If God didn't want us to have a *insert sex of baby here*, he wouldn't have had us get pregnant in the first place."
Yes, I know that statement opens a whole other can of worms, but I have to say, I've never heard someone attempt to make a "pro-choice" argument using religion... so it's the only reason I use it now.
Umm...I don't think anybody's planning to legislate forced breastfeeding anytime soon, Stephanie. Perhaps you should read Annie's more recent post on breast versus formula and the inappropriate language in a recent article. Or maybe her post on why she doesn't ask why another woman doesn't breastfeed. I'm sure she'd be happy to link to these here if you can't find them. I don't want to have GOOD choices legislated any more than I want BAD choices legislated. So I'd say that this would be very consistent with a pro-choice stance.
My vague understanding, is that in the West, where regulations regarding other sex-selection techniques (sperm sorting, IVF embryo genetic screening) do exist, it is often permitted for sex-related genetic conditions and for family balancing - where a family already has X number of only one sex - and that uptake of that technology for family balancing is requested pretty much equally frequently to select for males and for females. So it could be similar if/when people have access to this blood test. However, I agree that world-wide, without regulation and enforcement, when this blood test is used to inform gender-based abortion decisions (which ALREADY happen later in pregnancy based on ultasound), it would probably be many, many more female than male fetuses aborted.
In Ontario, I think most ultrasound clinics have a policy of not telling the patient, i.e., making an "interpretation" of the results, unless the physician has okayed sex-disclosure on the requisition.
The root of societal "unfairness" to men is patriarchy, not feminism.
Stephanie:
I can't speak for other lactivists, but I am pro-choice when it comes to pregnancy and infant feeding. I believe that women have the right to (a) information that will help them make the best choice for them and (b) support in whatever decision they do make.
I do understand that a lot of people look down on formula feeding and on formula feeding moms. I think that is too bad. However, breastfeeding moms face a lot more than condescending remarks and glances. They are frequently sabotaged and prevented from being able to breastfeed their babies.
I'm in Ontario. During my U/Ss the techs said "do you want to know?" Once I said no, once I said yes. I was told in the clinic, and had not discussed wanting to know with my OB or midwife prior to the U/S.
Yes, I did. These advancements, while not pure evil in and of themselves (though the twin reduction left me squeamish), are pointing down a very slippery medical ethics slope.
This is something that I have been struggling with as I am preparing to get ready to get pregnant. To be quite honest, I feel very stressed about the possibility of having a boy. I don't want a boy, primarily because there is a lot of addiction, mental illness and other issues with men in the family. But I suspect that the moment that I get pregnant it really won't matter. I would want to know the gender of my child as soon as possible. I am pro-choice and supportive of women who choose to have an abortion. However, I might do this test but I wouldn't have an abortion just because the gender of the child doesn't suit me. I don't even really want a boy at this point, but I still think that it is very selfish to abort a child merely because of their sex.
Just to throw something else out there (I haven't read all the comments, so it may have been mentioned already), is that a number of fertility clinics who do sex selectio are reporting that their is a marked preference for girls, not boys. I'm not sure what to make of it and I don't think it in any way changes your assertion that we live in a patriarchal society that favours men in many, many ways, but it's an interesting addition to the debate.
I had my baby in Vancouver last year. In public hospitals, they will tell you the sex of the child if you are 20 weeks and above. I had my mid-term ultrasound at 19 weeks and the technician refused to tell us the sex although she said she was pretty sure about it. We were quite sad really, as it was close to Christmas and we wanted to tell family whether we were expecting a little girl or boy. When I had another scan about 2 months later we were told.
[...] of gendered kids stuff, including that J.C Penny shirt (you know the one). PhD in Parenting has mixed feelings about a blood test that can predict the sex of a fetus at 7 [...]
I support a woman's right to do as she desires with her body. A gender-based abortion, although upsetting, still falls under that for me.
However, "you made what you made and you should just be happy the baby is healthy" is not realistic for some women who deeply desire a particular gender, and desiring a specific gender does not mean that the opposite gender would not be loved- I have a dear friend with 3 boys who loves them fiercely and yet has been disappointed twice when hoping for a girl. She is an excellent mother and yet the desire for a daughter, in my perception, comes from her own abusive childhood and the desire to give a daughter a better life than she had. She is on no way "not happy" with her wonderful boys. But I do understand her and have a lot of sympathy.
Having an abortion and having disappointment are two separate things to be looked at quite differently, in my opnion.
I have heard it said that technology such as this becoming widely available would be good from a feminist perspective in the long run, because highly sexist societies would die out through lack of reproduction, after producing nothing but men for a couple generations. I find this dubious, but an interesting perspective so I had to bring it up.
But on a similar note, I also can't help thinking that a lot of the suffering caused by China's one child policy would be eliminated if this technology was available. By which I mean of course that all those orphanages full of abandoned female children would disappear.
As to the question you actually asked, I am pro choice so of course I must concede that, as morally complicated as the issue is, I must support a woman's choice to abort based on sex. In fact the existing prenatal screens available to women already pose moral questions. I am pregnant myself and recently went through the screening for chromosomal abnormalities. We had to face the difficult question of what we would do if our fetus was found to have downs syndrome. Luckily the pregnancy was found to be low risk for this, so we didn't have to face the realities of that question.
And personally, I find it fairly well irrelevant at this stage whether we are having a boy or a girl. I am having the anatomy ultrasound next week and we don't want to know the answer to this one. I really don't see the point. And to be honest I do not even really understand your take on this, though I realise it is very common. That is, that you want a child of a specific sex, and if you hadn't gotten your wish you would have been willing to consider having a third child that you otherwise had no interest in having. But of course I don't have to understand everyone's choices in order to support them. That's what being pro choice means, right?