If I recall correctly, the New York Times magazine did a story on this study--or one like it. They found that while most people wanted to 'balance' their families, they almost universally wanted an older boy and a younger girl.

In America, there's lots of social rewards for both sexes, so I'm not surprised. People generally think girls are easier, too, so that probably feeds into the balance issue. My fear is that if sex selection becomes easy, then in societies where there are more benefits to sons than daughters, like countries that have to pay dowries for daughters, then you'll see this abused.

Another reason for the girl preference: there are a fair number of sex-linked hereditary diseases that affect males exclusively or almost exclusively. In general, girls are more robust than boys, healthwise. So in this sense, girls are easier than boys, but I can't relate to people who think that they're easier in general - though I know this is a common belief. Anyway, I can imagine a couple with a family history of hemophilia, for instance, opting to have daughters instead of sons.

Interesting comments. I have a son, and I can't count the number of times I've heard from parents of boy-girl combinations, "Well, you know, boys are a lot easier!" I have in fact never heard anyone say, "Girls are easier." I don't have any empirical evidence from which to have an opinion myself on whether one gender is easier than the other to raise, however.

I think sex-selection bugs many feminists because at some basic level we want to believe that gender shouldn't make a difference in how we value or even view our children. But when it comes to parenting your actual child, so many irrational impulses (some clearly socialized, some maybe not so cleary) come into play, that it's difficult to resist all of them, or even to think critically about all of them. What's in your gut just comes out at times and determines your actions.

If this study is accurate, and people choose equally between girls and boys, then what would be the feminist argument against sex selection? That we want to foster gender neutrality as a principle in and of itself, regardless of whether the statistical outcome is different? Not a bad principle, I think, but I think the jury is still out on whether gender neutrality is a good or bad thing among feminists.

While I can certainly see the dangers, I like the idea of choosing the sex of our future child or children. If it's not too expensive (and therefore cost-prohibitive for some, including me) or risky, having that sort of freedom is very appealing.

If one avers the idea of procreation only when one wishes it to be so, choosing gender seems like a logical step. These aren't "designer babies" we're talking about... almost all of the process would be left as random. While it might be tempting to make this argument for something like, say, blue eyes, I don't think people "try" for blue eyed children as much as they do for girls or boys.

I don't really see what the argument among "pro-choice" feminists is all about. If you have already decided that the right of a womans autonomy over her body is more important than the potential existence and rights of the fetal tissue no matter what the circumstances, then what is the issue?

If the fetal tissue doesn't have the right of potential existence, then the women should have complete control of it. If she doesn't want a boy, she should have it aborted or at least have the right to make that choice. Right?

Following the same logic to it's conclusion, whats wrong with deciding to abort based on other factors, eye color, intelligence, diseases, etc.
It may not be for everyone, but who are we to interfere with someones choice in the matter? After all, its her body.

Tfreridge:

Exactly so. If my wife wants to keep terminating male embyos until she gets a female, I'm fine with that. If we find a genetic disorder that correlates to an elevated risk of mental retardation, I'm confident she will terminate. I don't have strong eye-color preferences, but I see no normative content to using that as a criteria for termination. Like I said, I'm for abortion on demand without apology.

Now, for societies so misogynist that they produce imbalances with sex selection, the problem is not the right of the fetus, but the health of the society.

tfreridge -

the important sentence in regard to your question is this:

"Yet it's important to understand patient interest in nonmedical sex selection and adequately address the ethical and social implications before the cat is out of the bag."

Personally, as a feminist, I don't have issue with sex selection as sex selection. As it's a woman's right to choose, I support it.

So, the problem I have with sex selection is not that it exists, but rather with the social/cultural contexts in which it occurs. I think in a society where boys and girls are considered equal and there is not cultural preference either way it's perfectly way. However, as we both know, this case doesn't exist in all countries.

Those countries that are quite sexist/misogynistic, tend to prefer boys over girls. Hence, our focus should be on changing those aspect of a society/culture which privileges boys over girls. A lot more than sex selection are issues due to this difference in value in a lot of countries, so its a wider issue.

But this is just just one feminist's opinion :)

It just seems to me that we're going backwards. We're are lowering the value of life, when we decide that it is not worth living because it doesn't have the right hair color, the right sex, etc.... A womans right to choose is because of the problems that it causes her own body, life, whatever....to choose abortion based on the atributes of the fetus seems to me to be in direct conflict with the reason why you argue that it is a womans right.

tfreridge -

Hon, you're coming from a different position here.

Personally, I think sex selection is a completely dumb-arse reason to abort a fetus. I, myself, wouldn't do such in a million years.

But, my feelings here don't matter. It's not my place to tell a woman that my opinion trumps her control over her body. For me to push such would be, in my opinion, no better than those I fight against that would deny a woman her right to chose on what I may consider more 'valid' grounds.

Do I like such? Nope. But is it a classic example of how this all exists in a grey and complex world where compromise and the lesser wheevil rules? You betcha.

See where we are coming from?

Maybe the government should dictate a 55% male, 45% female at birth ratio. This would produce a 50/50 society by the mid adult years so treasured by the social planners.

By the way, what difference does it make why fetuses are aborted. If you believe the mother has a right to abort from the day of conception to the day of delivery, is sex selection not as good reason as any other?

One serious factor making girls desirable is our hight divorce rate and out-of-wedlock childbearing rate. In those two circumstances, the mother generally has custody of the child, meaning the maternal grandparents will enjoy a closer relationship with the grandchild than the paternal grandparents. Parents of a boy have to realize that he may father grandchildren that they never get to know.

Maybe we need to admit that a woman may have an abortion for reasons that are sexist, racist, elitist, eugenicist, homophobic (see the movie Twilight of the Golds), but if it is her right, that is her right regardless.