| Title |
Engendering Harm: A Critique of Sex Selection For “Family Balancing”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-017-9835-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arianne Shahvisi |
| Abstract |
The most benign rationale for sex selection is deemed to be "family balancing." On this view, provided the sex distribution of an existing offspring group is "unbalanced," one may legitimately use reproductive technologies to select the sex of the next child. I present four novel concerns with granting "family balancing" as a justification for sex selection: (a) families or family subsets should not be subject to medicalization; (b) sex selection for "family balancing" entrenches heteronormativity, inflicting harm in at least three specific ways; (c) the logic of affirmative action is appropriated; (d) the moral mandate of reproductive autonomy is misused. I conclude that the harms caused by family balancing are sufficiently substantive to override any claim arising from a supposed right to sex selection as an instantiation of procreative autonomy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2022.
All research outputs
#13,950,934
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#368
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,337
of 440,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.