Church opposes baby sex selection

Last updated 01:28 06/10/2008

Relevant offers

Politics

MPs' travel bills leap during election Remedial work for navy's problem ship Wait for new oil law before awarding permits, Govt urged TVNZ included in police Electoral Act investigation Sea law 'an environmental risk' Govt defends 50c an hour minimum wage lift Maori queue-jumping for SOEs raised More claims about PM's man and doco funding Peters demands apology over Whanau Ora row Today in politics: Friday, February 10

Presbyterians have called for the Government to reject a proposal to allow parents to select the sex of their children.

A recommendation from a committee of Protestant bioethical experts calling for a ban on sex selection for non-medical reasons was voted in virtually unopposed at the Presbyterians' biannual general assembly.

The Bioethics Council, a ministerial advisory committee, recommended in June that the ban on using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to select a baby's sex purely for social reasons be lifted.

However, the joint Presbyterian, Methodist and Anglican Inte-church Bioethics Council declared the idea "undesirable" on social and cultural grounds.

Chairwoman Audrey Jarvis, a retired ethicist and molecular biologist, said the practice offered no benefit to the child and served only the needs of the parents.

"The situation should not be that the value of a child depends on its gender."

Laws introduced four years ago banned sex selection except when there is a risk that the child will be born with a sex-linked genetic condition, such as haemophilia. It is also banned in Australia and Britain, but the United States has no restrictions.

The committee had no objection to sex selection on medical grounds, for example if there was a family history of haemophilia - which is found only in males.

But allowing it for other reasons would be a move toward the "commodification" of embryos, Dr Jarvis said.

There was little debate or discussion about the recommendation when it was put to assembly delegates in Upper Hutt on Friday.

Ad Feedback

- © Fairfax NZ News

43 comments
dom   #43   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

i think it should be lifted, because some families would like to acheive gender balance. we have 3boys, 1 girls, i would love to give her a little sister. but cant because of the stupid ban, am i meant to risk getting more boys with autism, i already have two! come one. be fair! from one very upset mummy.

Steven   #42   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

God has a plan for everyone. i would never choose a gender. If god wants to me have a boy, then he will give me a son. Same with daughter...

Sarah   #41   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

I have two boys and would love a little girl. theres alot of information out there in regards to gender selection naturally how is this any better than through PGD, we are not asking them to genteically desgin a baby eg make it have blue eyes and blonde hair. its only giving you either a boy or a girl how is that wrong. they are testing the embryo for defects anyway, isnt that messing with mother nature also infact ivf is messing with mother nature entially. so if ya gonna critise gender selcetion you better critise the whole medical profession.

Malcolm   #40   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Kiwitrue..you state that Christians have "have no idea as to what is true" and are "confused", and then you agree with them by stating "As for Sex Selection it is not natural which makes it not right..".

I'm not sure it is the Christians who are confused.

Malcolm   #39   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Dear Susanna you have COMPLETELY missed my point. When I stated that "some Presbyterians may believe in evolution", I was commenting on response #4 whose author wrote "Presbyterians believe in fairy tales..." thus I was equating evolution to a fairy tale - which seems to be your point. In attacking me you have attacked yourself! Personally I believe that there is absolute PROOF that micro evolution has occured - that species evolve over time. The study of Drosophila fruit flies in Hawaii confirms this. What I am NOT convinced of is that macro evolution has occurred. Nothing in the Bible, in my opinion, is undermined by this position - in fact I think the Bible is found to be correct - God made them "male and female" and they "reproduce after their kind". I think this is what the scientific evidence is showing us. Also your statement "You cannot be a girl but still have male organs..." is wrong - what about hermaphrodites? Christians have NOTHING to fear from acknowledging that (micro) evolution occurs and hermaphrodites exist.

Josh   #38   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Gender selection doesn't imply that one gender is better. As an example, if somebody wants to have a healthy child, that doesn't mean that they think children with genetic disabilities are inferior as people.

And, if the gender balance starts to get out of hand, ONLY THEN should we restrict sex selection (at least, selecting of the more popular gender should be prohibited until it goes back to equal).

Susanna   #37   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Sorry Malcolm but you cannot be both a Presbyterian and an Evolutionist. Its like being a girl and a boy. I totally doesn't work. You see, you either believe in the whole of the Bible as Gods truth or none of it. You can't believe only in some of it because that is implying that God is lying by writing something untrue. In the beginning of the Bible it says GOD CREATED THE WORLD. If you were really a Christian you would believe that. You cannot be a girl but still have male organs for instance you are either one or the other. No fence sitting.

Susanna   #36   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Ewww gender selection is so wrong. By selecting a gender you are implying that there is something wrong with the other gender, which is completely absurd! We should just be happy with what we have because both genders are equal and have equal potential. Otherwise might become like China. In China it is estimated that the boy girl ratio is 3:1.

Malcolm   #35   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Jane, you state "Never would I agree with anything a church would say...". What if the church said, as they all do, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you". This is a direct quote from Jesus. It's in the Bible so all the churches say it. (They may not live it out perfectly but that is not Jesus' fault).Don't you think this is a good idea? What if, instead of hating, we all learnt to love, not only our family, not just our neighbours, but our enemies as well. Wouldn't we all be better off? (The alternative, hating our enemies, has been tried throughout all of history and has been found wanting.) Please think about this the next time you are tempted to state things like "Never would I agree with anything a church would say". God bless you.

KiwiTrue   #34   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Heah Heah Paul - I Agree - You Tell E'm mate these so called christians who have no idea as to what is true and what is not, make you wonder sometimes but then again they are obviously lost sheep who has wondered off into pasture and don't know how to get home. There's a name for these type people "CONFUSED" As for Sex Selection it is not natural which makes it not right to chose a gender to suit ones flavours becomes "X RATED"


Show 1-33 of 43 comments
Special offers
Opinion poll

Do you think politicians spend too much on travel?

Yes - they should be reined in

No - travelling is part of their jobs

Vote Result

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content

Pagani blog pointer small

John Pagani - Left leaning

Don't set Treaty back 25 years

David Farrar blog pointer small

By the Numbers: David Farrar watches the polls

Mondayising Waitangi and Anzac Days

The Whip blog pointer small

Andrea Vance and John Hartevelt on politics

What to do with the Crafar Farms?