* In our Ethical Issues class at Biola University's Talbot School of Theology we have various discussion board topics. This one was for our unit on the ethics of reproductive technology. I give the prompt and then my answer along with a few responses to other students' comments.
Discussion Board Prompt:
You are counseling a couple who has three children, all boys. They very much want to have a girl and want to use Microsort sperm separating technology in order to improve their chances at having a girl. They live in the US and realize that if they lived in a different culture, there may be cultural reasons for preferring one sex over another. They have no sex preference in general, only that they want to balance their family by having a girl to go into the mix with their boys. How would you counsel this couple about using technology to select for sex? Where does Scripture speak to this couple about their decision?
My Answer:
I would use John Frame's "tri-perspectivalism" approach to ethics to help the couple think through the various aspects. Frame speaks about three perspectives:
· Normative perspective which considers deontological categories
· Situational perspective which analyzes the nature of the situation and possible consequences flowing from various choices
· Existential (personal) perspective which emphasizes the character (virtues) of the moral agent
So any ethical judgment (including this one about technological sex selection) involves the application of a norm to a situation by a person. (Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life, 33). All of this can be explained fairly simply and quickly (I've done it at church and over meals) by speaking of applying God's rules to the particular situation as we also take into account motives and intentions.
Note: Pedagogically and pastorally as I'm working through this issue I will be asking questions of them to ascertain their understanding of God's Word, ethical reasoning, and motives. For example, in light of the normative perspective, as I explain what this is, I might ask, "Can you think of any commandments, rules, or principles from God's Word that might be relevant to this decision?" This allows me to gauge their depth of maturity on ethical matters and their understanding of God's Word. And, of course, patience and empathy are needed throughout the process
Normative Perspective
· The desire for children is a good desire (Genesis 1.28--"Be fruitful and multiply") and children are considered a "gift from the Lord" (Psalm 127.3).
· There is also the fact of that humanity being the image of God is given the task of taking dominion for the glory of God (Genesis 1.28) and this would include laying bare the technological potentialities in the created order.
· There doesn't seem to be anything, in principle, that forbids a couple from exercising directional control of the outcome of the sex of the child. The idea that the doctrine of God's sovereignty precludes the use of this technology would need to be spelled out more fully to gain traction. For those Protestants who allow for some forms of birth control the argument that "it's against God's sovereignty" would need to be nuanced so as not to preclude legitimate forms of birth control.
Situational Perspective
· This perspective understanding the dynamics of understanding exactly what is happening when the Microsort procedure is done. The Microsort website describes the process of how the individual sperm are "tagged." There is no destruction of embryos (human persons) so this is not a problem.
· Further study of their website would give the probabilistic success rate which is a factor to consider since one is paying for this procedure. Microsort gives the following effectiveness rates: for girls 93% and for boys 82%. These are both fairly high rates and in the case being considered (selection for a girl) it is the higher rate. This interest in effectiveness rates is part of the general wisdom approach the Scripture would urge upon us as we live life. One is not engaged in folly if one pursues a path such as this which has a 93% success rate. For comparison, it is the height of folly and a waste of resources to play the state lottery hoping to bring financial stability through such an "investment."
· One does need to consider unintended consequences to the use of this procedure. Although the percentage is high for success, this is not a guarantee. The couple could still get a boy, instead of a girl. What will this mean for their long-term contentment? Will they still rejoice in God's goodness and providence? This begins to move into the Existential perspective with its emphasis on character and virtue formation.
Existential Perspective
· Since this perspective deals with character and motives it will be important to help the couple engage in a healthy self-examination of their motives. Why do they want to use this procedure in an effort to get a girl baby? Their stated reason it to "balance their family." I will examine this below. But other motives that would be morally problematic would include:
o Covetousness or envy of others for what they have.
o Self-glory--"Look, I've a got a big, mixed family!" (Proverbs 25.27).
o Discontent with one's current situation.
· What of the issue of "balance?" Dr. Rae asks the question, "Why do you think your current family is unbalanced" and then wonders if this quest for balance is not a subtle "shot at the sovereignty of God." It certainly could be motivated by discontent with God's sovereignty, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. My guess is (and I would want to probe this with the couple) the quest for "balance" is not a result of thinking their current family is unbalanced. Rather, as they have a desire to have more children (a good desire, all things considered) the desire is to experience the God-ordained variety in the fruit of multiplication. It can be a good desire to both to experience and express my parenting in relation to a girl. As a parent of three children (two boys--25 and 23 and a girl--18) I can testify that I am changed by being a parent in general and I am changed in specific ways in relation to my boys that are distinct from the ways I am changed and developed in relation parenting my girl. This is a reflection of the goodness of the sexual binary he has created to image himself. Thus, the quest for balance could be (or could be developed) a reflection to experience and express the full range of parenting.
By looking at all three perspectives and helping the couple to see where their heart is at through prayerful self-examination, I think that a couple could use the technology of Microsort to select for the sex of their child.
Addendum to post after reading others’ contributions
I wanted to add an addendum to my original post in light of thinking of the issue with the other students' arguments in mind. Here is thought experiment.
Suppose we discover the hitherto unknown fact that a child conceived by normal sexual intercourse on Mondays has a 82% chance of being male and one conceived on Fridays has a 93% chance of being female. The other five days have a 50/50 chance of being male or female. We do not yet understand the causal mechanisms as to why this is the case but the statistical analysis is secure. Would it be morally permissible to choose to engage in sexual intercourse on Fridays only for a period of time in the hopes of conceiving a girl? Now, of course, there could be all sorts of bad and base motives for such a move (i.e.,the belief that boys are bad or inferior to girls, etc.) but could there not be any good motives (i.e., such as the one I laid out in my original post under the discussion of "balance")?
Someone might object: "Your thought experiment presupposes that we are discovering the way the world is but 'the way the world is' is created by God. Just because we don't yet understand the causal mechanism does not mean that God did not set up the world in the way you describe."
My response: Yes, God set up the world that way but it's also the case that he set up the world in such a way as to find the means to make the decision by use of a technology. What is the morally relevant difference?
I'm not completely sure my thought experiment works. It might be susceptible to a reductio--does the use of such a thought experiment justify too much? Would it serve to justify anything that we can do technologically?
Follow-up discussion with others:
[Student A],
Well, it looks like we came to diametrically opposite conclusions on this issue! I hope our interaction can sharpen each other.
As I read your piece, you have two claims: (1) the use of sperm sorting as done by Microsort is immoral in that the couple is elevating their vision for what they want over God's will and (2) this technology involves the destruction of embryos.
Let me take (2) first. I think that this is a factual issue and you may have made a mistake here. If you are correct in your understanding of the facts of the technology, then I would unhesitatingly agree with you on this basis. But, as I understand the technology used by Microsort there are no embryos destroyed. On page 211 of our textbook Dr. Rae writes that the Microsort technology "does not involve abortion or discarding embryos." If it the case that no embryos are destroyed this leaves just your first reason.
Regarding (1), I want to ask for clarification on your view of "sovereignty." You mention using the concept in a "magisterial sense, not a determinist one." I'm unfamiliar with this distinction. I am familiar with the distinction between God's decretive will and his preceptive will. His will of decree cannot be overruled whereas his preceptive will is his will of command, such as "It is God's will for people to not commit murder." His will of precept is violated all the time. That's the rough-and-ready distinction. Theologian John Frame adds a qualifier to "preceptive will":
"The term preceptive is somewhat misleading, for it does not always have to do with literal precepts (God's law,, commandments). Sometimes God's preceptive will refers to states of affairs that God sees as desirable, but which he chooses not to bring about (e.g., Ezek. 18:23; 2 Peter 3:9)." John Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism, p. 109
With this distinction, the Microsort technology cannot overrule God's decretive will. I think Dr. Rae is alluding to this when he writes, "But to be clear theologically, no human action is capable of undercutting God's sovereignty." (Moral Choices, 211). So this leaves God's will of precept. Are you claiming that the couple is violating some specific moral stipulation of God's law/code? If so, it would seem incumbent on you to specify exactly what this commandment is which is being violated. Is the claim that there is some state of affairs that God's desires but is overruled by the couple? Again, it seems like you need to specify what this and where in the biblical text or biblical reasoning such a state of affairs is set forth.
You do add one more detail to your argument when you imagine that the "couples’ vision is merely the idealized picture of their future family they formulated together early in their relationship." This seems to be an overly negative assessment of people's motivations. I don't doubt that such could be the case but I argue in my post above that there can be other motivations which are more healthy.
[Student B],
Thank you for your contribution. There are a number of things I agree with in your post. Two of the items are:
• I agree with your thoughts in your second paragraph--particularly the dangers of sex selection in China and India.
• I agree that children should not be mere means but proper ends of value in themselves.
Let me offer a few comments where I find myself less enthusiastic about your arguments:
• You write, "Trying to determine their children's gender is the distorted greed of parents who think of their children as their own." You seem to be saying that this is the only motive possible for parents considering the use of Microsort for the selection of the sex of a child. I offer another kind of motive that is possible in my original post. What do you think of it?
• You write: "If children are God's gift, then their gender must also be God's will, so humans should not change it arbitrarily." Yes, children are God's gift and their gender is also God's will (his decretive will). But in engaging in sex selection through the use of specified sperm does not change a child's gender since that gender has not been actualized yet. Nor does the decision to attempt to set the direction of a child's sex need to be done arbitrarily. There can, potentially, be good reasons offered which are not arbitrary.
• You write: "However, it is not appropriate to use this technology for simple family balance because it is against the providence of God. Before we adjust gender to suit our taste, we must think about why God gave a child of this gender to our family." Before one can claim it is "against the providence of God" one should specify which conception of the providence of God one is working with--Reformed, Arminian, Molinist, Open Theism, etc. I'm not sure any of the views argue that the procedure violates the providence of God. It may be a violation of the law or command of God. Or it might be construed along the following lines, "Human beings lack the authority to make certain decisions about the beginning or ending of life. Such decisions are reserved to divine sovereignty." (NBAC Report "Cloning Human Beings," p. 44). In other words, your objection might better be stated as an illegitimate overreach into an area where only God has the prerogative to act. Also, your statement speaks of adjust the gender of the child and asking "why God gave a child of this gender to our family." This presupposes that the child is already in existence but this is not the case in the situation under consideration. The use of Microsort is not changing the gender of the child but attempting to set the direction of which sex is most likely conceived.
