2. 职称英语
  3. Being able to choose the sex of children in advance is nothing new—paren

Being able to choose the sex of children in advance is nothing new—paren

游客2024-11-06  4
问题         Being able to choose the sex of children in advance is nothing new—parents undergoing IVF treatment for infertility have been able to cherry-pick male or female embryos for implantation at US clinics for some time. However, there is a ban on sex selection in many countries. Stephen Wilkinson, Professor of Bioethics at Keele University, illustrates his viewpoint on the issue in the following article. Read it carefully and write your response in NO LESS THAN 300 words, in which you should:
        1. summarize briefly Wilkinson’s opinion;
        2. give your comment
        For millennia, people have sought to influence the gender of their offspring and there are numerous folk myths about, for example, the effect of different sexual positions or foods on your baby’s sex. Nowadays there are some much more reliable methods, like preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This involves creating several embryos outside the body and implanting only male or female ones. Another option is sperm sorting, which involves dividing a sperm sample into "male" and "female" subgroups.
        I believe that we should allow sex selection in the UK within the context of our carefully regulated reproductive medicine sector. In some other parts of the world, sex selection is available on demand, provided that you are able and willing to pay for it. In the UK, it is not.
        Available evidence suggests that, in Western Europe, the number of parents preferring boys is roughly the same as the number preferring girls.
        As well as concerns about population sex ratio, people often cite moral objections to sex selection, like saying children should be regarded as "gifts" meaning there should be no attempt by parents to pick and choose their characteristics.
        Others say sex selection is sexist and that allowing it here would make it harder for countries where a ban on sex selection may well be justified to resist.
        All of these arguments can be countered.
        Firstly, should parents regard their children as "gifts"? Children are not literally gifts, or if they are, from God perhaps, then they are no more gifts than other positive things in life.
        Yet we don’t, in general, say that it’s wrong to attempt to shape life’s positive things by, for example, choosing a career, or a house, or a partner.
        Secondly, sex selection is not necessarily sexist. While there are no doubt some prospective parents who think that men are superior to women (or vice versa), for most the choice is just a preference. A pertinent example here is what’s called family balancing—where a family that already has three boys wants to add a girl to even things up.
        Finally, the fear that allowing sex selection here would open the floodgates elsewhere is unfounded. Considering that sex selection in other countries is already happening on a grand scale anyway, despite the fact that the UK does not allow "social" sex selection. Our "setting a good example" by prohibiting sex selection does not seem to be making much difference. So, while I am not a sex selection enthusiast, and certainly don’t think that it should be encouraged or paid for by the NHS (except to avoid sex-linked disease) the arguments for prohibiting it are not as strong as they may at first appear.
        There is real cost and harm attached to the ban: some people are distressed by not being able to have the family of their choice, while others are forced to turn to seeking treatment overseas. I believe that we should allow sex selection in the UK within the context of our carefully regulated reproductive medicine sector.
选项
答案                                                                         The Fallacy of Sex Selection
        Theoretically, with the development of human genetics, there will be a higher success rate in preselecting the sex of children. In the article, Professor Wilkinson supports sex selection and counters the moral and sexist implications of sex determination with three arguments. Firstly, choosing the number and sex of offspring is just like choosing a career or a partner. It is all a matter of personal choice. Secondly, sex selection is adopted for the purpose of family balancing. Thirdly, the ban of sex selection will harm the wellbeing of families who are unable to have the child desired. With all due respect, I don’t think these reasons are socially and morally adequate to justify sex selection.
        For societal considerations, allowing sex selection will reinforce discrimination, particularly against women. According to a social research, over 90% of the subjects suggest that they want their first child to be a boy. In this sense, the artificial selection of the sex of offspring affirms women’s secondary position. Another concern is sex ratio of the population. Admittedly, the legalization of sex selection will lead to an increase of the population of the preferred sex and thus cause gender imbalance. The consequences, I am afraid, are a series of social problems such as sexual crime, trafficking of women and mercenary marriage.
        For moral considerations, children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the "owner". If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye color or skin color. It runs obviously the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an extension of the consumer society. We are, in allowing sex selection, encouraging false ideas of "perfection" —damning those that don’t look well in a certain way.
        In conclusion, the argument of Professor Wilkinson for sex selection is not strong enough to make it socially and morally acceptable. At least at the current stage, it is not wise for us to allow sex selection.
解析         材料围绕“父母是否有权决定孩子性别”这一话题展开论述。Wilkinson教授对英国颁布的禁令表示反对，他认为选择孩子的性别是父母的一项权利（A right to choice）。主要有以下三个原因：首先，他认为选择孩子的性别和选择工作、选择伴侣一样无可厚非（don’t say that it’s wrong）。其次，性别选择不是性别歧视（not necessarily sexist），而是出于家庭平衡（family balancing）的考虑。最后，英国颁布的禁令并没有什么成效（not making much difference），反而迫使某些家庭到海外寻求治疗（seeking treatment overseas）。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3833452.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)