Balancing The Family !

The relentless march of Science is ever pushing back frontiers.   The coming of the IVF world ensured that many childless couples were able to conceive and complete the traditional family circle. It is an area of argument with some of the churches bitterly opposed to any actions that they claim interfere with the natural birth cycle.

Now a new proposal is about to send the IVF contenders to the barricades.  One of the contentious points of the IVF programme is its ability to manipulate the sex of the child, and this is already covered by strict regulation.    There are some loopholes.   It is logical to close out genetic diseases such as Haemophilia, which is a bleeding disease that usually runs in the male line of ancestry.  Where this is present, families would be wise to ensure that they have female children.

Now it is proposed that a " balancing factor " be allowed in family planning.   Manipulating the sex of the first child born to a women will still be forbidden, but should the family find themselves with two children of the same sex - and desire a third ?    Then they should have the right to choose that third child to be of the opposite sex to the other children.

It sounds simple and clear cut, but as usual the devil is in the detail.  A century ago family life was very different.  The average courtship led to an engagement, then marriage and later a family arrived.  It was all very orderly, but that is not the world of today.   About half of todays children are born out of wedlock and many parents have no intention of ever getting married.  Many are home births and it seems certain that not all are legally recorded.

Just imagine the complications if a man with a couple of kids from a broken marriage got together with a woman in a similar situation - and they both wanted one of their union - of a preferred sex ?  Whenever we make a new rule, be sure to first examine all the contingencies that can arise - because it is certain that many will crawl out of the woodwork.

The one thing that is certain is that we are a manipulative lot and whatever rules are put in place will be gamed by many.   The really big question is whether Australians have a preference for one of the sexes and how that would play out if child sex selection became a de facto lottery.

We have only to look to China for the answer to that question.   China forced its one child policy on its huge population out of necessity.  Girls were undervalued.  They became someone elses wife.   Boys had the responsibility to care for their aged parents and grand parents, and the wife they chose was forced to carry out these duties.   As a result, hundreds of thousands of girl childs were aborted after conception and China became a country of boy children.

The end result was tragic.   China has an over balanced population and many men are destined to never find a partner - because of a huge female shortage.  At the same time the demographics have changed. The people have moved from agrarian villagers to city workers and this ageing population lacks a social security net.

Fortunately, Australia is not reliant on its children for family support, but our planners would be wise to think long and hard before setting sex selection in motion.   They first need to be sure of the final outcome.   Whatever rules they put in place are unlikely to colour the outcome of whatever eventually evolves !