ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2017
A Feminist Critique of Justifications for Sex Selection.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Review
- Sex selection and non-invasive prenatal testing: A review of current practices, evidence, and ethical issues.Prenatal diagnosis · 2020Review
- Accounting for the Moral Significance of Technology: Revisiting the Case of Non-Medical Sex Selection.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- To the Barricades or the Blackboard: Bioethical Activism and the "Stance of Neutrality".Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- A 450 Year Old Turkish Poem, Art as a Qualitative Investigation Tool, Buddhist Deathways, Karma and Eudaimonia in Death and Organ Donation: The Wonders of Truly Diverse Bioethical Inquiry!Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This paper examines dominant arguments advocating for the procreative right to undergo sex selection for social reasons, based on gender preference. I present four of the most recognized and common justifications for sex selection: the argument from natural sex selection, the argument from procreative autonomy, the argument from family balancing, and the argument from children's well-being. Together these represent the various means by which scholars aim to defend access to sex selection for social reasons as a legitimate procreative choice. In response, I contend that these justifications are flawed and often inconsistent and therefore fail to vindicate the practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28815468What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.