he thought of women having abortions in order to choose the sex of their future children fills many with revulsion. To think clearly about this issue, it is necessary to separate arguments about the ethics of sex determination (SD) from those pertaining to abortion. People who find abortion ethically problematic will want to see its incidence reduced. We must contemplate SD carried out by preconceptional means rather than abortion following prenatal diagnosis as it is only a matter of time before techniques of sperm separation are perfected.

The premise of this article is that whilst sex determination is not a desirable practice, prohibiting it by law is likely to do more harm than good. This conclusion is clearly consequentialist - the only form of ethical argument that is plausible in this context. It is hard to provide persuasive reasons why SD is intrinsically unethical. No rights are violated when SD is allowed by law. Legal prohibition of SD will infringe upon the reproductive rights of women.

The consequences of legally permitting or prohibiting SD are bound to vary from one society to another. This analysis is limited to India and China, where SD is widespread and consequences are more palpable than in North America. In these two countries, the methods currently used are postconceptional and abortion is legal, without the religious and ethical abhorrence common among Christians, orthodox Jews and most Muslims. SD will probably never reach the proportion in the United States that it already has in these two Asian countries because the factors contributing to a strong preference for sons, so prevalent there, are absent here.