Características de la cultura organizacional

An important part of the public discussion is (implicitly) based on ideas of reproductive liberty. Below, some different conceptions of reproductive liberty in case of sex selection are presented and further analyzed with the use of mediation analysis. Note that in the following statements, the ‘is’, ‘can’ and ‘ought’ are mostly intertwined:

[Person A]: “You need to come to a decision based on the thoughts, feelings and decisions of you and your partner ONLY. You can't let the opinions of others affect your decision.”

[Person B]: “Why deny this woman her choice of happiness? do their wishes impact your life? does it matter if there is a gender disparity? aren't you just worried because it goes against what you know? Liberty is the pursuit of personal happiness without depraving another of their liberty. u c?”

[Person C]: “Personally, I had no issues choosing to pursue sex selection (other than cost! lol). I believe we only live once, and it was up to me to try to make my life as happy/fulfilled as possible.”

[Person D]: “I just want to experience parenting both genders.”

First, for these three respondents the understanding of reproductive liberty is based on the idea that whatever is available as technology, the choice to use it is up to the parents in question.

Considering person A, this person seems to understand reproductive liberty as the liberty to autonomously decide if and how one will have offspring (the statement is a response to a question from another person whether she should use Microsoft considering the negative attitude of others). As the availability of the technology will increase the number of options, it increases reproductive liberty. Also, person A seems to have an instrumental definition of technology in mind, as we should autonomously decide whether to use sex-selection technology.

Person B understands reproductive liberty more as a derivative of self-determination. He/she responds clearly to an earlier (negative) response on sex selection ("Why deny this woman her choice of happiness?"). Furthermore, just like person A, person B seems to have the conception that deciding for sex selection is a private issue, yet adds to this the criterion that it should not deprave others of their liberty. Also, he/she gives an interpretation/explanation for people being negative towards sex selection, being 'it is something that goes against what we know'. According to person B, this leads people to judge negatively on this sort of change or innovation. Next to this, person B has a goal-oriented interpretation of liberty in that he/she sees it as the basis to get to personal happiness. Just like person A, as the technology increases the available options, so are the chances of self-determination on this matter. The technology hence seems to mediate the consequences in that the ‘right’ sex of the child is seen as adding more to the personal happiness and the result of a personal decision. Although the specific sex of the child for some people might have been a part of ‘the good life’ before the technology was able to mediate, it now has become a personal decision of ‘taking life in one’s own hands’.

Person C seems to speak from personal experience. Just like person B, person C seems to have the interpretation that being able to choose the specific sex of the child results in a happier and more fulfilled life. Sex-selection technology is able to do so, and hence it is up to the couple/parents to decide whether to use it or not.

Person D posts a quite simple but strong message: isn’t it interesting to parent both genders? Again, the technology in question increases the chances of this situation happening, and it should be up to couples to decide.

Critical stances on reproductive liberty can be found as well. In that case, it is often opposed to other values, such as the value of human life/human dignity or public interests. The latter will come forward in later paragraphs. With respect to human dignity, one poster states:

[Person E]: “I don't think this should be about liberty; it should be about human dignity and human dignity concerns even if it does not affect me. While some might have the right intentions & (not) want a child, because there is something inherently lesser if a certain trait would(n't) be missing there is no guarantee that others, who have the same possibility, will have the right intentions. I respect liberty, but I find human dignity to be more important.”

Person E seems to respond to a case where people might use sex selection for morally wrong reasons, such as sex discrimination. For this person, hence, the technology seems to expand our duties and responsibilities in that our choice for a specific sex must be based on the right intentions. Also, the unborn child is (implicitly) seen as a right holder whose rights are expanded by the technology, and which must be protected for intrusion for the wrong reasons. When the technology is used, it should only be in the case when couples have ‘morally right’ reasons.