Introduction / Context:
This question weighs ethical, social, and demographic consequences against an asserted informational “right.” Many jurisdictions regulate sex-selective practices due to harmful societal outcomes.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Argument I links sex-determination misuse to female foeticide and skewed sex ratios.
- Argument II asserts a general right of parents to know foetal sex.
- No medical necessity for sex knowledge is stated (e.g., sex-linked genetic disease).
Concept / Approach:
Public policy often restricts certain information when its predictable misuse harms vulnerable groups and destabilizes social balance. Ethical frameworks prioritize preventing serious harm.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Strong. It identifies severe, documented consequences (female foeticide, gender imbalance) justifying a complete ban or tight regulation except for legitimate medical reasons.Argument II: Weak as framed. A generic “right to know” does not outweigh clear, large-scale social harm. Rights are not absolute; they are limited to prevent significant harm.
Verification / Alternative check:
Policy practice often allows sex-linked disease testing while banning disclosure of foetal sex for non-medical reasons—consistent with the thrust of Argument I.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II / Either / Neither / Both: These underplay the serious social harm dimension recognised in many legal frameworks.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating all “rights to know” with absolute, consequence-free claims.
Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong
Discussion & Comments