The article, which concerns the future of human evolution, is not interesting (in the way that the suggestions made by the geneticists Steve Jones are not interesting, though the evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns, who appears in the middle of the article, is known to say some interesting things) until this late point:
Dr Jeff Steinberg runs The Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles, a fertility clinic that helps couples to conceive using IVF. Using a technique called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), embryos are screened to try to ensure they're free of genetic diseases.

During the screening process, it's obvious whether an embryo is male or female, and couples can choose the sex of the embryo to be implanted in the womb. This is illegal in the UK, but in the US, "anyone can choose. They can choose a boy, or a girl, and we've done this close to 9,000 times now," Dr Steinberg says.

I'm going to speculate: The reason why this sort of thing is illegal in the UK is because humans are simply not as democratic as their chromosomes. The democracy of meiosis is old and ensures that each gene has a fair chance at expression. This system was selected for because it weakens conflict.

Yet to make an appearance in the world is a human social order that has that degree of democracy of human meiosis. What we have instead are systems dominated and distorted by a small number of humans who are very much like meiotic drivers, genes that break with a fair order by killing of the competition and hyper-representing their interests. It is suggested that the absence of these common self-interested genes in human meiosis resulted from by their expulsion by genes that wanted an order of fairness. This kind of expulsion/revolution has yet to happen in human societies. The rich continue to distort and hyper-represent themselves.

Giving animals from primitive democratic systems the choice to select the sex of an embryo will corrupt the old, stable, and advanced democracy of the genes.