Gender selection of children

To begin, I would like to clarify my points about killing. In his first argument, my opponent cited two techniques of gender selection to defend. The second, genetic-diagnosis embryos, is, by definition, killing. The idea behind this technique is to make a bunch of embryos and then weed out (kill) the unwanted ones. Embryos may not be defined as persons, but the scientific community is in agreement that they are human life. Therefore, it is accurate to say that my opponent's second technique leads to the destruction of human life. The first technique, sperm sorting, is less likely to be used because it has significantly lower success rates (90% for girls and 70% for guys. http://en.wikipedia.org...) than other gender selection techniques. Contention One ========================================== Gender selection harms society by enabling excessive gender imbalance My opponent attacks my first contention by saying that I have failed to prove that excess males will harm society. Firstly, I must ask readers to use their common sense in considering this point. If competition becomes more intense, do people act exactly the same, get less violent, or get more violent? Evolution (or intelligent design if you believe it it) has given people powerful desires to procreate. A shortage of women challenges this desire and leads men to do harmful things they otherwise wouldn't. The excess of men further harms society by creating far more unsettled 'drifters'. When men realize that their chances of finding a woman to start a family with are slim to none, they are much more likely to participate in risky behaviors such as illegal drug use and crime. The increased competition for women also promotes human trafficking and 'purchased' wives for desperate bachelors. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com.... "This means combined, both countries are only 2/6ths of the worlds population. Now assuming that every couple in these countries are actually having children, and even further are actually only choosing males, the outcome would not be a "gross" effect on the male/female ratio of the world. " My opponent argues that if 2/6 (1/3) of the world has only male children, things will be alright. Consider for a moment how you would feel if everyone in your country shared your gender. My opponent's supposition is ridiculous. With only a ten to twenty percent gender imbalance, China is already beginning to feel the negative effects of gender selection. The Chinese government doesn't call their gender imbalance "very grave" (. http://news.xinhuanet.com...) for no reason. Gender imbalance fosters unhealthy competition, human trafficking, and risky behaviors. If avoiding these problems isn't a valid contention against elective gender selection, I don't know what is. Contention Two=========================================== Gender selection is immoral because it is discriminatory My opponent argues the following: "Simply preferring to have a boy or a girl is not discriminatory anymore than wanting chocolate or vanilla ice cream. " I, too, can make false analogies. Simply preferring to hire a man over a woman is not discriminatory anymore than wanting chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Simply preferring to abandon a girl infant instead of a boy infant is not discriminatory anymore than wanting chocolate or vanilla ice cream. As you can see, just because something's a preference doesn't bar it from being discriminatory. Gender selection encourages discrimination. Parents must decide whether they value a boy child more or less than a girl child. If they value them equally, why are they even using gender selection? Contention three =================================================== Preferential gender selection easily leads into eugenics Again, my opponent uses a false analogy: "And smoking pot leads to heroin" In my contention, I pointed out in my previous argument, there's no reason that gender should be parents' decision but eye color shouldn't. The same applies for almost any characteristic. The slippery slope argument works because the slope is made of ice and there are no boulders to stop one from slipping. In the slide from smoking pot to heroin, there is a boulder; heroin kills and pot doesn't. That's why the slippery slope argument doesn't work there. In the case of elective gender selection, however, the slippery slope argument applies because there's no logical reason to stop parents form choosing other traits once they've been granted gender selection. Gender selection is a leap, skip, AND jump towards eugenics. This is why elective gender selection shouldn't be allowed. Conclusion======================================================== Gender selection is gender discrimination. Gender selection hurts society by enabling gender imbalances. Gender selection is a push towards eugenics. My opponent still has no contentions, so the only way he can win is if he completely invalidates all of my contentions. I have hopefully made this quite a challenging task.