It is morally permissible for parents to choose the sex of their child.

"I do not see how I have a significant burden of proof. We are debating morality. " I explained this in round one. All else being equal, choice is morally permissible. My opponent must prove that in this case choice is NOT permissible. "Hitler [wanted to give more options], except about a master race. Hitler believed his preference was better than others. " For the sake of argument, I will set aside the fact that my opponent has no evidence. This is an inappropriate analogy. Killing all not-Aryans is in no way analogous to choosing the gender of a child. "I do not believe that Hitler is morally permissible. " This statement makes no sense. It's like saying that cabbage is morally permissible: it doesn't mean anything. A person or object cannot be morally permissible: only an action can be. "Contention 1: Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best. Hitler's beliefs are not morally permissible. Mass murder of humans (especially Jews) is not morally permissible. " This is an unwarranted overgeneralization. He performed a few immoral actions and had a few immoral beliefs, but this does not mean that all his beliefs were immoral. For example, he probably believed that he was under seven feet tall. Was this an immoral belief? Hardly! My opponent has not appropriately explained what he means by "Hitler believed that choice/preference of race was best. " I doubt that he believed that: if he wanted all non-Aryans to die, why would he want to allow people to choose that their children be Aryan or non-Aryan? "Contention 2: Parents would undoubtedly choose boys, and this would lead to a gender imbalance. " My opponent has not provided any evidence to support this unreasonable claim. His claim seems to be based on the idea that males are dominant; however, this has several flaws. 1. The idea that males are dominant is an outdated one. In modern society, males and females are close to equal, and indeed, females hold certain advantages. 2. There exists a wide variety of parents, and they will want a wide variety of children. Many parents will want females, and many others will want males. 3. My opponent's argument still relies on the idea that it is better to have a child of the dominant sex. Though many parents will feel that way, many more will not, and will choose gender off of other factors. "They are harder, better, faster, stronger. " Other than the fact that that's a song, it's not necessarily true, and also fails to take into account other possible traits: to truly be preferable, men would have to be harder, better, faster, stronger, smarter, quicker, wiser, funnier, prettier, sexier, longer and happier, to name a few. "The gender imbalance would eventually lead to a world with no females. " In addition to what has been said, this is still flawed. 1. When females begin to become rare, many parents will begin to prefer females, as they will be unique and special. Every parent wants their child to be "special", right? 2. Mothers would begin to prefer daughters, and since the mother gets the absolute decision, more females would begin to surface. 3. A gender imbalance would remain fairly minor, and if it did, it would serve as a control for the population. The world of today is overpopulated, and an increase in men and decrease in women would help to regulate it. " ---See YouTube video on why men are better than women. " This video portrays a man who is clearly supposed to be seen as crazy. It follows that society in general views men and women as equal, and does not share this man's ideals. This supports the affirmation. *** My opponent did not use the arguments that I anticipated; things turned out to be rather interesting. I certainly look forward to my opponent's response!