Parents Should be Able to Pick the Gender of Their Children

Re: Prayer Yesterday My opponent in his rebuttal commits an Ignoratio elenchi fallacy (or the fallacy of irrelevance). This argument is completely dropped due to my opponents irrelevant conclusions. What I was discussing here was the desires of the parents in selecting their childs gender. Clearly historically, this has been a long desire of the people. No where in this argument was the states desire addressed here. We are not talking about the desires of Nazi Germany, or the USSR, we're talking about the desireability of the parents becoming empowered in selecting the baby in question's gender.Re: Genetic Diagnosis:On what basis is selecting the gender of the child wrong? It isn't sexist provided it has the consent of both parites envolved. I noted in the previous round, this can be used as a positive to prevent gender-based illnesses that are hereditary. For example: my family the women are notorious for suffering from cancer aroundtheir mid-40's due to genetics. Although they have luckily survived, I will not go through that because I am a male in my family (or atleast signifigantly less risk for it). I want a son so as to prevent having a daughter. Not on the basis of hating a woman (which would be sexist) but with the intent of every father to his or her child; to protect them from the evils of the world, and in this case it would be to prevent them from suffering from cancer. My opponent on top of committing a bare assertion fallacy, committs another Ignoratio elenchi, at no point was abortions ever discussed here. Abortions are a completely different operation entirely with a whole differing context and methodology. This is nothing more than a chemical reaction of the sperm fertilizing an egg. This is occuring outside of the woumb. What's the difference should this happen in the uterus and the egg fails to lach on to the lining of the wall? The answer is simple: nothing. This is not an abortion. Re: Microsorting:Again, my opponent makes an appeal to nature here (it's also natural to eat your young but we don't do that), on top of another bare assertion fallacy with an appeal to emotion. First, according to my opponent you have to believe a sperm cell is the same as a human. I think that's an absurd argument, as it's a priori, the very definition of a human relies on the fertiliation of both egg and sperm, not just the cell of a sperm, which is only one half, showing a complete difference. Secondly, this is not picking and choosing a "person" or "human", they're just sperm cells. And while I don't mean to paint a graphic picture here, but if by that same logic every time someone were to preform fallatio on someone else, and swallow, that would be cannabalism, which it is not, and thus affirming my argument. Furthermore, the randomization of the process is not a benifit, espescially if one gender is birthed more than another. Allowing this to happen would either have a one-sided gender being birthed, making the other gender more valuable to have (incentives), or a balanced population. All we are doing here is enabling the ability to choose provided both parents agree. Re: Child's Rights:First, China has relaxed their policies in the mid-1990's concerning population control as per the source noted. Secondly, my opponent completely crops my arguments concerning the economic reasons for having an abortions. As per note in the previous round, the economist clearly noted the most common reason (statistically) for an abortion is the undesireabile sex being birthed. Obviously, then if this is true enabling people to birth the gender they want lowers abortions. Thirdly, children are distinctly different from prenatal developing fetuses. A child is a person between the stages of birth, and puberty, while a fetus is a developing embryo which needs to complete it's gestation process to qualify being a baby. Huge difference. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)From this, we can conclude my opponent is obviously mistaken; these embryo's do not have the right to life quite yet, and furthermore, this policy actually upholds more of that right by allowing parents to decide the gender so as to prevent coercion rather than seek an abortion and have the psychologically damaging effects placed on the mother. Also, not all those eggs are being fertilized anyways. All they do is scan the sperm and select the sperm with the desired chromozone for furtilization. Re: Stop Abortions:Bare assertion fallacy, and appeal to nature (still eating young .. ), how so? Who is the victim here except for the parents by denying this policy, which in turns denies them the child they wish they could have? What moral framework does my opponent offer to justify her argument? Re: Forced Abortions:Right, in China and India, however, this is already addressed (above). And furthermore, again my opponent commits an Ignoratio elenchi, we're not talking about murdering someone here, nor are we talking about LGBT rights. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. However, while China might not be so accepting, due to this argument assmued to be in the US as policy, the LGBT baby who identifies as whatever he/she desires in sexual orientation would be entitled to the same rights and freedoms as every other single american. Again, all we're talking about here is selecting the gender. Notwithstanding the LGBT, which is irrelevant here. Re: Economic Impact:Again, we are not talking about automatic weapons, prostitution, etc.. only about allowing parents to sleect the gender of their child. What morals are we again talking about here? Furthermore, we are also not talking about abortions. We are talking about this specific set of procedures, which would generate a revenue. My opponent completely drops this argument, and even gave an argument in support of abortions because of how much money they make!Furthermore, we're not talking about buying or selling boys or girls in the free-market, but rather the desireability of the gender when the population becomes in favor of one gender over another. Because of the lack of ability to reproduce, soceity economically would see the desireability of the opposite sex and would thus have every incentive to give birth to that gender. Balancing the gender ratio. This would have no impact on the procedure it's self, only when it becomes cheaper due to more competition as a result of this new practice and more parents using it. Finally, my opponent in her round asserts that "the government would pick" then claims "but it's the parents!", this is kettle logic, which is it? Becsause my opponent cannot have it both ways, it should be the parents deciding. My opponents assertion that incest would be needed is a reducto ad absurdum. At no point is incest ever needed for this. And I have no idea how my opponent came to this conclusion at all .. again, when the pop. favors one gender, it's desireability of the opposite gender would show balancing the population. Re: ParentsMy opponent quotes out of context, I was clearly speaking in terms of the child policy of China when reffering to the force births due to sex desireability. In North America however, my poisition is pretty clear: that so long as both parents agree on the gender they desire, they ought to be allowed the procedure to choose. If they cannot agree, the parents can reffer to the traditional birthing practices instead. Which is perfectly fine if they wish to do it that way, at no point did the resolution of this debate call for all parents to select their gender. Furthermore, no one can really force the other to be pregant via legal means, nor is this relevant to the debate topic at hand. Re: LGBTAt no point is this an issue within this debate, as I noted before all we're talking about here is gender selection. The sexual orientation of an individual is an entirely different debate and up to that person(s) genetic disposition. Conclusion The resolution is upheld.