Gender selection of children

I'll begin by affirming that "All parents should be allowed to use gender selection techniques to decide the gender of their future children" but note that I never stated that killing would be among the accepted techniques. I presented examples in my first argument so that this debate would not be taken out of context. With that said... Upon first glance the 3 contentions that con presented appear to be valid reasons to deny my resolution. I will now show why these contentions are in fact not valid reasons, and mostly mere opinion. Contention 1 - Con states that "Gender selection harms society by enabling gross imbalances in gender", and I assume by stating "harms society" he refers to, "A lack of women makes competition more fierce and therefore more likely to turn violent. If he meant "harm" to be receding to something else I apologize for misunderstanding. He further contends that "As gender selection techniques become more and more widespread, the number of excess men will continue to climb" Con provides no evidence that competition for women will lead to violence. This is opinion. Furthermore, the facts he presents to show the "gross" imbalance that would lead to the need for this competition in the first place are misleading. I would now like to present my own demographics to make my point. Cons statistic shows that on 2005 there was 118 boys to 100 girls. Furthermore, it is projected that there will be 30 million more men than women in 2020. He does not present a demographic for India, which he also points out as part of his contention. His contention is misleading for the following reason, The current sex ratio in the world is 105 boys to 100 girls (http://en.wikipedia...)ï¿½ The current world population is 6,795,400,000 people (http://en.wikipedia...) China has an estimated population of 1.3 billion, 1/6th of the world's. (http://en.wikipedia...+ china) India has an estimated population of 1.17, roughly the same portion at 1/6th.ï¿½http://en.wikipedia...) 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.ï¿½ Contention 2 - "Gender selection is immoral because it is discriminatory" Discriminatory - "being biased or having a belief or attitude before hand" Simply preferring to have a boy or a girl is not discriminatory anymore than wanting chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Con refers to killing a human organism for no reason other than it's gender is sexism at it's worst. No, it's more than sexism, it's plain murder. Gender selection techniques like those I presented do not include murder. Yes there are people who abort children due to gender, but that is not what I argued for. Contention 3 - "Preferential gender selection easily leads into eugenics" And smoking pot leads to heroin. This "slippery slope" is not only complete nonsense, con presents no evidence to support this claim. It is yet again his opinion. If he can show evidence that this would be the case, it would be a much stronger contention. Otherwise it's not a valid reason to deny the liberty of gender selection to parents. My resolution then stands unless con presents more convincing arguments against it.ï¿½