BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes

The treatment required for the pre-selection of gender was initially designed for the prevention of disease. Many of the patients now using the revolutionary new treatment are perfectly capable of conceiving healthy children naturally. Dr. Mark Hughes, a director the Genesis Genetics institute, says that 70% of patients wouldn't have needed IVF in the first place, meaning 'healthy, fertile couples are choosing this higher risk, expensive, sometimes painful process when they could conceive otherwise' 1. 1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health: http://articles.cnn.com/2005-11-16/health/pdg.gender.selection_1_pgd-spe...
Children should not be designed to specifications

Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to specifications most convenient to the ‘owner’. ‘It runs the risk of turning procreation and parenting into an extension of the consumer society’ argues Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel 1. If we allow parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye colour, or hair colour. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this, encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ – damning those that don’t look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course there’s no justification for allowing such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever-larger between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and belongings to reflect their wealth, but also the bodies of their children. If a "gay gene" is discovered, would parents be permitted to weed out embryos with it, using the technology this proposal would condone? We really should be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what you are given – otherwise, people be more and more likely to reject their own child when they don’t get exactly what they want… 1. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62067-2004Dec13.html improve this
The lottery of childbirth should not be interfered with

Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make having children to something more like pre-ordering a car. To many people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human motives. Dr. Mark Hughes, who helped pioneer the procedure, intended it to be used to prevent disease and 'your gender is not a disease, last time I checked. There's no suffering. There's no illness. And I don't think doctors have any business being there' 1.Furthermore, In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion - in all cases a potential life is taken. These new technologies are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if they are legalised they will appear to legitimise throwing away a human life simply because the parents would prefer a specific gender. 1. Leung, R. (2004, April 11). Choose the Sex of Your Baby. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/60II/main611618.shtml improve this
Gender selection will prevent incidents of infanticide

This argument veils the likely result of the policy: reinforcement of already unhealthy cultural practices. Selective abortion has meant that gender imbalance in China and India is already very, very high – 914 girls for every 1,000 boys in India – demonstrating the likely result of such policies in some countries 1. ‘Parents choose to abort female foetuses not because they do not want or love their daughters, but because they feel they must have sons’ (usually for social reasons) 1. Even in western countries some minority groups' gender preferences may result in serious imbalances in some communities. These imbalances are socially harmful because in time many young men will be unable to find a partner; in China this is already linked to a rise in sexual violence, kidnapping and forced marriage, and prostitution. 1. The Economist. (2011, April 7). Add sugar and spice. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/18530101 improve this
The private sector can provide parents, who can afford to and want to, with gender selection technologies

A medical procedure is not a product that should be excluded from those who cannot afford it. Either it is beneficial enough to be subsidized by the state and therefore available to all, or it is the start of a slippery slope towards designer babies and therefore should not be available to anyone. Furthermore, the investment and expertise required to develop such technology are resources that should be utilized for causes that are far more important, under-funded and under-developed than gender selection. To allow the private sector to provide such a gender selection service would not only encourage further investment in a unnecessary technology but tempt medical professionals away from their government-funded research with the promise of more money. improve this
Parents should have freedom of choice

Freedom of choice is an important principle generally, but it should not be granted at the expense of unconditional love for one’s children. The pre-selection of gender ‘is a threat to the core value of parenthood that is usually expressed by the commitment to unconditional love’, according to a Georgetown professor 1. Children should not be loved because of who they are, not because they are exactly what we wanted of them. As Harvard professor Michael Sandel notes, ‘consider the father who wants a boy in hope of having as a son the athlete he had never been. Suppose the son isn’t interested in sports…what sorts of expectations will burden a child who has designed with certain purposes in mind?’ 1. For that reason, parents should not be permitted freedom of choice in this regard, but encouraged to love their child equally, regardless of gender. 1. Stein, R. (2004, December 14). A Boy for You, a Girl for Me: Technology Allows Choice.Retrieved May 20, 2011, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62067-2004Dec13.html improve this
Sex-specific, generic diseases can be avoided

Sex-specific, generic diseases are only avoided a majority of the time, the process is not near 100% accurate and therefore the medical benefits cannot be used without considering of the medical costs. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis involves the development of embryos outside the womb, which are then tested for gender. One or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. Those that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos are used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has been created with the express purpose of being destroyed. This is another form of abortion – only the conception is deliberate. Ultimately, it will be these technologies and not MicroSort that is used, since whilst the latter has a 93% accuracy rate if a girl is desired (itself a lower result than genetic diagnosis), its accuracy falls to 82% for boys, and the vast majority of selections will inevitably be for males 1 . Thus, given that they are so keen to have a child of a particular gender and so unwilling to risk having one of the other gender, parents will not risk using MicroSort. Even if they do choose it, whilst there have not been overt problems thus far, scientific experts like Lord Winston express the fear that the process damages sperm, making genetic mutation much more likely. Both techniques are therefore to be condemned. 1. Genetics and IVF Institute. (2008, January 1). Microsort. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Genetics and IVF Institute: http://www.microsort.net/results.php improve this
Pre-selection of gender uses expensive medical care for frivolous purposes

It is for the individuals to decide whether this treatment is worth the expense. The anecdotal evidence from parents who have gone through the process suggests that pre-selecting the sex of their children was not a ‘frivolous purpose’. Asked whether her three boys had not been enough, Sharla Allen replied ‘They are. They’re totally everything I could ever want…but why not have two daughters that will be just as wonderful as they are?’ 1. No-one is harmed in this process, the parents know the risks beforehand and it should be their prerogative to have the treatment. 1. Gajilan, C. (2005, November 17). Gender selection a reality, but is it ethical? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from CNN Health: http://articles.cnn.com/2005-11-16/health/pdg.gender.selection_1_pgd-spe... improve this
Oppression within religious communities

Blasphemy laws can be used to enforce oppressive and exclusionary practices within religions. The proposition side have gone out of their way to highlight the harm that can be done to religions by actors external to the religious group. However, this analysis does not fit so comfortably with the problems that occur when a member of a religious community wishes to make controversial and divisive statements about their own religion. Dissenters within a religious group may often face exclusion from their communities and hostility from friends and family. The current law of western liberal democracies ensures that social disapproval does not transform into threats or violent conduct directed at these individuals. In this way, liberal democratic states recognise the right to speak freely without fear of violent or disproportionate repercussions, irrespective of the social and cultural standards enforced by the community that an individual might belong to. By criminalising blasphemy, proposition run the risk of discouraging religious dissent within religious communities. Heterodox thinkers who want to share their views on their religion with other believers, must now run the dual risks of effective exile from a social environment that they consider to be their home and prosecution by the state. Anti-blasphemy laws would give communities the ability to indirectly harm and intimidate anyone holding controversial opinions, by directing state power- in the form of prosecutors and the police- against them. Further, anti-blasphemy laws might simply discourage free expression of this type, the prospect of prosecution being sufficient to discourage controversial statements and discussions. Religions- even if based on divine revelation- develop through human debate, thought and discussion. The proposition position would harm the development of religions if it were realised. It would balance the environment of collective discourse within a religion in favour of conservative and reactionary thinkers. It should also be noted that it is the state which drafts the law and its organs then apply it, deciding which cases will or will not be prosecuted. It might be enforced unevenly by the government, thus favouring certain religions and victimizing others. It could be used to limit the expression of unpopular ideas, which are the ones that need the most protection, as has happened in the past with the work of artists criticizing the social and political mores of the time with previous cases showing their books being banned from libraries or their paintings from art galleries. Take for example the banning of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses in numerous states around the world. (Bald, M. 2006)
Blasphemy a free expression

Blasphemy can be a valuable act of expression. It is misleading to try and conflate blasphemous statements with statements that lack intellectual merit, are bigoted or hateful. The proposition side attempt to exclude “decent and temperate” questioning of religious values from the scope of anti-blasphemy laws, but they fail to recognise that language is a broad, imprecise and malleable tool. Words that may be understood as temperate and even-handed by one speaker may deeply shock another. Even a simple and plainly stated denial of God’s existence was interpreted as tantamount to blasphemy by the early liberal philosopher John Locke. Locke saw acceptance of the core truths of the Christian bible as being a vital indicator of and individual’s trustworthiness and willingness to comply with social norms. It is easy to envision scenarios in which adherents of certain religions may find any attempt to dispute the historical and philosophical foundations of their faith deeply offensive, no matter how calmly and respectfully the dissenting position is communicated. Discussions of natural selection have become one such battleground. Despite the measures taken by philosophers and scientists to highlight the compatibility between religious faith and scientifically informed ontologies, despite the measured and carefully regulated court cases that have been used to decide this issue, many Christians regard discussion and teaching of evolution as part of natural history threatening and offensive. Even irreverent humour or mockery can sometimes be used to make valid and useful observations about the structure and values of religions. For example, the act of angering someone by ridiculing their deity, or the tenets of their faith, could make the point that a particular religion is closed-minded or too hidebound. Important aspects of our characters are revealed when we are invited to adopt aggressive or defensive attitudes.  It is not for a government to decide whether blasphemous statements contribute to social discourse; it is up to the individuals engaged in that exchange. It is not acceptable, in the absence of an intention to expose a particular group of people to a real risk of physical harm, to allow debate and free speech to be curtailed by the use of legal force. The meaning of words need not be plain and obvious, either. Implication and allusion play an important role in language. Implied meanings and innuendos have done much to complicate the legal processes used to protect individual reputations against slurs and falsehoods. In a criminal, rather than a civil context, similar principles are likely to make blasphemy prosecutions expensive, unwieldy and inconsistent.
Blasphemy a free expression

Blasphemy cannot be shielded by the rationale which is used to defend freedom of speech. Blasphemy constitutes an attack on the religion it is targeted at. Beyond its ability to shock and offend, blasphemy exposes religious believers to ridicule, and perpetuates lies and falsehoods about their faith. Moreover, blasphemy also drives conflict and exclusion within particular faiths, deepening schismatic divisions and encouraging believers to become more hostile to those who do not share their religion. Blasphemy occupies a distinctly different position in public debate and discussion than civil, respectful discourse about religion. The forms of blasphemy law that were maintained in the legal systems of western liberal democracies throughout the twentieth century criminalised only the most extreme and intentionally provocative forms of religious expression – images of religious figures involved in humiliating or sexualised scenarios; statements about a religion that amounted to hate speech; and words that were intended to mislead and deceive the naïve, credulous or doubting. The English blasphemy case of R v Boulter drew on the conclusions of the sixth report of the commissioners on criminal law, which had observed that a criminal charge could only arise when “irreligion” took the form of an “insult to God and man”. The judge in the case remarked that “if the decencies of controversy are observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked with tout the writer being guilty of blasphemy.” Ruling in the case of Whitehouse v Lemon, heard in 1977, a senior English judge remarked that blasphemous libel, although thought to have fallen into disuse and irrelevance remained useful in safeguarding “the internal tranquillity of the kingdom.” This principle appears to be an antecedent to the public order justification for hate speech legislation – speech that spurs people to commit violent or disruptive acts should be curtailed to protect public safety. That case restated the idea that “It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent in temperate language.” This is the sense in which the proposition side will discuss the term “blasphemous”. The proposition side does not intend to limit free speech, but has every intention of ensuring that free speech is not undermined or delegitimised by allowing the unobstructed broadcasting of hateful and provocative statements. We protect freedom of speech in our society not as a good in and of itself, but because through debate of even the most improbable propositions, socially valuable ideas may emerge and concerns that might otherwise be hidden can be expressed. By contrast, language aimed solely at offense has no redeeming value and does not contribute to any wider exchange of ideas and concerns. Blasphemy does not appeal to reason, and by being directly exclusionary and offensive, it limits that ability of believers and non-believers to engage in structured debate.
Social cohesion and hate speech

Laws combating discrimination- such as the blasphemy law that the proposition side are advocating- promote social cohesion and stability, both important policy objectives in increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan societies. The United Nations General Assembly in 2006 argued “defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights.” (United Nations General Assembly, ‘Combating defamation of religions’, 2006). Coexistence between communities with radically different creeds, values and viewpoints needs to be carefully supervised in multi-cultural societies. Too often the uncertainty that accompanies migrant life can serve to inspire to give too much credence to the views of zealots and fundamentalists. To prevent communities deliberately isolating themselves from their neighbours; to prevent communal violence, it is necessary for the state to create an environment in which disputes can be resolved by impartial and properly trained prosecutorial authorities. Discrimination laws are instrumental to building peaceful social realities. They signify a welcoming society, in which it is unacceptable to offend entire segments of the population by debasing what they hold most precious. Blasphemous statements have a power that reaches far beyond “ordinary” hate speech. Acts covered by this law would include intentionally provocative publications such as the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that featured prominently in a Danish newspaper in 2005. These images led to widespread protests and violence in both western states and majority Muslim countries. The offensive content of the cartoons gave credence and legitimacy to sects and clerics espousing absolutist ideas that have no space for compromise or understanding. Further, the protests also brought individuals who would ordinarily have considered themselves moderates into contact with violent extremists. Neither of these outcomes does anything to promote a culture of free and frank discussion within the societies affected. The legal measures that side proposition supports do not oblige free thinkers to remain silent in the face of zealotry and bigotry. However, they does require writers, journalists and artists to apply their reason and their sense to content that they want to publish for mass consumption. Much like laws that prevent the negligent operation of businesses, anti-blasphemy laws would set a minimal standard of responsible conduct in order to ensure that publications did not cause a dangerous level of offense to significant numbers ordinary and rational religious believers. Legal definitions and enforcement of standards of responsibility do not preclude individuals from pursuing dangerous or entrepreneurial business ventures or public works. They need not prevent the creation of controversial and challenging forms of free expression either.
Language and subjectivity

As Timothy Garton ash points out in his commentary on principle 7, there is a supervening value at work in any system of law or social values that obliges religions to demonstrate tolerance for one another and for non-believers. More than a mere value, this supervening idea is identified as a “higher good”. We are told that limitations to religion are necessary in order to prevent free speech from becoming a conduit for conflict. Principle 7 appeals to a universal understanding of risk and safety. It asks us to understand that we risk less conflict in society if we tolerate the existence and pronouncements of other religions. This statement contains that corollary principle that people who wish to see free speech remain a legitimate social force, untroubled by conflict and claims to absolute supremacy, should endeavor to ensure that debates on the fundamental elements of any religion- the existence of God, the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, the nature of the revelations received by Mohammed- should be conducted in an open, respectful and structured fashion. Freedom to engage in a nuanced and calm debate on the nature of a religion is not equivalent to a right to mix the sacred with the taboo, with the specific objective of provoking an outraged reaction. It is revealing that the intended audience for- for example- art works such as “piss Christ” is largely secular and middle class. These are the individuals among whom artists and writers who oppose blasphemy laws wish to encourage debate. But this narrow minded approach does not consider the large numbers of believers who feel shocked and insulted by such images, and who are given the impression that their faith is under attack. If compelled to live in an environment in which unconstrained free speech is given fiat over religious tolerance, religious believers will be less likely to engage in discussions with members of other faiths or non-believers. Finally, it should be noted that the existence of a state-supervised prosecution process will greatly reduce the possibility that members of a community offended by a blasphemous statement will decide to take action against that statement- be it protest or physical violence- themselves. It also ensures that members of religions that are targeted by blasphemous statements will not feel obliged to become involved in disorganised or violent protest activities.