Gender selection of children

Arguments relating to gender selection techniques-------------------------------------- Sperm sorting – Although it's true that the sperm sorting process itself doesn't destroy any human organisms, its imperfect success rates make it less attractive for those seeking gender selection. They are far more likely to use genetic diagnosis embryos to decrease the risk of failure (selecting the 'wrong' sex). Genetic-diagnosis embryos – My opponent spent quite a while pursuing a hopeless point. I stated "The second, genetic-diagnosis embryos, is, by definition, killing" and then Pro responded "So I suppose by religious standards he is right" If something is alive, (embryos easily fulfill biological definition of life . http://en.wikipedia.org...) and then something is done to it, and then it's dead, it has been killed. If that something was an organism (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) and was human (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)), one has, by ending its life, killed a human organism. This is in no way an opinion. This is science. Although many don't consider embryos to be deserving of rights, there are also many who believe that they do have a right to life. Without even considering the societal harm caused by gender selection, these people should already agree that gender selection is unjustified because it leads to what they consider the murder of innocents. ---------------------Contention 1: Gender selection enables gender imbalance, which is bad----------- "Exactly, because this is what you "think" will happen. Asking people to use "common sense" exposes that very fact. Extraordinary claim, yet no evidence. " My opponent is correct in claiming that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. My opponent is incorrect in claiming that gender imbalance being bad is an extraordinary claim. I don't need extraordinary evidence to claim what most consider common sense. Last round, I provided evidence of rising crime rates attributed to gender imbalance and I pointed out that the Chinese government itself is very worried about their gender imbalance. My opponent also says that China isn't very important in this debate. If, as the resolution suggests, gender selection is made available to everyone, the societies which care most about gender – China and most of Asia – will be the ones which make the most use of it. The resolution isn't about the United States; it's about the entire world. In his final round, my opponent tries to defend his case by saying "Chinese authorities have vowed to take tough measures to control fetus-gender testing and sex-selective abortions to check the rising sex-ratio imbalance. " My opponent then applauds the slight decrease (from 119 – 100 to 117 – 100) in Chinese gender imbalance. We established that gender imbalance is bad and my opponent has congratulated China on its efforts to control fetus-gender testing and sex-selective abortions, yet somehow he thinks that China should make it legal to do exactly what Chinese authorities are trying to prevent. His logic goes as follows. 1. China's gender imbalance is getting better 2. Chinese authorities are working hard to fix the gender gap 3. China should allow gender selection This logic makes no sense. This is the same logic that says "look, the forest fire is dying down, now we can play with matches in the woods again! " My opponent writes "I think China will solve their issues. " I think China will solve their issues as long as they don't rekindle their gender problem by making it legal to choose to have a son instead of a daughter. --------------------Contention two: Gender selection is discriminatory----------------- I agree with my opponent that it doesn't make sense to discriminate against something which doesn't exist. My point is that when a parent uses gender selection with the idea that "boys are more valuable than girls" or "girls are more valuable than boys," they are being sexist by stereotyping an entire gender. Gender selection encourages parents to make a decision based solely off of their personal stereotypes about gender. I say this is wrong. -------------------Contention three: Gender selection leads to eugenics--------------- My opponent doesn't dispute the fact that gender selection is an easy slide away from eugenics. Instead, he attempt to defend eugenics as follows. " --Claiming this is assuming that people in general have no head on their shoulders. Even so, the only real threat that would ever come from eugenics is the potential for it to fall into the wrong hands. Much like what the Nazis would had done with it. That's why we have laws and regulations, to protect society from these kinds of things from getting out of control. Yes, there may be nut jobs out there that would use this technology for ill intent, but should we therefore disallow the rest of good natured society the liberty of it just because of those who would use it for harm? " I in no way assume that people in general have no head on their shoulders. In fact, I assume quite the opposite. I assume that the wealthy will rationally act in their children's 'best' interests by using their wealth to buy their children 'better' genes. When it comes to eugenics, any hands are the wrong hands. Eugenics fosters the idea that some people are innately better than others because they, after all, have 'better' DNA. If eugenics become available, like all unnecessary medical procedures, the rich will be the only ones who can afford it. Finally, my opponent tries to invoke a rule which seems to state the following: We shouldn't disallow all of society something just because some people will use it for harm. As a rule, this statement is clearly flawed. Should it be legal to for citizens to own nuclear weapons? Should murder be legal because most people have the sense not to commit it? My opponents rule only holds up when the object or privilege being denied isn't dangerous. Eugenics, however, is very dangerous because it widens the gulf between rich and poor and it devalues equality by promoting elitism. Conclusion---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent has fallen far short of completely invalidating every reason I have proposed. Even if you still agree with him, you must admit that I have won the arguments vote because my opponent's only contention – that there are no valid reasons against gender selection – has been shown to be false.