Parents Should be Able to Pick the Gender of Their Children

Prayer Yesterday, Technology today"In the Ancient societies... the people who would become new parents often held sacrifices to deities to try and allow the mother to give birth to a particular gender of {a} baby. Some cultures such as China put huge emphasis on certain genders of babies"Simply because a culture wants it doesn't make it right. Germany wanted extermination of Jews, the Confederacy wanted slavery, USSR wanted communism, U.S wants corporatism, etc1. Genetic Diagnosis, in which embryos created in a test tube are analysed before being implanted in a wombThis is wrong. If you willing fully create an embryo, you cannot decide to terminate it's life. With abortions, it is usually because the baby is a mistake. With test tube babies, somebody willing fully made that. You cannot decide that an embryo won't turn into a human being because of gender. That in itself is sexist.2. The MicroSort technique, in which sperm is 'sorted' to make it much more likely that the egg is fertilised by sperm carrying the desired chromosome."Picking and choosing which sperm gets to live is picking and choosing which human being gets to exist. This is wrong because you are denying the child that would result naturally the right to exist by picking and choosing in what should be a random process. "The desirability especially in China and India is especially evident."You cannot justify choosing gender by saying it prevents abortions. Here is why. The reason that people don't believe in enforced abortions is because it is taking life away. By choosing the gender through the means listed above, you are in fact denying the other possible children the right to exist, because the gender changes are not only difference in the sperm and/or embryos. Also, the resolution was that parents should have the right to choose the gender of the baby. What if they want a girl? In the case of India and China, the government would be choosing the gender, not the parents."First, resources allocated to unnecessary abortions due to the undesirability of the babies gender would be greatly reduced".Again, denying the child that would form naturally the right to exist is on worse moral grounds as abortion."Ending the trauma against women for giving birth to a child they never wanted is economically positive, and relieving trauma against the their, who may become attached to the child when they are suddenly forced to abort the baby."In a society where they are forced to abort the baby for gender reasons, the parents would never be able to pick the gender. The government would. Also, a mother who would be willing to abort her baby only because of gender is probably an unfit parent anyway. For example, if they wanted a girl but the girl turned into a tom boy, lesbian, or both, she would be unloved, and face the prospect of abuse, neglect, and a broken life."Thirdly, economic impacts would be over-all positive. This is because the sex-selection industry would market about a $200 million dollar a year for the economy". Legalizing automatic weapons for civilians, legalizing prostitution, legalizing slavery, and getting rid of the minimum wage would benefit the economy as well. The economic argument by itself makes no correlation to morals. Even we are to use economic logic here, the harmful effects of getting rid of abortions would far outweigh the benefits of the sex choosing industry. You see, while the sex changing industry would bring in $200 million a year, the abortion industry brings in $1.1 billion, or $1100 million a year (http://www.lifenews.com...). "I hold that the free market would sort itself out in terms of gender desirability. For instance, let's say in the U.S, more boys come birthed than girls. The value of girls would obviously increase".If the value of the girls increase, the prices will rise up. If the prices rise up, the girls would be less affordable, so more people would turn to boys. If more people turn to boys, that means even less girls. It would keep going like this, until only the rich can afford girls. The rich would be the only ones able to reproduce, and we would have royal families all over again. "The boys would also be unhappy about being unable to reproduce, which would cause a rise in the birthing of girls."Ah, but you see, the parents are the ones that choose, not the government, or the doctor. This means that in order your argument to work, we would need incest to be normal, which contributes to genetic defects, and counteracts your argument about sex-specific genetic diseases. This would lead to a defective, inferior gene pool and would not benefit the country, or the human race, at all."Parents have a tough time raising kids, and cultural norms sometimes dictate unfairly to women the genders are required to birth, even though they have no control over it. "So what you're saying is, we should allow women to choose the gender that they are already forced to choose? This is not in supportof the resolution and is irrelevant."They ought to be able to select the gender of their choice, provided both potential parents consent to the gender selection process"This brings up a point of mine. If the parents fight and squabble and neither will back down, this presents a problem. You can't exactly compromise with only 2 choices. Either the child will just no be born, or will be unloved because if the parents are willing to fight and squabble because they care that much about the gender, that means that one parent will not love the child. "It makes parenting easier instead of looking at their child and loathing them due to gender"What if the child is an awfully feminine male, or an awfully masculine female? A homosexual? This would result the same way. Heck, if we only change the XX/XY chromosome, whose to say that the child won't be a separate gender on the inside than they are on the outside? This would lead to more sterile transsexuals, social rejects, and bullied, harassed children.