The Instigator
IntelligentFemaleAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

(If it was medically available) Should it be legal to choose the sex of your child?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 867 times Debate No: 23108
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

IntelligentFemaleAtheist

Pro

If it became medically available, would you consider it moral to choose the sex of the child at conception/before birth?

Pro; this should be legally available (if it were possible)
Con; this should NOT be legally available (if it were possible)

Please no trolling, I am not necessarily pro this, I see the con issues too but would like to see others views, waiting for someone to accept! :)
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Sure, I accept.
I look forward to a nice debate.

Just some terms I would like to set:

The resolution is: Resolved: Being able to choose the sex of your child should be legally available.

As PRO, my opponent will be affirming the resolution.
As CON, I will be negating the resolution.

No semantics, the resolution will be taken as is. No double meanings of words, etc.

Okay, you first, PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
IntelligentFemaleAtheist

Pro

I'd first like to say thank you for accepting this debate, It is my first one on this site, although I have read a few, so here goes! I will build my case with several points and then try and finish with a tidy resolution, I wish you to do the same before discussing my points.

1. Genetic disorders past on through gender,

If a parent is carrier of a sex-specific disease such as Alport syndrome(1) or a disorder that is more prominent, severe or less easily cured in one gender, it is for the child's overall well-being that the parents are able to determine the sex before birth.

2. Cultural gender bias,

Some countries and societies have a prejudice toward one gender, take China as a very strong example of prejudice towards having a baby girl, many baby girls are abandoned, neglected and killed because of the prejudice towards them, having the ability to determine the gender before conception would negate this cruelty and give many children better lives. As the 'one-child' policy has become more relaxed in China since the late 90's the chance of having an all male society would be slim, but those areas where females are still shunned upon would have the chance to raise the boys they want and it would stop the abandonment of so many innocent babies.

3. A better life for a wanted child,

Although it seems controversial and most parents wouldn't like to admit it, many prospective mothers have their heart set on a certain sex, in the event the child is not that sex, it can cause great disappointment for the parents, this can influence the child's life in many ways and perhaps even the mothers well being. For example, if a family have their heart set on a son and get 5 daughters the family is not going to be as happy as they would have with their ideal. To be blunt a wanted child will always be more loved than an unwanted one.

4. Choice,

(for the most part) Parents choose almost everything for their child. Parents choose their own partners to mate with, often the time of conception based around their life events and age, their childs name and the way they spend their first 16+ years of life. The parents form the child's views on life, morals, religion, education, interests, personality. Is dictating the way a child lives and grows so different from choosing the gender before conception especially if the child will have a happier life?

5. Other small points,

5a - If a family/parent has lost a child, either by miscarriage, still birth or later in life, it may help the perants, families mental health, happiness and wellbeing if they were able to have another child of the same gender to fill the 'void' as it were.

5b - it will never cause mental scaring or gender confusion for the child, as it would be determined before conception, the child would have no knowledge of the choice, just as you or I were born the way we are and have never know different.

(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Starting off with some refutation:

1. Genetic disorders past on through gender

If parents have genetic disorders, they can simply choose not to have children or adopt instead. This is what is happening now, and it works fine, and people are satisfied. There is no reason to push for the legalization of choosing your child's sex, as it will have much more disadvantages than advantages, which I will get into detail later.

2. Cultural gender bias

That is exactly the problem. Don't you see, if everyone has a bias towards males, for example, that everyone will want a male baby? This would vastly increase the population of males over those of females, and this could lead to some serious problems. In fact, this is the current state of China, and there are not enough women to go around as brides.

If we continute to allow familes to have this gender bias, we are building towards an unequal society. When one gender vastly out-populates another, many problems would arise and get worse, such as discrimination or sexism towards the minority gender. When we make gender selection so easy and accessible by the public, everyone will start using it. Look at the number of chinese familes in the world. They outnumber many other races. As such, there will be a massive overload of males, and not enough females. This is not ideal. It would also harm human growth, as with a majority of a specific gender, reproduction will slow down.

Furthermore, your argument does make any sense. You talk about the prevention of abandonment. But there are solutions to preventing child birth, such as birth control or abortion (when you find out it is the opposite gender of what you wish). That is what we should be promoting instead. This also solves the issue you are talking about, and we don't need to bring in gender selection. Thus, gender selection offers no additional benefits.

3. A better life for a wanted child

Again, ultrasound can be used to determine gender, and abortion can be used to abort the gender they dislike and they can try again. if the parents have their heart so set on a specific gender, that you make it out to be, then they would obviously try to do everything in their power to achieve that gender. Abortion is the solution, not this gender selection process.

Now, you may argue that abortion kills the fetus, and causes pain and harm to the baby. This is true. But is this any better than your proposed gender selection solution? You don't know whether or not gender selection causes harm to the baby or kills the fetus. It may even cause the same physical pain as abortion. As such, again, it offers no extra benefits, and there is no reason to introduce it.

You may also say that abortion puts the baby through pain, and mothers don't want that. However, you previously mentioned that when mothers have their heart set on a specific gender, it usually creates an unwanted child. Would this not also create emotional pain on the child? Who are you to decide which pain is worse?

4. Choice,

Not on a small scale, no. But multiply that by the millions of families on this planet, and it does cause a detriment to our global society.

5. Other small points

5a. Hello adoption? Also, I would think that if a family miscarried a child, they would refrain from another child from fear of having another miscarriage. They wouldn't jump right into another child straight away.

5b. Yeah, I agree. But you can't say for sure that it will not cause physical pain to the child. As such, we should stay away from gender selection because of this risk.


Points

I outlined alot of my points in my refutation, about the possibility of a specific gender dominated society, and the risk of discrimination.

I also outlined the risk to the human race, as reproduction will slow down vastly.

I also stated how it could cause possible damage to the baby, and we should not take that risk.

Debate Round No. 2
IntelligentFemaleAtheist

Pro


''If parents have genetic disorders, they can simply choose not to have children or adopt instead',

Many families would much prefer to have their own genetic children than adopt, although that is not deal, it is the truth, why would a couple choose not to have children if they really wanted them? If a disorder is gender specific this would be a medical breakthrough for families with those fears.


'reproduction will slow down'

Is this necessarily a bad thing? We are living in an extremely over populated world, although it hasn't quite hit America yet as its such a vast landmass, countries such as Britain, France, Germany, India, China and Japan are vastly over populated, the human race has doubled in population since the 1800's and we have four times as many people as their were in the first century. Slowing down the worlds reproductive rate would in no way be a bad thing. In countries with no gender bias such as the USA the ratio of male:female babies would very likely stay the same.

'You talk about the prevention of abandonment. But there are solutions to preventing child birth, such as birth control or abortion'

In developing countries contraception/birth control isn't readily available and as for families that are trying for children, why would they try to prevent conception?

Is abortion really a more moral than choosing the sex of the baby off the bat? Creating a life just to then destroy it, I am in no way 'anti-abortion' when it is necessary, but I think trying to have a baby and terminating it once you find out the sex is wrong. Also, ultrasounds often tell the sex of the baby around 20 weeks and in many countries the cut off date for an abortion is 12 weeks. So aborting it after determining the sex would be both morally and legally wrong. Thus gender selection eliminates both the need for an abortion as well as the moral and legal issues. 



Also, I would think that if a family miscarried a child, they would refrain from another child from fear of having another miscarriage


I hate to bring personal matters and experience into this debate but I know many women who have had miscarriages and tried for a baby a year or two later, my grandmother being one of them, so I know from personal experience that having the baby you once lost can help a lot of emotional pain. 










Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Okay, so PRO ignores a whole chunk of refutation and chooses only to respond to those that she can.

Many families would much prefer to have their own genetic children than adopt, although that is not deal, it is the truth, why would a couple choose not to have children if they really wanted them? If a disorder is gender specific this would be a medical breakthrough for families with those fears.

Don't you think, that if the families knew they had a genetic disease, they would much rather adopt? Yes I know what you are talking about, you're talking about how families would rather have children related to them. You can't compare these two families. The family you are talkign about has no genetic disorder. The family I am talking about has the gender genetic disorder. This family, would be much more likely to adopt because they would not want to put their child at risk. If they really wanted a child, they could adopt one. Furthermore, the genetic disorder cannot be guaranteed not to be to entirely absent from their child, even if it is not the gender specific for the disorder. As such, even with gender selection, the couple is taking a risk. As a couple who wants to have a healthy child, adoption would be a better solution.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? We are living in an extremely over populated world, although it hasn't quite hit America yet as its such a vast landmass, countries such as Britain, France, Germany, India, China and Japan are vastly over populated, the human race has doubled in population since the 1800's and we have four times as many people as their were in the first century. Slowing down the worlds reproductive rate would in no way be a bad thing. In countries with no gender bias such as the USA the ratio of male:female babies would very likely stay the same.

Yes, that is a bad thing. You're thinking only in the short term. Think about the long, long term.
At first, yes, population levels will slowly decrease because of gender selection, there would not be enough couples to go around and reproduce. Now flash forward a few hundred years.

The human population has now dimished to maybe a billion people, because there are not enough people to reproduce. Now, it poses a severe problem. Even if we wanted to reproduce and increase the population again, we can't, because of gender selection. IF we continuously cannot reproduce, the human population will eventually be endangered. This is not what we want to accomplish. Eventually, gender selection must be illegalized to save the human race and we would have accomplished nothing. It is better to illegalize it now.

You are oblivious to the fact that this probelm will increase exponentially over time, as couples become more and more gender specific. This poses a huge problem to the human population.

In developing countries contraception/birth control isn't readily available and as for families that are trying for children, why would they try to prevent conception?

Sure, then they could go and have babies. I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you are trying for conception and do not care about the gender of your baby, you should not use birth control methods. If you truly want to have a child, you would not care about the gender, and would not use birth control. Thus, there would be no feeling of abandonment.

Is abortion really a more moral than choosing the sex of the baby off the bat? Creating a life just to then destroy it, I am in no way 'anti-abortion' when it is necessary, but I think trying to have a baby and terminating it once you find out the sex is wrong. Also, ultrasounds often tell the sex of the baby around 20 weeks and in many countries the cut off date for an abortion is 12 weeks. So aborting it after determining the sex would be both morally and legally wrong. Thus gender selection eliminates both the need for an abortion as well as the moral and legal issues. 



You talk as if gender selection is moral. The main issue with abortion is that it causes harm to the baby. But how do you know that gender selection will not cause harm as well? Maybe it would cause a baby to be too masculine or feminine and you end up with homosexual babies. This could also create a feeling of dissappointment from parents and abandonment, that you claim to be so bad.

Furthermore, in the future when gender selection is possible, maybe we'll have better methods of abortion. You never know.


I hate to bring personal matters and experience into this debate but I know many women who have had miscarriages and tried for a baby a year or two later, my grandmother being one of them, so I know from personal experience that having the baby you once lost can help a lot of emotional pain. 




Cool, and I have a grandmother who had a miscarriage that did not not try for another baby ever. You also talked about filling the void. Why does the gender have to be the same? Again, if you truly wanted a child, you would not care about the gender of the child.

This device only promotes the exploitation of children to achieve selfish means, such as the chinese mentality to carry on the family name with males. Therefore, this should not be legalized.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
IFA wrote:
: May I say in my defence I thought there was another round :-( So many more points I wanted to add!
: Oh well, only my frist debate, at least I can learn from my mistakes! :)

If you add arguments in the final round, voters may ignore them.

You should put all your arguments in round one, and only add new ones as is required to respond to your opponent.

Sometimes you forget, and add new ones in round two; this will probably be forgiven.

Think of it this way, if you did add new arguments in the final round, your opponent could make any kind of stupid rebuttal, and you wouldn't have another round to point out that it was stupid. And it would be your fault for waiting.

If you have a good argument, you want it out early, so you can show people that your opponent's attempts to counter it don't work.
Posted by RyozoTabikashi 2 years ago
RyozoTabikashi
i want to debate pro too, but as the one on the pro side.
Posted by IntelligentFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
IntelligentFemaleAtheist
May I say in my defence I thought there was another round :-( So many more points I wanted to add! Oh well, only my frist debate, at least I can learn from my mistakes! :)
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
i definately want to debate pro on this.
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
RFD:

1. Genetic disorders past on through gender, (PRO WIN)

Pro won on this point. They showed how families would much rather have their own genetic bloodline rather than adopt. Con's round 3 refutation was not sufficient to win this point.

2. Cultural gender bias, (OVERALL CON WIN)

Pro drops this original point giving Con the win her. The point changed to overpopulation, which, Con also won. Con showed how if we slow down birth rates too much, too many men per woman, that for humanity overall there would be devastating consequences. Then comes the abortion point, which I felt was kind of irrelevant to the discussion at hand; I do not understand what Pro was arguing. If someone wants to have children…they are going to have children. Furthermore, I ask Pro if they cannot have contraceptives what makes you think they are going to have gender selection technology? Furthermore, Pro never successfully refuted the point that this gender changing process could cause physical pain that they will have to live with.

3. A better life for a wanted child (CON WIN)

I feel this point was inherently dropped by Pro. They did not link their abortion arguments to here.

4. Choice (CON WIN)

Completely dropped by Pro.

5. Smaller points (CON WIN)

a.Dropped by PRO
b.An unverifiable personal story utilized by Pro and another utilized by Con. Con's personal story crosses out Pro's and with Con's pain argument. They win this point.

Overall, a CON win.
Posted by IntelligentFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
IntelligentFemaleAtheist
Oh damn, I forgot to add a conclusion at the end of my round 2, and I meant 'conclusion' not 'resolution' haha... oops, is there any way to edit that? Should have read it through again before posting!!
Posted by IntelligentFemaleAtheist 2 years ago
IntelligentFemaleAtheist
arguing whether it should be legal on moral grounds.

I just want to hear peoples views, feel free to share!
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
Are you arguing legality or morality?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
IntelligentFemaleAtheistHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument that stood out the most by both sides was the gender bias argument. Pro said that choosing sex would prevent children of the undesired gender from being ill treated, but the con argued that because there is already problems with gender bias that being able to control the sex of the offspring would only exacerbate the problem. That gave arguments to the con since none of the other points were very convincing.
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 2 years ago
johnnyboy54
IntelligentFemaleAtheistHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay I didn't know 16k was countering. So I accidentally countered a counter.
Vote Placed by Mestari 2 years ago
Mestari
IntelligentFemaleAtheistHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Ryozo. His RFD says it would be in the comments section and the only thing he has said there is that he wants to debate on the PRO side. Edit: Beat by 9 seconds.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
IntelligentFemaleAtheistHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by RyozoTabikashi 2 years ago
RyozoTabikashi
IntelligentFemaleAtheistHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Comment:
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
IntelligentFemaleAtheistHardcore.PwnographyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: comment.