The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Fictional_Truths1
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Parents Should be Able to Pick the Gender of Their Children

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,914 times Debate No: 35461
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

TheHitchslap

Pro

Standard DDO Code of conduct applies.

Let's get at'em boys!
Fictional_Truths1

Con

Let's d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-ddddddddddduel!
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Pro

Thanks Con!

Prayer Yesterday, Technology Today!:

In the Aincent societies, such as Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc... the people who would become new parents often held sacrifices to dieties to try and allow the mother to give birth to a particular gender of baby. Some cultures such as China put huge emphasis on certain genders of babies, and today we have the technology to do that very easily via two safe methods:

1) genetic diagnosis, in which embryos created in a test-tube are analysed before being implanted in the womb, and

2) the MicroSort technique, in which sperm is 'sorted' to make it much more likely that the egg is fertilised by a sperm carrying the desired chromosome.


The discourse of this debate shall be centered around the vaildity of these two methods, as they are becoming more and more widely used. The desireability espescially in China and India is espescially evident. First, China is notorious for it's state-enforced abortions. Namely that if the courts find a baby undesireable, against their own laws due to presecedent, the courts may order a woman to undergo an abortion. Secondly, while India may also have been involved in enforcing a child policy to control it;s populations, the desireability of boys is also espescially prominent.(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

So Whats The Consequences?:

First, resources allocated to unnecessary abortions due to the undesireability of the babies gender would be greatly reduced. As noted in the economist "‘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)" (http://www.economist.com...) Ending the trauma against women for giving birth to a child they never wanted is economically positive, and relieving of trauma against the mother, who may become attached to the child when they suddenly are forced to abort it. Case-and-point, by allowing parents to select the gender of their children, it should cause infanticide to dramatically decrease.

Secondly, it can reduce body incompetence. Espescially those genetic diseases in which are sex specific. (http://www.time.com...) These range in nature from baldness and colour blindness to muscular dystrophy and haemophilia. Women are disproportionately affected by diseases of the immune system for instance, and gender sleection birthing processes will allow them to avoid this, something children will no doubt also find undesireable in their later years.

Thirdly, economic impacts would be over-all positive. This is because the sex-selection industry (as reported here:http://9e.devbio.com...) would market about a $200 million a year for the economy. Clearly a demand is present in North America for sex selection operations. This is also a minimum, as the source notes 30% of parents would consider it, and that 200 million would only come if 2% of those 30% were to actually do it. Meaning the revenue for the companies along with the revenue for the economy could be much much larger.

Furthermore, a common question encountered with this is what happens if a gender unequally becomes more "birthed" than another? I hold that the free-market would sort it's self out in terms of gender desireabilility. For instance, let's say in the US, more boys becomne birthed than girls. The value of girls would obviously increase for the population to continue to rise. The boys would also be unhappy about beeing unable to reporduce, which would cause a rise in the birthing of girls. The population would always remain equal through desireability and needs of the people and the populatons.

Fourthly, and finally, the liberties of parents would without a doubt increase. Parents have a tough time raising kids, and cultural norms sometimes dictate unfairly to women the genders they are required to birth, even though they have no control over it. Now they do, the process is indeed safe, and parents ought to be able to select the gender of their choice, provided both potential parents consent to the gender selection process. It makes parenting easier instead of looking at their child loathing them due to their gender. It would increase in the quality of care to children in the family unit. And it's about time that parents -- whom in their first 3 months can bank on not getting any sleep due to the baby -- are rewarded for their hard work day in and day out, that the GDP of the current country fails to reflect. Consider this a thank you from the medical feild!

Thank you

Over to my opponent.
Fictional_Truths1

Con

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, etc

1. Genetic Diagnosis, in which embryos created in a test tube are analysed before being implanted in a womb

This 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.





















Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Pro

Re: Prayer Yesterday

My opponent in his rebuttal commits an Ignoratio elenchi fallacy (or the fallacy of irrelevance). This argument is completely dropped due to my opponents irrelevant conclusions. What I was discussing here was the desires of the parents in selecting their childs gender. Clearly historically, this has been a long desire of the people. No where in this argument was the states desire addressed here. We are not talking about the desires of Nazi Germany, or the USSR, we're talking about the desireability of the parents becoming empowered in selecting the baby in question's gender.

Re: Genetic Diagnosis:

On what basis is selecting the gender of the child wrong? It isn't sexist provided it has the consent of both parites envolved. I noted in the previous round, this can be used as a positive to prevent gender-based illnesses that are hereditary. For example: my family the women are notorious for suffering from cancer aroundtheir mid-40's due to genetics. Although they have luckily survived, I will not go through that because I am a male in my family (or atleast signifigantly less risk for it). I want a son so as to prevent having a daughter. Not on the basis of hating a woman (which would be sexist) but with the intent of every father to his or her child; to protect them from the evils of the world, and in this case it would be to prevent them from suffering from cancer.

My opponent on top of committing a bare assertion fallacy, committs another Ignoratio elenchi, at no point was abortions ever discussed here. Abortions are a completely different operation entirely with a whole differing context and methodology. This is nothing more than a chemical reaction of the sperm fertilizing an egg. This is occuring outside of the woumb. What's the difference should this happen in the uterus and the egg fails to lach on to the lining of the wall? The answer is simple: nothing. This is not an abortion.

Re: Microsorting:

Again, my opponent makes an appeal to nature here (it's also natural to eat your young but we don't do that), on top of another bare assertion fallacy with an appeal to emotion. First, according to my opponent you have to believe a sperm cell is the same as a human. I think that's an absurd argument, as it's a priori, the very definition of a human relies on the fertiliation of both egg and sperm, not just the cell of a sperm, which is only one half, showing a complete difference. Secondly, this is not picking and choosing a "person" or "human", they're just sperm cells. And while I don't mean to paint a graphic picture here, but if by that same logic every time someone were to preform fallatio on someone else, and swallow, that would be cannabalism, which it is not, and thus affirming my argument. Furthermore, the randomization of the process is not a benifit, espescially if one gender is birthed more than another. Allowing this to happen would either have a one-sided gender being birthed, making the other gender more valuable to have (incentives), or a balanced population. All we are doing here is enabling the ability to choose provided both parents agree.

Re: Child's Rights:

First, China has relaxed their policies in the mid-1990's concerning population control as per the source noted. Secondly, my opponent completely crops my arguments concerning the economic reasons for having an abortions. As per note in the previous round, the economist clearly noted the most common reason (statistically) for an abortion is the undesireabile sex being birthed. Obviously, then if this is true enabling people to birth the gender they want lowers abortions. Thirdly, children are distinctly different from prenatal developing fetuses. A child is a person between the stages of birth, and puberty, while a fetus is a developing embryo which needs to complete it's gestation process to qualify being a baby. Huge difference. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

From this, we can conclude my opponent is obviously mistaken; these embryo's do not have the right to life quite yet, and furthermore, this policy actually upholds more of that right by allowing parents to decide the gender so as to prevent coercion rather than seek an abortion and have the psychologically damaging effects placed on the mother. Also, not all those eggs are being fertilized anyways. All they do is scan the sperm and select the sperm with the desired chromozone for furtilization.

Re: Stop Abortions:

Bare assertion fallacy, and appeal to nature (still eating young .. ), how so? Who is the victim here except for the parents by denying this policy, which in turns denies them the child they wish they could have? What moral framework does my opponent offer to justify her argument?

Re: Forced Abortions:

Right, in China and India, however, this is already addressed (above). And furthermore, again my opponent commits an Ignoratio elenchi, we're not talking about murdering someone here, nor are we talking about LGBT rights. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. However, while China might not be so accepting, due to this argument assmued to be in the US as policy, the LGBT baby who identifies as whatever he/she desires in sexual orientation would be entitled to the same rights and freedoms as every other single american. Again, all we're talking about here is selecting the gender. Notwithstanding the LGBT, which is irrelevant here.

Re: Economic Impact:

Again, we are not talking about automatic weapons, prostitution, etc.. only about allowing parents to sleect the gender of their child. What morals are we again talking about here? Furthermore, we are also not talking about abortions. We are talking about this specific set of procedures, which would generate a revenue. My opponent completely drops this argument, and even gave an argument in support of abortions because of how much money they make!

Furthermore, we're not talking about buying or selling boys or girls in the free-market, but rather the desireability of the gender when the population becomes in favor of one gender over another. Because of the lack of ability to reproduce, soceity economically would see the desireability of the opposite sex and would thus have every incentive to give birth to that gender. Balancing the gender ratio. This would have no impact on the procedure it's self, only when it becomes cheaper due to more competition as a result of this new practice and more parents using it.

Finally, my opponent in her round asserts that "the government would pick" then claims "but it's the parents!", this is kettle logic, which is it? Becsause my opponent cannot have it both ways, it should be the parents deciding. My opponents assertion that incest would be needed is a reducto ad absurdum. At no point is incest ever needed for this. And I have no idea how my opponent came to this conclusion at all .. again, when the pop. favors one gender, it's desireability of the opposite gender would show balancing the population.

Re: Parents

My opponent quotes out of context, I was clearly speaking in terms of the child policy of China when reffering to the force births due to sex desireability. In North America however, my poisition is pretty clear: that so long as both parents agree on the gender they desire, they ought to be allowed the procedure to choose. If they cannot agree, the parents can reffer to the traditional birthing practices instead. Which is perfectly fine if they wish to do it that way, at no point did the resolution of this debate call for all parents to select their gender. Furthermore, no one can really force the other to be pregant via legal means, nor is this relevant to the debate topic at hand.

Re: LGBT

At no point is this an issue within this debate, as I noted before all we're talking about here is gender selection. The sexual orientation of an individual is an entirely different debate and up to that person(s) genetic disposition.

Conclusion

The resolution is upheld.
Fictional_Truths1

Con

Fictional_Truths1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Pro

arguments extended
Fictional_Truths1

Con

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH. I had technological issues with my Wi-Fi. Sorry for the inconvenience. Voters, do as you wish.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
Now that I think about it, I would like to retry this debate, with copying and pasting of the first three arguments. I'm fine with taking a loss, because I FF and didn't rebutt in round 4 against my better judgement, but this was a fun debate, and I would like to finish it.
Posted by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
I'd like to address Ragnar's RFD. I did not FF because I wanted to. I chose to simply apolagize because I wanted to maintain the integrity of the debate and I figured not allowing the appropriate dialogue and just skipping to last round rebuttal wouldn't be fair to me or my opponent. Nevertheless, you are the voter. Do as you wish.
Posted by 1Alyssa 4 years ago
1Alyssa
Expanding this debate would bring us to the question " Should parents be allowed to bioengineer their children"? Most people today would say no, and that is actually sound. If parents were able to choose the gender, or haircolor, or eye color, or even skin color , of their child, it would lead to a total unbalance in society today. On one hand we might have the rich being genetically superior and the poor being, of course, less superior. This would lead to a huge poor-rich disparity in society.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
First, I want to say you two are doing amazing already.

Secondly, I wanted to say that the child should be the only one able to decide his gender, and not the parent, ever. Of course the child would need to wait until he is of age.

Thirdly, the UN has granted all human's the right to bodily autonomy. This means that NO ONE can decide over someone else's body in anyway, even a parent. This goes for the gender as well
Posted by watevas808 4 years ago
watevas808
Its not that parents should be able to pick the gender of their baby.They ARE able to pick the gender of their baby.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
http://www.11points.com...'s_Gender,_From_Most_to_Least_Effective

It's pretty straight forward debate, what I'm defending is these practices, that a couple in agreement of the sex of the baby ought to be allowed to ensure they get what they want. So if the couple wants a boy, there well within their rights to have it surgically done
Posted by MisterDeku 4 years ago
MisterDeku
I can't accept it because I don't meet your criteria. I'd like to though. Challenge me directly!
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
What are you trying to debate? Do you mean that if they have a boy, they should choose whether or not it lives as a boy or a girl? or...what are you getting at?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
TheHitchslapFictional_Truths1Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote-bombing dragon_slayer
Vote Placed by dragon_slayer489 4 years ago
dragon_slayer489
TheHitchslapFictional_Truths1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: i liked his rebuttle on the statment alll the way and agreeed with him
Vote Placed by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
TheHitchslapFictional_Truths1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: FF. Arguments: It was tied up until the last round; CON didn't put anything to respond to his opponent's points in R4.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
TheHitchslapFictional_Truths1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure if it was meant as one, but I'm going to count that as a concession; since choosing to skip a second (or third) round to apologize instead of making a closing case, would just be unthinkable.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
TheHitchslapFictional_Truths1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F