The Instigator
YCM_xx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheist-Independent
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

That parents should be allowed to choose the biological sex of their children.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Atheist-Independent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 59374
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

YCM_xx

Pro

In Australia, abortion is legal in ACT,"Victoria,"South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia,"Northern Territory, if there is approval from a doctor or in some cases 2 different doctors. Abortion is legal in Queensland & New South Wales if the doctor believes a woman"s physical or mental health is in danger. If our country allows abortion, why should parents not be able to choose their child's sex. We can kill babies, but we can't say determine if we have a boy or a girl?!

http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au...

Sex selection could help reduce the population because couples could get the gender they wanted right off gate instead of continuously having children until they get the gender they desire. We have all known someone in that situation where for instance, they already have three boys, but decide to try for another baby because they want a girl or vice versa. We would also probably see less children being given up for adoption because of the child being the undesired gender, such has been the case in China.

Another important issue the sex selection could help with would be sex specific diseases. Many times parents are the carriers of a particular sex specific disease bur do not want to pass it on to the child. Should they risk having a child that could risk getting a serious sex specific disease?! Sex selection would allow these people to have children despite having these diseases because they would be able to choose the sex.

http://community.babycentre.co.uk...

Thank you
Atheist-Independent

Con

Thesis

The legalization and implementation of sex selection into hospitals would be a bad decision and would prove to be harmful to society in the future.

Evidence:

Statistics have shown that the majority of people would prefer to have a boy as opposed to a girl. In the USA one poll showed that 40% of the American people would prefer to have a boy while only 22% would like to have a girl (statistics do not add up due to a portion of people who were undecided) [1]. In Third World countries this percentage would be even higher in the favor of having a male child due to the following reasons:

a) Sons would be able to provide greater economic support in the future.
b) Sons are more able to help with physical work in the future than girls are.
c) Many cultures prefer to have a son as opposed to a daughter.

For point a, this is evidenced by the fact that women are still only making 77 cents compared to every dollar that a man earns [2]. If a family/couple is poor, they would prefer to have a son because it is more likely that he will be able to provide for them in the future.

Point b is fairly obvious, as it is has been shown that women only have 52% the amount of upper body strength than men do [3]. Also, most cultures would never even consider having a girl do heavy work around the house anyways.

Point c is also obvious, as many cultures in Asia (China, India, South East Asia) show that they prefer to have sons over daughters.

While all these statistics are interesting, what do they have in relation to sex selection? For my argument at least, they mean everything. Based on the statistics above, if a couple was given the opportunity to choose the gender of their future child they would most likely select male. This is fine as long as only a few couples are doing this sex selection, however if every/most couples are choosing the gender of their child then this poses a huge problem. This problem is that if more and more boys are being born as opposed to girls, in about two decades when it is their turn to reproduce, their simply won't be enough women to match with men to produce the future generation. This means that populations will drop dramatically, and as Russia has shown us, this is a very bad thing [4].

Sex selection would have the most harmful impact on China, however. in China, the government has implemented the infamous one-child policy. Since the Chinese people have always preferred boys to girls, the disparity in boys and girls being born would be enormous due to the fact that the people only have one opportunity to have a child. Currently, this is already a problem in China as 117 boys are being born compared to every 100 girls [5]. This number would be greatly exaggerated given the implantation of sex selection given that the couples would no longer have to go to immoral lengths (abortion, neglection, or even murder) to no longer have a female child.

China, however, is not the only culture that prefers boys over girls, as Graph A displays the current gender disparity in several countries.

Graph A:

Given this large gender disparity that would most certainly be exaggerated given the implementation of sex selection, what would the results be in these countries. For one, populations would dramatically drop as mentioned earlier. This would destroy the economies of countries, especially in China and India due to the fact that they would not have enough workers to support their massive industries. Another theoretical result would be an increased crime (especially sex-related crimes) due to the fact that there are a larger number of angered, single men. This has already proved to be an issue in China as there as been an increased crime rate ever since the implementation of the one-child policy [6].

Conclusion:

Legalizing sex selection would be a terrible idea due to the fact that many more males will be born as opposed to females. I have shown that an increased gender disparity between males and females would bring bad results because it would harm the population, economy, and would increase crime rates within the country in question.

Sources:

[1] http://www.care2.com...
[2] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...
[3] http://health.howstuffworks.com...
[4] http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org...
[5] http://www.economist.com...
[6] http://www.economist.com...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Codedlogic 2 years ago
Codedlogic
YCM_xxAtheist-IndependentTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had far more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
YCM_xxAtheist-IndependentTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed longterm bad effects with sources. Pro was isought fallacy.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
YCM_xxAtheist-IndependentTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped pro's arguments and instead opted to make his own positive case, which is odd considering he didn't have the BoP. Con points out the gender gaps within various already overpopulated countries, and says this will cause their populations to drop. This point does nothing for me, however he also points out that crimes rates in China has gone up hand-in-hand with the growing gender disparity. this is a strong argument that Pro didn't give himself a chance to respond to, since this is just a 1 round debate. Since Con dropped Pro's argument, and since Pro made himself unable to respond to Con's strongest arguments, I'm going to tie the arguments points. Con provided more and better sourcing for his arguments, so sources to Con.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
Manastacious
YCM_xxAtheist-IndependentTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Overwhelmingly superior argumentation from the Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
YCM_xxAtheist-IndependentTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con backed his argument with more sources and elaborated more of his argument will spiking down Pro's.