1st
Statement:
People should have the freedom of choice. Why shouldn’t
would-be parents be able to do this, given that no harm is done to others by
their decision? It is a fact of
life that sometimes parents are disappointed with the gender of their
child. This is true, for example, when they already have six sons
but want a daughter. Guaranteeing (or improving
the chances of) a child being of the gender they prefer means that
the child is more likely to fit into the family’s dreams.
He or she is, bluntly, more likely to be
loved. Talk of designer babies is scaremongering nonsense.
All babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreaterandomly: they choose their
partners, and often choose
the time of conceptionaccording to their age and
prosperity. Parents give
so much to their children. They invest years of their lives
and a large amount of their earnings in their upbringing. Isn’t it fair
that in return, they get to decide
something like this if they want to? This is an extension of reproductive rights.
2nd Statement:
Some cultures place great importance on having at least one child of a particular gender. We can
help realize this aim. We can prevent the trauma and stress of not
having a child of a particular gender, which can have negative cultural connotations. If
a state’s population became
seriouslyimbalanced, one might have
to rethink: but given that most
countries, including all in the West, are not, and given that many
families in most countries will choose to have roughly as many of either
sex, this should not stop this proposal from being put into effect in many countries.
1st Statement:
Children are not toys. They are not meant to be designed to meet specifications
most convenient to the ‘owner’. This is an extension of the consumer society. If we allow
parents to choose gender, soon some will want to choose eye color,
or hair color. That is only the beginning. We are, in allowing this,
encouraging false ideas of ‘perfection’ - damning those that don’t
look a certain way. Furthermore, since of course
there’s no justification for allowing
such indulgence at public expense, the divide will grow ever larger
between rich and poor, as the rich tailor not only their clothes and
belongings to reflect their wealth, but
also the bodies of their children. If a “gay gene” is discovered, would parents
be permitted toweed outembryos with it, using the
technology this proposal would condone? We really should
be encouraging the idea that when it comes to children, you get what
you are given - otherwise, people will demand more and more the
ability to change their kids,
and be more and more likely to reject their own child when
they don’t get exactly what they want.
2nd
Statement:
Having a child is a process of wonder and awe. These proposals make
having children something more like pre-ordering a car. To many
people the moment of conception is the start of life, touched by God
and not to be interfered with or abused out of selfish human
motives. Medical benefits are outweighed by medical costs.
Pre-implantation genetic
diagnosisinvolves the development of embryos outside
the womb, which are then tested
for gender. One or two of the desired gender are then implanted in the womb. Those
that are not of the desired gender, or are surplus to the requirements are destroyed (typically, over a dozen embryos
are used to select a single one to be implanted). A human life has
been created with the express purpose of being destroyed.
This is another form of abortion - only the conception is deliberate.
3rd Statement:
In the view of many, the new technologies are not morally different from abortion
- in all cases a potential life is taken. In any case, the cost of
these new methods is so high, and likely to remain so, that the proposition argument is irrelevant - the use of ultrasound scanning leading
to selective abortion is so much cheaper that this great evil will
not be reduced. Instead, these new technologies
are likely to make selective abortion more common, as if legalization
will make throwing away a human life simply because the parents would
prefer it more legitimate.
Main 
1st
Statement: 
3rd
Statement:
2nd
Statement: