"In my opion you should breed for health, temperment, and looks and if any of these are going to be comprimised then the dog should not be bred regardless of color."
What a wonderful statement! I agree wholeheartedly (although I would say adherence to the standard instead of looks, to avoid being accused of breeding barbie dolls

). However, could you not also say that "You should breed for health, temperament and looks, and if none of these will be compromised then the dog should be bred, regardless of color?" Granted white is at this time a disqualification and so does not adhere to the standard, but hopefully you get my point.
The thing that I think really upsets people about being told whites should not be bred are statments like "it is proven that they are genetically deficient." It is not _proven_ that they are anything because no testing has ever been done. Are white Boxers more prone to deafness? Probably - since it's likely that deafness in Boxers is due to lack of pigmentation in the ear canal. Are white Boxers omre prone to sunburn/skin cancer? Probably - just as lighter skinned people are. However, none of this has been researched so it cannot be considered to be proven. And, none of this means that white Boxers are in any way "genetically deficient." They carry the same genes as their colored littermates, and we certainly would not consider them to be deficient. Some of them are the top Boxers in the country!
Do I think white Boxers should be bred? Well, no, but only because the ABC Code of Ethics forbids it, and I think that every breeder should abide by the parent club Code of Ethics. Do I think that the ABC should step into the 20th century (now that it's over) and get their heads out of the sand regarding the status of white Boxers? You betcha!
(I really tried to stay quiet on this, honest, but I just couldn't do it! Self-control has never been my strong suit

)
Julie