THW ban biological parents from contacting children they gave up for adoption

Due to the purpose of this debate, I suggest that we utilize other forms of debate structures, such as Lincoln Douglas or even Public Forum in order to better allow for a general debate flow structure that most individuals can understand on a day-to-day basis. It would merely be an alteration that conforms to a structure such as: 1> Aff Constructive 2> Negative Constructive with rebuttal/refutation to Aff 3> Further affirmative refutation to NC as well as addressing key issues 4> Providing a way to best justify the debate and the grounds in order to win/ refuting opponent's points further 5> Final wrap-up as well as refutation --- It is up to you to agree whether or not to do so; however, I specifically suggest it so due to the facilitated understanding it allows for other members or participant debaters when voting. Now moving on to the specific topic: For the purpose of today's debate, I, as the contender, have the burden placed upon me to provide definition for a few key terms to allow for a consensus on terms debated as well as judging validity of arguments: 1> Biological parents: a parent who has conceived (biological mother) or sired (biological father) rather than adopted a child and whose genes are therefore transmitted to the child. 2> Contact: immediate proximity or association. However, I have also a few inquiries that is crucial to clear up in the context of today's debate for the instigator, and that would be namely 1> What you refer to by stating in the resolution THW; my inquiry is whether you wish to debate based on core principles and values of the Federal Agency for Technical Relief, or merely their singled-out policy concerning the resolution 2> Whether or not you wish to confine this debate to the present range and spectrum that the THW operates in; thus would you like to debate about how this resolution should be treated in Germany, where they are prevalent, or this policy in general. Resolving these issues as soon as possible will allow for a much easier debate on both our parts. The jurisdiction of whether or not an individual as a biological parent should/should not be allowed to visit their children that they have given up for adoption does not rest upon the mere fact that they have sired or conceived the child; it comes to the distribution of rights as well as consideration for each parties' interests. 1> By giving up a child as an individual gives up the intrinsic right that we do to our children; merely siring or conceiving a child as a biological parent does not give justification to our ownership or possession of such a child. It is our willingness to accept such a child as an inherent aspect of our own lives and when we take into consideration the benefits as well as interests of them as individuals are we granted the possession of a child. In the same context, by giving up a child for adoption, an individual not only gives up the responsibilities that come hand in hand with fostering a child, but also the ownership and control over such a child. Allowing for contact to be re-established between a parent and a child they have given up for adoption not only provides an imaginary bond which does not exist that will impact the child's life, but also reinstating a right that the parent individual does not have to his/her biological child. The responsbilites that do come with a child are given up the instant that an individual forgoes the child, yet their right to contact and immediate as well as intimate association and being in proximity of their child is also given up. Additionally, there is also a interesting belief that contact entails not being able to talk with or come into relation with their child; the fundamental policy represented by the THW is not so; it advocates for the inability of a biological parent to come into the as stated 'close and intimate proximity or association with' for contact. Thus having a biological parent talk to his/her child is acceptable under this policy, and the only unacceptable aspect would be developing a long-term relationship with intimacy involved. 2> Affiliation with a biological parent involving a close and intimate relationship from an adopted child's perspective would destroy the concept of a parentage in its advocation. By having the child be adopted by another individual, the original biological parents are giving their own as well as their child's consent to have the new individual take their place in beholding responsibilities entailed to their child, and willingly do so. The parentage fosters a intimate relationship that is felt firsthand by the child as well as his/her new parents, and the responsibilities as well as moral obligations that come with parentage are considered by the new individual who acts as a parent to the child. The new individual thus becomes the guardian as well as providing for the interests and well-being of his/her new child; having the biological parents again come into close and intimate contact with the child would destroy the concept of moral obligation and responsibility that is entailed by a parentage. Thus we look to the inherent point that states that certain responsibilities and obligations come hand in hand with possession and acquisition; because the biological parent fails to come to terms with the such, he/she should not be allowed to maintain a steady and close as well as intimate affiliation with the child. As I have provided for the above arguments as opposed to my opponents advocation on the con side of this debate resolution, I now eagerly await my opponent's responses to the framework of this case altogether as well as specific issues as addressed in this case. Dictionary source: www.dictionary.com