Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Overview:Extend preferring Justice to morality. Pro does not contend my reasoning here, merely restates his ontological contention. It is clear that justice precedes morality as it is the goal of morality itself. Pro ignores the example I gave demonstrating that people can have a lack of morals and still act in a just or unjust way, extend that as it negates his petty claim that the two values are equitable. So far as the subject of PFC development, notice that he never really responds to my concern. Each study Pro provided concerned hypothetical circumstances and are thus dismissed as "Reasoning according to hypothetical situations might not be affected. When dealing with actual events, though, function is impaired. " (see previous round for source. )Pro claims this absurd as there is no way to test competency… except there is. As mentioned in this debate, age is the best indicator on balance to one’s ability to rationally make decisions. Adolescents are underdeveloped and shown to be incapable of such rationality. While imperfect in regard to specific individuals, it is the most reliable source presented in this debate concerning adolescents on balance and should be preferred. Pro, in an attempt at ridicule calls 25 the “magical” mark. It is the scientific mark as indicated by any and all sources in this debate. The PFC is not fully devolved until 25. It seems pro is ridiculing science to magic and dismissing it as such. To do so undermines his studies that are also based in science. Note this hypocrisy. Pro does bring up one somewhat reasonable concern. “There are adults that fail in this regard too. ” To this I again respond that “Adults are free to choose to act poorly because they can reasonable be held accountable for their actions. Society does not hold an adolescent accountable in the same way as an adult largely because they cannot act in the same autonomous way. ”Pro does respond to this stating “Adolescents can and have been tried as adults under the judicial system and last I checked insurance companies don't really make distinctions for minors who get into car accidents and forgive them for their "inability to rationalize the situation". ”Remember my second observation. These are specific cases; we are debating “on balance. ” When adolescents are tried as adults it is the rare exception to the rule. That rule being accepted that adolescents are not tried as adults, as they are not as capable as adults and not as accountable. As far as insurance, the companies do take adolescents inability into account demonstrated by the mere fact that adolescents insurance cost more to offset the larger likelihood that they will be in an accident. Besides this, the insurance is concerned about the financial aspect, your insurance company is not in the business of determining justice or morality, it is in the business of covering costs. So this sad attempt to refute is not linked and dismissed easily. Conclusion:Pro is right, “The debate breaks down really simply. ”I laid out 3 observations early in this debate, to which pro did not object, and yet he fails to meet all three. OB 1: we see that adolescents have neither the capability to be autonomous or the freedom from outside influence. Pro fails here. Ought implies can, and we cant give autonomy to someone incapable of receiving or exercising it. Referring to observation 1 it becomes clear that this causes pro to value to meet the burden of “ought. ” OB 2: Pro does attempt to give examples that some adolescents seem to act as rationally as adults, and some adults act irrationally. This contentions ignore “on balance. ” Thus pro fails to meet this observationOB3: As far as choosing identities it has become clear that such a decision about one’s identity in adolescence should not be allowed. “A large and relatively new body of research is revealing that young adulthood is a time of dramatic change in basic thinking structures, as well as in the brain. Consensus is emerging that an 18-year-old is not the same person she or he will be at 25, just as an 11-year-old is not the same as he or she will be at 18. They don't look the same, feel the same, think the same, or act the same. ” (see previous round)It is unreasonable to allow an adolescent incapable of rational thought to make a decision autonomously about their gender identity when their decision would affect their whole life. This is especially harmful as the adolescent brain is incapable of assessing long term consequences and will have a different identity when fully developed. Pro has clearly failed to meet these observations though he accepted them and failed to provide a convincing case. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that adolescents on balance do not have the capacity for such autonomy and should then not be given this autonomy.