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

Justice and Morality: Pro makes three arguments, well really two arguments as to why he thinks we ought to prefer morality over justice. 1. He argues that without an internal justification of good and bad guiding justice there would be no reason anything is unjust. This is blatantly untrue. Consider the physco path who murders. Such a person would have no internal justification of good and bad but still clearly can act in just or unjust ways. Thus Justice is separate from any internal justification. The second argument he makes is essentially the same. 2. Pro claims that my argument makes justice and morality the same. This is untrue. I clearly argued that morality is the means, while Justice is the ends. They are interrelated topics, but as demonstrated above, justice remains constant with or without a moral internal justification. Thus we see that Justice must be preferred to morality. Liberty/Autonomy of Adolescents: Pro says “if I can show that they can make these decisions, then the negative case goes away and I meet his framework of deserving of rights.” This is almost true. He must show that adolescents can make rational decisions. This is because one is not really autonomous without that ability. Last round it was determined (and as pro did not contest accepted) that autonomy is synonymous with liberty. Liberty is both the freedom from external influence and the ability to act independently. This means pro must show that a) adolescents should be both free from outside influence to this freedom, and b) have the capability to act independently. I demonstrated last round that neither is the case. Due to the underdeveloped PFC adolescents are subject to react to circumstances rather than act. They are subject to their environments and emotions. They are unable to act for themselves as they are unable to inhibit inappropriate behavior. “Since the PFC controls intense emotions and impulses, it is sometimes referred to as the seat of good judgement. As such, a properly functioning prefrontal cortex inhibits inappropriate behaviors " including delaying gratification of needs, for things like food or sex " while encouraging wise, acceptable choices. In part, this occurs because it works to allow humans to balance immediate reward with long-term goals."(See previous round sources) Thus, we see that adolescents have neither the capability to be autonomous or the freedom from outside influence. Pro contends this and provides a few studies that he thinks negate this truth, but on further observation we see this to be entirely untrue. He quotes that “Comparisons of adolescent and adult decision-making with regard to risky behaviors ... have demonstrated that adolescents and adults are equally able to identify possible consequences of risky behavior” Each of the studies cited by pro essentially say the same thing. These fails for one simple reason. "Reasoning according to hypothetical situations might not be affected. When dealing with actual events, though, function is impaired." (1) As is clear the studies cited from pro where on hypothetical situations and thus do not negate my own. In fact, it is consistent with my sources. Consequently, we see then that pro’s sources do not contend that when dealing with actual events, functionality for adolescents is impaired. On Identity: Pro argued that “in order to preserve the gender identity of adolescents, the affirmative adopts these principles as a mindset in the biomedical community, ensuring that before any sort of intersex operation, adolescents are able to make completely free and informed decisions in regard to gender operations.” 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.” (2) 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. A misunderstanding: Pro concludes by contending that “We still give the right to make these decisions to adults who make horrible decisions. The justification for why adolescents don't deserve equal treatment isn't there.” This misses the mark. The argument is not that adolescents make horrible decisions and thus should not have rights. It is that they cannot rationalize their decisions and are thus subject to external influences…. They react, as oppose to act. They don’t “decide” so much as instinctively respond. 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. Overview: Pro has not met his burden of proof and seemingly cannot. This is due to adolescents not being capable of autonomy. The resolution is soundly negated as due to this inability, Adolescents ought not be given medical autonomy. It would be unreasonable and consequently unjust to require such autonomy when adolescents are not capable. Sources: (1) http://www.wisegeek.com... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...