should dumbster babys meet their mothers

Resolved: Dumpster babies should meet their parents. Position: ProI suspose I will provide diffinitions for clarity.Dumpster Babies: A baby left for dead by its biological parents; A baby literally found in a dumpster.Parents: Biological parents.Meet: To yell "icecubes" in a sexual manor. Wait.. wrong deffinitionWell to make it more fair I'll only make one argument as he did: Who is to tell them that they can not meet their parents. My friend here is taking the views of Paternalism Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person's freedom forhis or her own good. The word calls to mind the image of a father("pater" in Latin) who makes decisions for his children rather thanletting them make their own decisions, on the grounds that "father knowsbest." The principle of paternalism underlies a wide range of laws,practices, and actions„ a physician who decides what is best for a patient, asign prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, laws against voluntaryeuthanasia, laws restricting the use of heroine, cocaine, marijuana and otherdrugs, compulsory by Solid Savings" href="http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n2/owngood.html">retirement savings plans, and mandatory seat belt laws„alldesigned to protect our interests, whether we like it or not. Whilepaternalistic practices are relatively common, are they morally acceptable?Paternalism involves a conflict of two important values: 1) the value we placeon the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will leadtheir lives, and 2) the value we place on promoting and protecting the well beingof others. When people freely choose to act in ways that seem contrary to theirown well being, the question of whether we are justified in interfering withtheir affairs, the problem of paternalism arises. http://www.scu.edu...One must be given the freedom of choice dispite any possible harms it may do to the person, this is the only way to achieve a sence of perfect freedom, below is an argument made often in responce to a paternal viewpoint . . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over anymember of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm toothers. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. Hecannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better forhim to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion ofothers, to do so would be wise, or even right.... The only part of the conductof anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right,absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign. If a dumpster baby wants to meet his parents, although most probably dont, then by all means he SHOULD. For who is to determine what he should do [or what and who he should meet] then himself, and for what reasons should he not? The Con provided a whole list of reasons why we shouldnt let them see heir parents, I will address them as follows:...Yeah sadly actually the con provided no reasoning other then what he considered to be comon knowlege that a dumpster baby would never want to meet its parents and therefor stereotyped dumperster babies in such a way that he thinks no matter the personal situation they should not meet their parents. As you can now see this view is not only irrashional but is also unfair to the dumpster babies who acctually want to meet their parents. And for that reason I erge an Affermitive ballot