Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

I thank famousdebater for their arguments. The first argument I'm going to present in this debate simultaneously refutes Pro's arguments and upholds Con's burden. The argument is that any "ought" claim has no objective base, and, as such, is subject to any individual's interpretation of moral obligation. The resolution states, "Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices." As such, Pro's burden is to demonstrate that there is a moral obligation for adolescents to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. At first glance, Pro seems to have done that -- he has established a framework for normative ethics, and explained how autonomy of medical choice is required by the framework. What he fails to establish is that such a framework is coherent and objective. The term "ought" is defined in Rd. 1 as a moral obligation. Pro doesn't establish that moral obligations even exist. Normative ethics is pointless without discussing metaethics. In this debate, it's up to Pro to prove that actions can intrinsically be moral or immoral. I'm going to be negating that, i.e. denying the truth of that, with a position called moral nihilism. Pro's arguments haven't clearly established why there is a moral obligation for adolescents to have medical autonomy. Pro hasn't shown why the libertarian framework decides what's "moral" or "immoral," how those two terms are objective, and how a greater harm to society is immoral. The debate isn't a policy debate on adolescents having medical autonomy. It's a debate on the moral obligations. If you vote Pro, you're acknowledging without evidence that morality objectively exists, is intrinsic, and that Pro's framework accurately represents morality. But to claim that anything is "moral" or "immoral" is incoherent. What does that even mean? If moral obligations exist and are according to Pro's framework, why aren't they followed? On what basis do they exist objectively? There'd be some indication of moral realism in reality. But different species have different instincts, and instincts govern a species' basic traits. Any moral realism presupposes moral facts, and that results in infinite regression. Why is something even moral? What's the basis? How is morality objective? I'm only able to conceive of one answer to the question: God. But there's no indication that such a being exists to enforce moral laws. If God grounds morality, then morality is contingent upon a mind, therefore is subjective, and there's no reason to think God's will outweighs the will of any other mind. If God doesn't ground morality, then morality isn't objective. Morality requires some ground to state a "moral fact" as true. Many religions believe God provides such a ground, but there's no indication of that, or even God's existence. If morality exists, nature is probably the only root. That is because naturalism is true within the universe. Every observed phenomena in the universe can be explained naturally, so there's no reason to jump to positions such as dualism and dual-aspect monism. Idealism is probably false because of the apparent distinction between, for instance, dreams and reality. One can taste the tea in a cup only when one physically sips it; its imagination gives little. Under naturalism, if one says moral realism is true, then morality must be homogeneous among species. Unfortunately, it isn't. Thus, moral nihilism entails. Pro establishes a normative framework of libertarianism, and then proceeds to contradict that by justifying the resolution via utilitarian cost/benefit analysis. It's unfair to me to allow Pro to defend more than one advocacy. Pro needs to defend a consistent advocacy. Furthermore, neither of them is properly justified by Pro as an adequate moral framework. Why do we buy libertarianism? Pro justifies libertarianism itself by utilitarian means: he says, "Why do we ought to prioritize human rights and limit government restriction? Because all countries that have ever prioritized the countries needs before the country's rights has ended up in poverty and many have ended up on the list of the worst countries to visit or to live in, in the world." Pro doesn't justify utilitarianism to justify libertarianism. Pro also fails to justify that minimal restriction is the best moral action. Every justification of Pro's is subjective and arbitrary. Hitler's moral framework allowed for the genocide of multiple races, confiscation of property, et cetera. Such subjective moralism is dangerous. That's Pro's advocacy. Don't allow Pro to create subjective frameworks that could kill people. The alternative to Pro's harsh framework is mine: acknowledge moral nihilism and stop holding anyone to a moral obligation. Therefore, vote Con. Pro doesn't justify how the majority opinion is the moral one, or the religious one. Even under Pro's own framework, one can vote Con. In the House episode "Last Temptation," a teenage girl attempts to become the youngest sailor to circumnavigate the globe. She is diagnosed with a potentially fatal lymphoid sarcoma in her humerus, and they need to amputate her arm, thus making her unable to achieve her dream of sailing but saving her life. She stubbornly refuses to do so and wants to get the amputation after her dream is achieved, which could mean her death. Her parents give consent for the surgery because of the risk of bradycardia, thus saving her life, something she wouldn"t have given consent to if she had the power. It's exactly for such a situation that many jurisdictions don't give adolescents the right to make autonomous medical choices. They aren't mature enough to do so. And such an argument transcends fiction. Brain studies show that adolescents aren't capable enough in decision-making. They act impulsively and emotionally, instead of rationally, and tend to be more aggressive, because their frontal lobes aren't fully developed. They lack the ability to control themselves. [1, 2] In conclusion, Pro's justifications are arbitrary and result in subjective moralism. Even under Pro's frameworks, turn his arguments because they contradict each other, and vote Con because adolescents are poor decision makers. [1] http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org...