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

I affirm the resolution that states resolved: adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. My value for today's round will be that of ethical egoism, a moral school of thought that is surrounded by the individual’s ability to maximise self interest over outside interests. There are two reasons why this should be prefered; one is that this is the only way that allows for children to escape paternal control (Stanford ‘02), and two is that all communitarian values hinge from an ethical egoist one (Zizek 10) -- in that there can only be a wider range of ideals or morals when you maximise your own self interest. My criterion therefore is to advocate for a wider set of nomadism, which is central to the philosophy that Deleuze and Guattari both publish to be something of interest; I will let David Heckman explain (2002): "Nomadism" is a way of life that exists outside of the organizational "State. "The nomadic way of life is characterized by movement across space which exists in sharp contrast to the rigid and static boundaries of the State. Deleuze and Guattari explain: The nomad has a territory; he follows customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling points, assembly points, etc. ). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a consequence. To begin with, although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is reached only in order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380)¶ The nomad, is thus, a way of being in the middle or between points. It is characterized by movement and change, and is unfettered by systems of organization. The goal of the nomad is only to continue to move within the "intermezzo. " Contention One: Oedipus The triangle of the family promotes a social unity – each member of the family has a specific role to which they must conform – if they do not conform, society will view these individuals as deviants – the forced cooperation of the family is the psychoanalytic colonization of Oedipus (Deleuze & Guattari 1972). "the danger of this familialism in extension is ever present, conforming to the double impasse of an extended Oedipus, just as much in the diagnostic of pathogenic families in themselves as in the constitution of therapeutic quasi families. " When the adolescent makes his own autonomous decision, he or she is breaking the dominant authority of mommy and daddy – this breaks the Oedipal triangle – no longer is the child scared of mommy and daddy power, as it defies the norms of society. Society wants adolescents to stay in the vice of the parents – if the adolescent chooses freedom over mommy-daddy, society will begin to punish – it will blame the adolescent’s rebellious nature on the Oedipus complex – it will say that the boy will want to rebel against the father because he is jealous of the father’s relation toward the mother – this is vice versa with a girl. Of course, it is obviously not saying the child wants to sleep with its opposite sex parent and kill its same sex parent – but society is saying that your little rebellious nature is bad – it is saying that the only reason for this rebellion is because you want to defy your parents – Oedipus is designed to make the rebel child feel guilty – so society will do this by labeling he or she as rebellious (Deleuze and Guattari 1972). "The law tells us: You will not marry your mother, and you will not kill your father. And we docile subjects say to ourselves: so that's what I wanted! Will it ever be suspected that the law discredits—and has an interest in discrediting and disgracing—the person it presumes to be guilty, the person the law wants to be guilty and wants to be made to feel guilty? " If the child is forced to submit to society, it enters into the Nuclear Family, a perfect family – society’s grand design for conformity and control – if everyone is the perfect family then no one will question society at all and the hierarchies and exploitation can continue (Deleuze and Guattari 1972). "Finally, the distinction between the Imaginary* and the Symbolic* permits the emergence of an Oedipalstructure as a system of positions and functions that do not conform to the variable figure of those who come to occupy them in a given social or pathological formation: a structural Oedipus (3 + 1) that does not conform to a triangle, but performs all the possible triangulations by distributing in a given domain desire, its object, and the law. " When the state uses excuses such as Oedipus to stop the rebellion – this leads the child to desire their own repression, fascism – they question the hierarchies of society and the state punishes the child by making them feel like they hate their parents and want to rebel – the child will desire their own repression by wanting the hierarchies of society to control them so that they do not seem like they are hurting their parents – we must not let this exploitation happen – an adolescent can have their own autonomy and they can question the hierarchies of the state (Deleuze & Guattari 1972). And, this 'fascism' is the path to a pure destruction of everyone (Deleuze and Guattari 1980). "When fascism builds itself a totalitarian State, it is not in the sense of a State army taking power, but of a war machine taking over the State. A bizarre remark by Virilio puts us on the trail: in fascism, the State is far less totalitarian than it is suicidal. There is in fascism a realized nihilism. Unlike the totalitarian State, which does its utmost to seal all possible lines of flight, fascism is constructed on an intense line of flight, which it transforms into a line of pure destruction and abolition. " The Nomad is a way out of Oedipus – it frees them from the territorialization of the psychoanalytic family and allows them to resist the dangers of fascism (Seem 1972). The first task of the revolutionary, they add, is to learn from the psychotic how to shake off the Oedipal yoke and the effects of power, in order to initiate a radical politics of desire freed from all beliefs. Such a politics dissolves the mystifications of power through the kindling, on all levels, of anti-oedipal forces—the schizzes-flows—forces that escape coding, scramble the codes, and flee in all directions: orphans (no daddy-mommy-me), atheists (no beliefs), and nomads(no habits, no territories). I am open for cross-examination - please do make it quick, I think that it should take like 10 minutes :).