Christian women should not go to male gynecologists

1. Oh boy more Paternalism… I just debated this [http://www.debate.org... ] Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person's freedom forhis or her own good. The word calls to mind by Solid Savings" href="../../should-dumbster-babys-meet-their-mothers/1/">theimage 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="retirement"target="blank">http://www.scu.edu...... by Solid Savings" href="../../should-dumbster-babys-meet-their-mothers/1/">savingsplans, 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 by Solid Savings" href="../../should-dumbster-babys-meet-their-mothers/1/">protectingthe well being of 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 despite any possible harm it may do tothe person, this is the only way to achieve a sense of perfect freedom, whileavoiding social control. Below is an argument made often in response to apaternal 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. . The choice shouldn’t be up to you.The choice should be up to the women individually. I seethe harms you’re taking about in your three points but I believe that thesocialistic viewpoint behind them is rather destructive in its own way. Imagineyou are a woman and you are perfectly okay with a male gynecologist working onyou, note that I just described more than half of the women in America, yet youare denied the option of even choosing because of your sex. Just because you’rea female is not a good enough reason to deny the one thing that makes us equal:choice. You are in turn subjugating women into a separate enclave in to whichthey are denied privileges due to sexist laws constructed ironically to protectthem. Laws of such only result in a more and more socialistic government. Examinethat carefully. So whatis life without choice? It is the life without meaning or purpose. This turnsyour case, for as of now you are creating more problems then you are solving. Not thatthis critical argument must be answered before weighing in the impacts youstated in your speech because life without meaning outweighs any impacts youclaimed in your 1AC 2. Counter Plan: Let the women decide forthemselves, this solves for your problems and doesn’t increase a socialisticmindset and it doesn’t destroy freedom of choice, instead it maximizes it. Lettingthe women decide for themselves is not only the right thing to do morally butis also respecting various religions if it is not right to them for male gynecologiststo view them. Thisavoids destroying the choice of other women by not letting them choose whichcould lead to having to find new family doctors if a woman was not able to seeher personal doctor about issues he specializes in. For clarity,as the Neg I am able to provide a counter-plan as a test of competitiveness to getinto further arguments about the resolution (Christian women should not go tomale gynecologists). Now on to your 3 points: 1. Dueto the recent increase in homosexuality there is no uniqueness in this argumentsince a woman could also be aroused at this. Therefor your plan does not solvethe problem and you cannot claim this as an advantage. 2. Whilethis is true the above evidence I just explained about homosexuality provesthat it doesn’t matter. Although It is sad I agree. If only man wasn’t bornunto sin then we would never have to worry about this sadly you will never beable to prevent things as this. 3. Ifthere is going to be a conflict in the marriage due to a doctor’s appointmentthen I should think that the marriage is not too strong to begin with. One mustthink, do I want my wife to be properly treated or do I want to withhold herneeded check-ups/surgery due to my selfish and crazy desire to be the only onewho sees her personal areas. By explaining it in that raw way you see the trueproblem. The problem should not be solved by eliminating the ability for a maledoctor to do what he specializes in but should be eliminated by a deep meditationon your priorities as a husband. Those are of course to see to it that yourwife and kids are taken care of, just as it is the wife’s duty to see to itthat the man and her children are cared for. If the medical needs of the womanget into the way of the relationship then I believe that there was more of aproblem to begin with for this to develop into such a predicament.