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

Contention 1: KantMy opponent attempts to refute Kant's Universalizability by attempting to compare it with Rule Utilitarianism. This is a fallous comparasion as the Universalizability tests the items ability if it was applied to a Universal level would it work. I realize that there are other types of situations that can occur, but if it can be applied on this level then we can see that it would work. This is more of an "On ballance" issue than Con's "one size fits all" line of thought. [1]Now onto reversalizability. I used the "enjoyment" as an example, which I'll address Con's turn in a mintue, the concept reversability is that of how would you like it if it was applied to you. So sure the enjoyment factor doesn't work here, but let's take something that has been accepted, murder for say. It passes the universalizability in that it would not be okay if everyone started murdering everyone. Then when it comes to reversability, we would be okay if we ourselves are not murdered. To come full circle here in order to truely universalize this resolution we can see how would it work if all Adolescents were given the right to make autonomous medical choices. I have shown in my last Adolescents are rational beings AND they honnor their parents advice, which is key here, allowing them to make rational decission.Now to address the turn. My opponent brings up that this will cause an increase of crime and violence, but this is a complete bogus argument due to the fact that the any such event would cause a violation in Kant's Kingdom of Ends by having other's violating their duty to others and their rights. To refute the argument against the Ends we can see that what my opponent is arguing for is an ends. Though, sure, it may help society, but it would still be using humans as a means. I have brought up the issues it causes when we do not allot freedom of choice to the adolescents and this harms soceity. Not to mention that the Adolescents listen to their parents when it comes to making these decessions and they also might need a bit of "prodding" from others to help them lead to the conclusion. This will cause them to make the decission by themselves which will cause both parties here to get what is wanted. My opponent is completely over looking my own evidence and simple logic here on that these Adolescents will listen to their parents and experts. My opponent is confused since he is unable to find an end in things, but yet he contradicts himself when he states it several times. I am defending the end which is that of the individual's freedom. [2] That is the end. My opponent would be harming the Kingdom of Ends by limitting the Individual's freedom. No that does not mean that if people are trying to rape and pillidge and we stop them it violates the Kingdom of Ends. Instead we have to attempt to rationalize with the individual. [3] If they then continue to violate the Kingdom of Ends after you try to rationalize with them then it is pointless and they must be held accountable with the Kingdom of Ends in order to protect it. I have already shown in two pieces of evidence that I have provided that this is already occuring and both of which have been dropped which, in itself, wins the argument in my favor. Contention 2: On decission making Capability.It's quite intersting that my opponent should open with an argument in regards to violence, becuase the legal system is quite an intersting place. We can see that in the eyes of the law, a 16 year old mother is able to abort her unborn child or even get a surgery on it, but, yet, is unable to get surgery herself. You also have a 17 year-old who is unable to refuse life saving surgery, but can be tried as an adult in the eyes of the law. [4] We can already see that the law acknowledges this as early as age 14. So in the eyes of the law they have autonomy so why don't they have autonomy in the medical field? When people default to only parents should have the ability to make these decissions then you are already conceding to my side of the debate here. I extend across all other evidence from my previous round as it was untouched. Finially to hit the hot button issue of the mental state. A study done in 2009, showed that when doing research compared to both the cognative skills and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool Test of those aged 24 years of Age that Adolescents were only on average 10-15% bellow the levels of the 24 year old. [5] To further this study we have to see that only 1/2 of those age 24 actually passed the goal for the test. With this argument on the table we can see that we either have to grant Adolscents autonomy OR we have to not grant Autonomy to all since all wouldn't be able to make these decissions since there is constant improvement. Either way this argument flows to my side.Sources1. ( http://www.zeepedia.com...) 2. Carnois, Bernard, 1987, The Coherence of Kant's Doctrine of Freedom. D. Booth, tr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.3. Reath, Andrews, 1994, “Legislating the Moral Law” Nôus 28, No. 3, Dec.4. (Rhonda Gay [J.D., Ph.D.] “Adolescent Autonomy: Clarifying an Ageless Conundrum” Hastings Law Journal 51 Hastings L.G. 1256. August 2000. ) 5. Steinberg, Laurence, Elizabeth Cauffman, Jennifer Woolard, Sandra Graham, and Marie Banich. "Are Adolescents Less Mature than Adults?: Minors' Access to Abortion, the Juvenile Death Penalty, and the Alleged APA "flip-flop."" American Psychologist 64.7 (2009): 583-94. Oct. 2009. Web. 28 Sept. 2015.