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

1: Observations OB1: "Ought" Implies "Can."It would be unjust impose impossible obligations. Capacity to perform obligations is a prerequisite to any moral system. "[T]he point of uttering moral judgments disappears if the agents involved are not able to act as proposed."(1) Thus Pro must not only show that we should give adolescents the right to autonomous medical choices, but that we can. OB2: We are talking about Adolescents as a whole, that is to say…. “on balance.” This is an important distinction to remember in this debate as there are exceptional individuals; pro may attempt to steer the debate to the topic of individuals. We are not talking individuals; per the resolution we are talking about adolescents as a whole. Whether male, female, or intersex the term adolescent is inclusive of all. OB3: Pro has outlined his burden as “The affirmative burden is to show that permitting intersex adolescents to choose their own identities enables the disruption of fixed gender identities.” I accept this, if pro can demonstrate that, it would affirm the resolution. 2: My Case I stand opposed to the resolution as I value Justice. BSH1 once stated “Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due. “(2) It is only through reasonableness and observing what is due that we can measure Justice. Justice precludes morality as Justice is the goal of morality. Morality is the means to an end. That end is Justice. If something is unjust, it is immoral. What is just must be determined, therefore before what ought to be done. Consequently, we cannot determine what we ought to do before we identify what results are necessary. It is not reasonable or due to give adolescences autonomy. Have you ever found yourself reminiscing about the society and home you grew up in? I have, and often amuse myself with memories as a typical rebellious teenager. At that time in my life, I often found laws as restrictive or oppressive. As a smart a$$, I recall arguing certain restrictions an infringement of my personal liberty and reciting that “an unjust law is no law at all.” The concept being that not have autonomy is unjust. Now I am older and wiser. To my younger self I would explain why it is only just to limit the autonomy of adolescents. To understand why minors have limited autonomy or liberty (as they are synonymous http://www.thesaurus.com...) , it is important to understand what Liberty entails. Often times, it seems, when people define Liberty they do so negatively. As in Liberty is the freedom from something. For example: liberty is the freedom from oppressive governments, or the freedom from taxation, the freedom from sin, etc. Often overlooked are positive definitions. That liberty is the freedom to, as in liberty is the freedom to establish a government, the freedom to religion, to speech etc. To understand liberty, both positive and negative definitions are necessary. Liberty is the freedom to, as well as the freedom from. (Feel free to check out my article on Liberty http://www.infobarrel.com...) John Stuart Mill in his work "On Liberty" stats: "It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine (of liberty) is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” (3) An interesting concept wouldn’t you say? Do you agree that liberty is intended to apply only to those who have met the “maturity of their faculties.” Does liberty exclude children as Mill suggests? Furthermore modern society has done just this; the law often affixes when a child becomes an adult. This leads us to an important question. Should liberty apply to Children as it does to adults? John Locke, known as the "father of liberalism," had this to say about liberty. (taken from "Second Treatise of Civil Government" Chapter 6) "The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free"(4) It seems that John Locke and John Stuart Mill agree that giving liberty to those unable to reason is not an increase in freedom. Rather, it is potentially harmful. How are we to determine when children become adults? How do we measure the ability to reason? We are privileged to live in an era where science can help us find these answers. To conclude when one is capable of reasoning, we need only observe at the brain. The Prefrontal Cortex or PFC to be exact. "The PFC is located in the very front of the brain, just behind the forehead. In charge of abstract thinking and thought analysis, it is also responsible for regulating behavior. This includes mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong, and predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events… Since the PFC controls intense emotions and impulses, it is sometimes referred to as the seat of good judgement. As such, a properly functioning prefrontal cortex inhibits inappropriate behaviors " including delaying gratification of needs, for things like food or sex " while encouraging wise, acceptable choices. In part, this occurs because it works to allow humans to balance immediate reward with long-term goals."(6) Children, and others whose PFC is not fully developed, do not have the full capacity to reason. (5) You may be wondering when the PFC is fully developed. “Medical studies have shown that the PFC is the last section of the brain to mature. In other words, while all other brain regions are fully developed early in life, its development is not complete until around age 25."(6) You read that right! Not until the age 25 is the part of the brain that enables us to reason fully developed. "As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car."(5) Conclusion: Remember Pro has stated that his “burden is to show that permitting intersex adolescents to choose their own identities enables the disruption of fixed gender identities.” We cannot permit adolescents the ability to choose as their ability to reason rationally inhibits them from making reasonable choices. Society on balance recognizes that adolescents are less capable if not incapable of making rational decisions. Science supports such an understanding of an underdeveloped brain. As a result autonomy of minors is justly and severely limited. Justice demands autonomy of those who are capable. Justice demands that such autonomy should be limited for those not yet able to govern themselves. This includes adolescents. Sources: (1) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk... (2) http://www.debate.org... (3) http://www.bartleby.com... (4) http://www.constitution.org... (5) http://hrweb.mit.edu... (6) http://www.wisegeek.org...