Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

Pro's lack of responses to the framework damn him in this debate.Extend Donnelly 1. The affirmative's singular focus on autonomy as an individual principle and characteristic of human beings just misunderstand the way that society works in general. We're all reliant on each other interdependently to have any kind of notion of rights and autonomy. Without this interdependence, there's no such thing as autonomy.And, extend Donnelly 2. Only understanding the interdependence of society can respect the moral agency of other people. And, extend Donnelly 3. Only from this interdependent framework can claims of autonomy make any kind of sense. Even if I have the right to conduct myself as I wish to, social dependence comes first as it places demands on us before autonomy factors in. My opponent makes three responses to the framework that seem to mistake the entire purpose of the framework. The framework I establish isn't just about providing for material needs, but rather that our sense of self and our rights come from the society around us. His first response is that absolute autonomy comes first because "obviously" the thing that's absolute comes first. This is similar to his third response that without this autonomy there's no morality and I need autonomy to even type this case out in the first place, so I'm going to group the two of them together in this response:First, the negative framework precludes autonomy. Look to Donnelly 2 talking about how we need to recongize interdependence before claims of moral agency can even be made and to Donnelly 3 that only through interdependence can claims of autonomy be made. Neither of these warrants are responded to. Second, this is intuitively true as well. He can make the argument that I need autonomy to even type out this round, but in order to type out this round I also need a computer to type this out on, which means I have to rely on my parents or friends to give me this computer. Even if I make the money for it myself, I have to rely on my employers to pay me the necessary money, and to rely on other manufactuers to make the computer for me to purchase. I have to rely on scholars and researchers to publish the research I want to use in round, I have to rely on outside companies to provide me with the internet connection required to even access this website, and I have to rely on other programmers and technicians to keep the site running long enough so that I can actually submit this argument for others to see. Without this social reliance on other people, my claim to autonomy via posting this round becomes impossible. Both of these reasons means that my framework precludes individual autonomy. We ought to evaluate the round under which side best upholds societal norms as this is the best way to protect and realize our interdependence to others. But, absolute autonomy doesn't make any sense. If autonomy is absolute then there's no way to weigh between who's right should be protected over anothers in cases of conflict. If I have the absolute autonomous right to conduct myself how I wish to and have absolute self-ownership, then what negative moral claims can we really make if I want to kill Romanii right now? Denying me this action seems to deny that I actually have absolute ability to make my own decisions.Moreover, if Romanii were to want to kill me while I was trying to kill him, and both of our claims to autonomy are absolute, then how do we weigh between who's claim to autonomy comes first? There's no way to weigh between these rights and resolve conflicts of interest. Both of these are reasons to reject absolute autonomy, which means you reject the affirmative as his case is predicated around it. His second response to the framework makes me think he literally didn't read any of the evidence I cited in the Donnelly evidence. This literally explains why our social dependence on others has moral significance and is relevant in discussions of autonomy. He makes no response to any of the warrants coming from any of the Donnelly evidence. Cross-apply it to here. They all explicitly talk about why social norms have this moral authority over our being. Just because he doesn't want to see the connections, that doesn't mean I'm not making them. This means that I'm winning the framework debate. This makes the debate super simple to evaluate. Extend Barina and Bishop that says that by affirming we're violating social health norms. And extend Barina and Bishop 2 that says that the only way to resepct social health norms is by negating. Neither of these arguments are responded to in the last round. This means that because I'm winning the framework debate, I'm winning the debate.And, because I'm showing you that social interdependence comes before claims of autonomy, if I'm winning the framework debate, then you negate before you even evaluate the affirmative case as it functions a priori to autonomy. This means that you negate, even if he proves his syllogism true. But, then extend Cherry out. Cherry talks about how socially parents are recognized as the authority over adolescents and the actors fo their best interests. Parents are better judges of value and are better at balancing costs and benefits and making rational decisions for their child, which they keep the best interests of in mind. He never responds to Cherry at all, hold him to this drop especially because I won't be able to defend Cherry after this round. This means that even if he's winning that adolescents can make their own decisions, you still negate because parents are better at it and have the bests interests of the child in mind, meaning that they'll be making better decisions for the child and we're best protecting the adolescent. Then, extend the four warrants coming from Will as to why parent decision making should be preferred. First, that parents have the best interest of the child in mind while being fully developed and competent. They know their own children better than others and thus will be in the best position to act in the child's best interest. Second, that regardless of decisions being made, the parent's are the one bearing responsibility for the choice and are the one's footing the bill. They deserve to be the ones having the final say if they're the one paying the bill. Third, because the parents are the ones charged with the upbringing and development of the child, it is their right to impact their own standards and values upon the child to help them develop correctly. And fourth, the familial structure is a valuable social institution that requires limited to no oversight from outside sources in order to achieve any kind of intimacy or connection between child and parent. Only this way allows for the best interests of the child and parent to be protected.The claim that none of these show why we ought to prefer parents making the decision over adolescents is laughably dumb when they all talk about it. As for why this is morally relevant, that just goes back to the framework debate, which I'm already winning. This means that even if he's winning his case, you still negate because you're preferring parent decision making to adolescent decision making. I'm the only world which allows for parent decision making, which means that you negate here.But then, extend Michaud et al. Michaud is talking about how existing studies talking about how adolescents are as capable as adults in making decision fall into a lot of pitholes that the affirmative's studies don't really solve back for. Michaud provides three reasons to not trust competency studies:First, that understanding the short and long term consequences of a decision are dependent on the actual situation at hand, which the affirmative's studies don't specify what decisions are actually being studied (they only say "hypothetical situations", if they studied specific situations at all, which can be anything from getting a sex change to putting on a band-aid). Second, that the fact that different adolescents develop at different rates from other adolescents makes making definitive age cut-offs (i.e. the 15 and above group and the 14 group) really problematic because not every 14 year old is going to hit that mark and not every 15 year old is going to hit that mark. Third, that our decision making is affected by the context of which we're making the decision. If I'm deciding about how my future will play out, I might make a different decision alone than I would if I were making the decision in their company because emotionally I'm going to self-consciously consider their interests in my decision as well. Our emotional state is highly relevant to how we actually make decisions (i.e. I'm more likely to make a rational decision if I'm calm and collected than if my dog just got ran over in front of my eyes and I'm really freaked out). Pro's studies make no note of the emotional state of the subjects being tested, nor do they account for any emotional variance. This is damning because pro makes literally zero response to any of these claims. Insofar as he's not responding to them and he's not answering back for them in his studies, then reject his studies as insufficient to warrant that adolescents are competent decision makers. This has two impacts on the round:First, if you're rejecting his studies, his studies were the only thing keeping his second premise afloat, which means his entire syllogism falls and you reject the affirmative case.Second, you prefer parent decision making because I provide the most reliable evidence that addresses underlying claims and concerns. And even if my evidence is bad, I'm the only one trying to provide valid evidence. CONCLUSION:I'm winning framework comes before the affirmative case. You can negate there. I'm winning parents come before adolescents. You negate there. And negate off Michaud taking out the affirmative case.