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

I do agree with my opponent's negate out definition, but by the end of my round I will have shown you that not only has my opponent dropped several of my own argument, but I have won key arguments here. Contention 1: Kant.Universalizeability is defined as the person's reasons for acting must be reasons that everyone could act on at least in principle. [1] When applied to this debate and even reality we can see that adolescents make these choices for reasons that others do. My opponent may come in and say that no sane person would refuse life-saving treatment, but then you also have the euthanasia treatement for people who are dying a slow and painful death. If these people are able to do such a thing then the adolescents are actually able to refuse life saving procedures themselves. Thus if a general individual has the right to life then how does the adolescent does not and we have to realize that under this umbrella we have to see that since people have the right to life, so do the adolescents and they are able to make that chocie. [2]My opponent's response to reversability makes no logical sense. He argues that each murder that they do justifies their own actions making it impossible for safety. This is incorrect as I have argued last round as no rational being would chosen themselves to be murdered by another human being. Thus we cannot offically see that this argument by Con makes any sense and must be flown to my side of the debate. Even if you do not buy that argument we can also see taht when we apply Kant's Kingdom of Ends we can see that there should be no murder and violence as I have shown in the last round and that doing so would be breaking the Categorical Imperitives and would thus still be inccorect. Thus I have upheld this argument and have negated the first part of my opponent's argument against the Kingdom of Ends. My opponent is confused at to what leads to an ends in what way. We can immidiately see that the debate is resolving around the adolescents and we can see that the law has recognized them as capable to making many decisions and even holding them accountable in the eyes of the law, which my opponent has DROPPED, we can see that for this is a great reson as to see that they are able to make decissions. We can see that they should not be used as a means as my opponent has shown that they are being stripped of their freedom in order to achieve the end of a "healthier society" which my opponent's justification for this end is about just as fallous as people who argue against vaccinations. Arguing that everything can be a means or an end would cause a chaotic situation in soceity of which causes a stalled progress. That's why Kant argued for the isolation of incidences. [1] Thus this argument is also flown to my side.Contention 2: On decission making capability.Pro attempts to attack the Piaget's study, but it is incorrect due to it showing that they are fully ready to make said decission at this point. Sure they aren't at the level as adults, but we can see that they've reach the capable level at this point which my opponent has dropped not to mention I have shown that they already make medical decissions in the status quo making my opponent's argument de facto and thus it is void. My opponent dropped an argument that I had brought up in my last round showing that despite adolescents not being able to make some medical descission, but they were able to make certain key decissions ranging from abortions to life saving surgeries on their children despite being an adolescent. [3] We need to hold my opponent accountable for dropping this argument as it holds a great deal of weight in this debate showing that adolescents can and are able to make these decissions. My opponent also drops my UN Adolescents argument showing that society has advanced to the point to where even doctors are recogonzing children as early as 12 to make these medical decisions. My opponent tries to disregard my study because the small percentage difference, but yet he has conceded that there are several other factors that he has ignored like that of the average adult is still under half or that children in the status quo get these decission. Not to mention that doctors state that these children are able to make these types of decissions at such a young age of that of 12. Which is before they become an adolescent. [4] Thus if they are able to do so at such a young age they are able to make these decissions. Not to mention that my opponent has dropped my argument showing that they reach the age of able cognative at age 14, as shown by the study, my opponent is misconceived as he thinks that just because there is a higher level you can obtain that they are not capable. This thought process is false since they are able and capable at that level, but can go further. Let's use height and a theme park for an example. Say you want to ride a rollar coaster. You have to be 5'0" to ride. You just need to be that heighth to ride, but you can be taller. So even though an adolescent may be 5'0" and an adult is 5'9" does not make the adolescent any less able to get onto the ride just because he is shorter than the adult. Thus this argument is extended to my side of this debate. My opponent claims that his studies hold more water because he has more, however, this thought process is flawed. Why you may ask? It's a simple quality vs. quantity argument. Just because he has more doesn't mean a thing, but we should accept whichever study holds more water and right now mine does do hold more water and thus mine should be preferred. We can also see that not only has he dropped several key arguments which support my evidence, but by this shere fact it negates my opponent's by the contradiction that occurs with the evidence. Thus we can see that this contention shall be flown to my side of the debate.With that I thank you and please vote Pro!Sources1. ( http://www.zeepedia.com...) 2. ( http://wrtl.org...) 3. (Rhonda Gay [J.D., Ph.D.] “Adolescent Autonomy: Clarifying an Ageless Conundrum” Hastings Law Journal 51 Hastings L.G. 1256. August 2000. )