GTP Mass Debating Contest Heat 6

[Duke]

Allowing parents to force their daughters to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes is cruel and immoral.

Requiring Consent is Immoral

Children have the same fundamental human rights as adults. Because children aren’t considered mature enough to exercise all of their rights, their parents often act for them. But the law requires that parents protect their child’s rights, not override them. For example, if parents withhold consent for a serious medical operation, their child’s doctor may overturn the parents’ decision with a court order. In addition, parents may not physically abuse their child. The child has the right to protect her own body. Forcing a teenage girl to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes constitutes child abuse because it disregards that right.

The right to a medically necessary abortion is fully protected by the “overturn” clause mentioned above. An appeal process could extend that protection to elective abortions, allowing the minor to abort while supporting parental input towards their child’s health and safety.

Furthermore, requiring parental consent is inconsistent. Currently, underage girls have the right to give birth without consent because requiring consent would violate her rights, giving her parents (the baby’s grandparents) the ability to force an abortion. Thus, proponents of parental consent for abortion must argue, inconsistently, that the girl is mature enough to choose to have a baby, but not to choose to have an abortion.

There is no inconsistency when considering rights of a third party – the unborn child. A minor making a bad decision to give birth can place the baby for adoption. However, a minor who aborts cannot reverse that error. This renders the apparent inconsistency null.

Requiring Consent Increases Risk

Requiring parental consent introduces a (potentially indefinite) delay to the abortion process, which increases risk to all underage girls seeking abortion.

* The risk of death from childbirth is 10 times that of legal abortion overall[1-3].
* The risk associated with abortions increases exponentially with each week of pregnancy by 38%[1] approaching the risk of childbirth at the end of term.

Legal hurdles in obtaining waivers can only increase the danger either through forcing childbirth or delaying the procedure. Statistics show that mandatory parental involvement increases the gestational age at which abortions occur[3]. Furthermore:

* Knowledge of the pregnancy may become a catalyst for additional abuse from abusive parents.
* Estranged parents can be difficult to contact, and may already play little parenting role.
* A girl due after the age cutoff may wait until after that age before aborting – increasing her risk.
* Parents’ wishes may conflict, resulting in legal disputes, divorce, and custody battles lengthening the process.

The argument erroneously assumes that all parents will deny consent. Many will only wish to secure a safe abortion and provide emotional support for their child. For appeals, timely efficiency will be required of the courts. However, the code can set maximum allowable periods for contacting estranged or abusive parents and securing approvals. Approval periods can be waived when prescribed by physicians in medical emergencies.

Conclusion

Parental consent requirements increase risk since childbirth is significantly more dangerous overall than legal abortions and since abortion risk increases with time. Allowing parents to force their child to give birth is inconsistent with preventing parents from forcing abortions and violates basic human rights.

There is no reason to assume parents will force their pregnant child to deliver rather than terminate the pregnancy. Time limits in the code will allow an appeals process to override parental denial without undue delay. Existing statutes protecting a minor’s right to treatment logically extend to medically required abortions.

 

[Danny]

Great rebuttals by both sides.

I now await the decision from Famine, Wenders, a6m5, Sage and dougiemeats.

Now...how long to make you wait for the results?

 

[Duke]

Boy, 200 words is tough, and I used every one of them. I initially remembered it as 300 words, then had to go back and pare another 100 words out of my response.

Oh, and it's rebuttal, by the way.

Good luck, Team AAAMM!

 

[Danoff]

Oh, and it's rebuttal, by the way.

I think I'll leave it and keep the "edited" tag off the post. Thanks for pointing that out, though, it looks like we messed that up in round 4 too.

Thanks for putting together your arguments too. I'm glad we had a debate here because I was attached to the work we did on the opening argument. My question is, haven't we argued about this before? I seem to remember going back and forth on this issue with you in the past.

I agree, 200 words is really tough. We were putting in contractions to save space. My first cut at the rebuttal was almost 400 words... but then the opening argument is the same way. Very difficult to stay under the limit.

Even this post is already 130 words.

 

[Duke]

Thanks for putting together your arguments too. I'm glad we had a debate here because I was attached to the work we did on the opening argument. My question is, haven't we argued about this before? I seem to remember going back and forth on this issue with you in the past.

No, you had the advantage over me because you started/discussed your previous thread on the same topic, which I (to this minute) have never read. So you've been through this with someone, but it wasn't me.

I agree, 200 words is really tough. We were putting in contractions to save space. My first cut at the rebuttal was almost 400 words... but then the opening argument is the same way. Very difficult to stay under the limit.

My rebuttal shows clear indication of being cut to 2/3s its original size. But that's good, it makes you focus on the critical points.

 

[FoolKiller]

My question is, haven't we argued about this before? I seem to remember going back and forth on this issue with you in the past.

I know you and I went through this at some point, and I believe Swift and a couple others were involved as well.

I agree, 200 words is really tough. We were putting in contractions to save space. My first cut at the rebuttal was almost 400 words... but then the opening argument is the same way. Very difficult to stay under the limit.

Considering it went for pages when we did it...

Even this post is already 130 words.

You talk(type) too much.

The word limit is what makes a debate a challenge. We'd be here all day just reading your post if you were allowed to discuss all your points until you sealed every loophole. And that goes for all of us who frequent the Opinions Forum, not just you.

 

[Danny]

dougiemeats hasn't voted, but since it's already decided by the votes I do have, I'll post now.

First up, sorry for the delay.

My vote goes to Team AAMMM.

Strong arguments from both sides again but I feel Team A blurred the lines a bit too much with consent to aborton and notification of abortion which are totally different arguments.

Da-yum, another toughie to judge!

Both teams had absolutely wonderful and convincing opening arguments – even though Team A’s piece was clearly rushed, both teams were on pretty even ground. Call it a tie for the opening statements, with maybe a smidgen of favor towards Team AAMMM.

The rebuttals were excellent too. However, I feel that Team A’s was a little bit more excellent – they made better use of their 200 words by attacking many facets of Team AAAMM’s opening statements. While I can fully understand why Team AAMMM decided to only attack two (ish) main points from Team A’s opening piece, it felt a bit restrained (and constrained), and it just wasn’t quite as convincing as Team A’s rapid firing of rebuttals.

So both teams did outstanding, but I have to give my vote to Team A.

My vote goes to Team AAMMM, but my hat goes off to Team A.

If the debate was regarding the parental notification and not the parental consent, I think Team A would have taken it. I would imagine that it was a uphill battle for them.

This however doen't mean Team AAMMM were slacking off. They were able to establish underage mothers rights, which was no easy task. I especially liked the example of how a underage mother would not require parental consent to give birth to the baby.

Great job!

I settle in favour of Team AAAMM - the argument and rebuttal were better structured overall and relied more on evidence and research than the intangibles of feelings and extant legislation.

Although Team A's corner was fought well, an apparent opposition to the position they were arguing for seemed to present itself through choice of words.

Congratulations to Team AAMMM!
However, a deep congratulations to Team A also, who put up a good fight in less than ideal circumstances!

 

[Duke]

Hearty congratulations to Team AAMMM, and thanks for their good sportsmanship in allowing us to proceed when they clearly could have taken the round by default. Thanks also to the judges for their patience.

It was indeed an uphill battle, and like Famine tried with our gun arguments, we needed to take a bit of a cross-tack to gain firmer footing.

 

[Dave A]

Cheers guys 👍. Team A gave us a good running, so well done to you guys too.

 

[Danoff]

I'm very happy to see this debate finish properly rather than by default. Team A did an excellent job considering the circumstances and gave us a good challenge. A very big thanks to Team A for their entry.

We worked very hard on our opening argument, not quite as hard as we did on the previous round, but it has been difficult to keep energy up for subsequent rounds. I was glad to see that our efforts got to be used.

Thanks to Live4speed and Kennythebomb for their help on our entry. I'm planning on spending even more time on the final round than on either of the first two.

 

[Danny]

Can you believe the mass debating is nearly at an end?

I would be unsurprised if Team AAMMM come first.
They always seem quick off the mark and like to help each other.




:/

 

[kennythebomb]

Team A really did a fine job considering the circumstances. I'll bet with more time the votes would have favored Team A.

And I echo the sentiment that it is a good thing that we were able to finish the rounds fairly 👍