Week 2 - Razor vs. TSG

[FromTheSouth]

This thread is for the debaters only. It ends on Sunday at 6 PM CST.

Razor will be affiriming the topic.

Resolved: an adolescent's right to privacy ought to be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know.

 

[Razor]

We as a society limit the rights of minors all of the time. Minors can't drink alcohol, they can't smoke, they can't vote, they can't serve in the army, they can't marry without express permission from their adult guardian. However, there are a few rights that every minor has. These are, quite simply, inalienable.

1) Every minor has the right to life. You can't kill a minor because he looked at your wrong.

2) Every minor has the right to liberty. You can't jail minors just because they were walking funny down the side of the road.

3) Every minor has the right to happiness.

Now, let us look at the right of privacy. Yes, when living under an adult's roof, an argument can be made that there is no guarantee of privacy. The Supreme Court may even argue that the minor has no legal right to argue "right to privacy," sense they do not own the residence.

However, my argument lies in the adolescent's right to privacy outside of the home. The parent has no official rights outside of medical proxy in the medical arena. If a 15 year old says they want the surgery, the doctor is obligated to take his patient's wants over the parent's. If a minor is arrested, and requests that their parents not be brought in to watch the ensuing interview, the police aren't obligated to contact the parent.

As you can see, there are numerous instances in which the will of the minor supersedes the will of the adult. And, in these instances, I believe the right to privacy should outweigh the parent's right to know. If a 15 year old doesn't want his parents knowing that he caught Gonorrhea, then the doctor should be under no state law to tell the parents. He has to report the case to the CDC, or something or another, but not to the parents. The medical patient has the utmost right to privacy, and the parent's right to know is and should be secondary.

As far as the law enforcement side that I brought up, this should only be used legally, and not to elicit guilty pleas where there shouldn't be.

 

[TSG]

We as a society limit the rights of minors all of the time. Minors can't drink alcohol, they can't smoke, they can't vote, they can't serve in the army, they can't marry without express permission from their adult guardian. However, there are a few rights that every minor has. These are, quite simply, inalienable.

1) Every minor has the right to life. You can't kill a minor because he looked at your wrong.

2) Every minor has the right to liberty. You can't jail minors just because they were walking funny down the side of the road.

3) Every minor has the right to happiness.

Okay, but where does this say a minor has the right to privacy. It doesn't. A minor has no right to privacy. I'm a minor myself, so I would probably understand this. I have much privacy at home, but that is my parent's choice, not mine. If my father suddenly decided that I'm looking at pornography videos on my computer, he can hop right on my computer and search it up and down for any little clue that I've been looking at anything wrong. And if I do not like it, what am I going do? Call the cops? Exactly, I, as a minor, have no right to privacy.

Now, let us look at the right of privacy. Yes, when living under an adult's roof, an argument can be made that there is no guarantee of privacy. The Supreme Court may even argue that the minor has no legal right to argue "right to privacy," sense they do not own the residence.

Exactly what I was saying above. Privacy? What privacy, I don't pay rent for this house, my dad does. I'm basically a minor, with no right to privacy, submitting myself to my parent's power. And until there is an amendment made to the Constitution stating in some shape or form the words "Minors have the right to privacy", I have no rights to it.

However, my argument lies in the adolescent's right to privacy outside of the home. The parent has no official rights outside of medical proxy in the medical arena. If a 15 year old says they want the surgery, the doctor is obligated to take his patient's wants over the parent's. If a minor is arrested, and requests that their parents not be brought in to watch the ensuing interview, the police aren't obligated to contact the parent.

Huh? Since when, if a 15 year old patient wants a surgery, the doctor takes the obligation of the child over the parent? If I have a child, and he just broke a bone, and he walks into a doctor without notifying myself, and says he wants surgery on it, then the doctor will perform the surgery? If this to happen I would sue the doctor for performing the surgery. My child would not be having surgery without my consent.

As you can see, there are numerous instances in which the will of the minor supersedes the will of the adult. And, in these instances, I believe the right to privacy should outweigh the parent's right to know. If a 15 year old doesn't want his parents knowing that he caught Gonorrhea, then the doctor should be under no state law to tell the parents. He has to report the case to the CDC, or something or another, but not to the parents. The medical patient has the utmost right to privacy, and the parent's right to know is and should be secondary.

Yeah, but we are talking about a minor here. If I have an STD, and go see my family doctor, and tell him not to tell my parents, he most likely would anyway. There is no law, no amendment in the Constitution that says that the doctor cannot tell my parents. So he has just as much right to tell my parents as I do to ask him to not tell my parents. And if he does tell, what am I going to do? Sue him? On what grounds: "I told the doctor not to tell me parents and he did anyway."? Well, see, here is the thing: that isn't going to work. He has no law saying he cannot tell my parents even though I told him not to. That basically can relate to every paragraph here: I have no rights to privacy as a minor.

 

[FromTheSouth]

The Sign Guy wins here. He correctly points out that doctors have to listen to parents in medical matters. There have been multiple cases recently where children ascribe to one parent's religious beliefs and the other challenges in court and wins. Doctors do what is in the best interest of the patient, and that's it. The Sign Guy makes this point that in every aspect of life, the right to privacy does not exist for minors.

Razor gets 35 points
TSG gets 38.

I wish you guys would have posted more than once apiece, this could have been epic. Razor could have given TSG enough rub to move up the charts in this thread.

 

[gd]

Gotta agree here, TSG wins a close one as he points out that minors really have no rights at all.

TSG 40
Razor 38

 

[Mr. TM]

The Sign Guy is a decent member of these debates when he puts up his fists. He won this debate here, but I am actually glad to read something from Razor here. He does well to live up to his hype, but loses. TSG 35-32 Razor.