Thanks for accepting this debate.
I have 3 main arguments as to why women should not visit male gynecologists: 1. Because men are naturally aroused at the sight of an attractive woman. 2. Because there has been a lot of male doctors over the years who have lost their licence for sexual misconduct, all of which caused trauma to their female patients. 3. Because it can sometimes cause conflict in marriage.
I'm unsure what objections my opponent will bring up, but here is what he must do: If he is going to make the claim that male doctors are "professionals," he has to make it clear what he means by professional. Is he saying that male doctors don't look at their patients sexually if the patient is attractive? On the other hand, if my opponent admits that it's possible for male doctors to look at their patients sexually, I would like to know how he would feel if he had a wife who went to a male doctor and was taken advantage of.
If by any chance my opponent says that it doesn't matter if the doctor looks at his patients sexually, just as long as he acts professional, then I would like my opponent to explain the moral basis for this. On what moral basis is it okay for a male doctor to look at his female patients sexually while they are in a vulnerable position. My opponent really needs to explain his justification. I'll look forward to his reply.
1. Oh boy more Paternalism… I just debated this [http://www.debate.org... ]
Paternalism can be defined as interfering with a person's freedom for
his or her own good. The word calls to mind by Solid Savings" href="../../should-dumbster-babys-meet-their-mothers/1/">the
image of a father
("pater" in Latin) who makes decisions for his children rather than
letting them make their own decisions, on the grounds that "father knows
best." The principle of paternalism underlies a wide range of laws,
practices, and actions„ a physician who decides what is best for a patient, a
sign prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, laws against voluntary
euthanasia, laws restricting the use of heroine, cocaine, marijuana and other
drugs, compulsory by Solid Savings" href="retirement"
target="blank">http://www.scu.edu...... by Solid Savings" href="../../should-dumbster-babys-meet-their-mothers/1/">savings
plans, and mandatory seat belt laws„all
designed to protect our interests, whether we like it or not. While
paternalistic practices are relatively common, are they morally acceptable?
Paternalism involves a conflict of two important values: 1) the value we place
on the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will lead
their lives, and 2) the value we place on promoting and by Solid Savings" href="../../should-dumbster-babys-meet-their-mothers/1/">protecting
the well being
of others. When people freely choose to act in ways that seem contrary to their
own well being, the question of whether we are justified in interfering with
their affairs, the problem of paternalism arises.
One must be given the freedom of choice despite any possible harm it may do to
the person, this is the only way to achieve a sense of perfect freedom, while
avoiding social control. Below is an argument made often in response to a
. . . the only purpose for which
power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He
cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for
him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of
others, to do so would be wise, or even right.... The only part of the conduct
of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right,
absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign. .
The choice shouldn’t be up to you.
The choice should be up to the women individually.
the harms you’re taking about in your three points but I believe that the
socialistic viewpoint behind them is rather destructive in its own way. Imagine
you are a woman and you are perfectly okay with a male gynecologist working on
you, note that I just described more than half of the women in America, yet you
are denied the option of even choosing because of your sex. Just because you’re
a female is not a good enough reason to deny the one thing that makes us equal:
choice. You are in turn subjugating women into a separate enclave in to which
they are denied privileges due to sexist laws constructed ironically to protect
them. Laws of such only result in a more and more socialistic government. Examine
is life without choice? It is the life without meaning or purpose. This turns
your case, for as of now you are creating more problems then you are solving.
this critical argument must be answered before weighing in the impacts you
stated in your speech because life without meaning outweighs any impacts you
claimed in your 1AC
2. Counter Plan: Let the women decide for
themselves, this solves for your problems and doesn’t increase a socialistic
mindset and it doesn’t destroy freedom of choice, instead it maximizes it.
the women decide for themselves is not only the right thing to do morally but
is also respecting various religions if it is not right to them for male gynecologists
to view them.
avoids destroying the choice of other women by not letting them choose which
could lead to having to find new family doctors if a woman was not able to see
her personal doctor about issues he specializes in.
as the Neg I am able to provide a counter-plan as a test of competitiveness to get
into further arguments about the resolution (Christian women should not go to
Now on to your 3 points:
to the recent increase in homosexuality there is no uniqueness in this argument
since a woman could also be aroused at this. Therefor your plan does not solve
the problem and you cannot claim this as an advantage.
this is true the above evidence I just explained about homosexuality proves
that it doesn’t matter. Although It is sad I agree. If only man wasn’t born
unto sin then we would never have to worry about this sadly you will never be
able to prevent things as this.
there is going to be a conflict in the marriage due to a doctor’s appointment
then I should think that the marriage is not too strong to begin with. One must
think, do I want my wife to be properly treated or do I want to withhold her
needed check-ups/surgery due to my selfish and crazy desire to be the only one
who sees her personal areas. By explaining it in that raw way you see the true
problem. The problem should not be solved by eliminating the ability for a male
doctor to do what he specializes in but should be eliminated by a deep meditation
on your priorities as a husband. Those are of course to see to it that your
wife and kids are taken care of, just as it is the wife’s duty to see to it
that the man and her children are cared for. If the medical needs of the woman
get into the way of the relationship then I believe that there was more of a
problem to begin with for this to develop into such a predicament.