The Instigator
lucyalice1989
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wildforwalla48
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Should doctors be able to prescribe birth control without parents permission?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,207 times Debate No: 16484
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

lucyalice1989

Pro

I believe doctors should be able to prescribe birth control without parental permission as sexual ages are lowering and most do not turn to their parents. Young people make the choice to go to the doctor, it is important that youth use protection to ensure no complications in future such as sti's std's and early pregnancy. You have to ask yourself the question.. did you tell your parents when you first started having sex?
wildforwalla48

Con

Since my opponent has not defined any terms, I wish to clarify before beginning:
1) Parental Permission: A form of parental consent approving their minor of obtaining birth control
2) Young people: People below the legal age of 18
3) Prescribed Birth Control: contraceptives in the form a pill, ring, etc. (Does not include condoms and other forms of birth control that can be purchased off of the shelf)

I first will address my opponents arguments before delving in to my own contentions.
Foremost, I believe it is pertinent to keep in mind during this argument that one is not granted the ability to vote until they reach the age of 18. Therefore, the argument that teens are ready to make the decision to add a medication into their daily lives is far fetched, since the government has already determined that they are not ready to make an extremely important decision via the vote. Additionally, by allowing teens to obtain prescribed birth control without parental consent, we would be encroaching upon the rights of parents in the lives of their children.
Furthermore, my opponent makes the argument that providing birth control without a prescription will reduce the number of teen pregnancies and teens with STIs. However, prescribed birth control does NOT protect an individual against STIs. If immature teens were able to obtain prescribed birth control without parental consent, we may actually see a rise in STIs amongst teens since they will be misinformed and lured in to a false sense of security.
Additionally, my opponent did not address how the underage person in question would be able to pay for said prescription, as one would assume that they will not be using insurance coverage.
Finally, my opponent argues that "sexual ages are lowering and most do not turn to their parents". While yes, perhaps the age of sexual activity may be lowering, we must keep in mind that sex below the age of consent is illegal in most states. Therefore, we should not be encouraging breaking state laws through providing birth control to youth under the age of consent.

Now I will introduce my argument:

Contention 1: The health risks associated with prescribed birth control make it unethical to allow children to obtain it without parental consent.
Common side effects related to early usage of prescribed birth control include nutrient deficiency, weight gain, mood changes, fluid retention and depression. Prescribed birth control also puts users at a higher risk of migraines, infertility, endometriosis, psoriasis, PMS, depression, fibromyalgia and countless other maladies [1] due to the risk of developing yeast overgrowth. Without thorough research, a teen would have no way of understanding the health risks involved with taking contraceptives. Therefore, it is pertinent that parents be involved in helping their child make this decision.

Contention 2: Prescribed birth control creates a false sense of security.
Prescribed birth control is NOT 100% effective in preventing pregnancies. If one were to consistently take their birth control at the EXACT same time, EVERY single day, there is still an 8% chance for pregnancy. [2] Additionally, prescribed birth control yields no protection from STIs, a common misconception amongst youth. The only way to avoid both teen pregnancy and STIs is through abstinence. Rather than allowing teens to obtain prescribed birth control, thus promoting underage sexual activity, we should focus on promoting the importance of abstinence.

[1] http://www.womens-health.co.uk...
[2] http://kidshealth.org...
Debate Round No. 1
lucyalice1989

Pro

No but the age to have legal sex is 16. You are not able to vote at this age either. It is not realistic for teens to turn to abstitence as it has been promoted for many years but statistics show that In 2009, 46% of high school students had sexual intercourse and 13.8% had four or more sex partners during their life. Prior to the sexual activity, 21.6% drank alcohol or used drugs. Only 38.9% used a condom.
Antibiotics are a medication and prescribed at any age they also have a risk of negative side affects. A single pill will not reduce sti's or std's but professional medical advice is usually offered and regular tests are done under trained medical and professional guidance. Doctors must maintain high ethical and moral behaviour, they also have the ability to network, refer and also report if someone may be at risk.
The reality is that youth are going to have sex some do believe in abstinence which is great but most do not. It is a positive that we have medical professionals that prescribe birth control. Ideally as parents we would like or daughters to have "no" sex but youth will continue to with or without birth control.
Most in their twenties take birth controll and would regard it as silly not to. If youth have regular sex it only sounds realistic to do the same as a baby would be a far worse complication in society evolution and the everyday life of a teen. A 85% chance is a much better chance than no protection as the younger we are the more easier it is for us to conceive.

Under trained medical professionals it can offer teens who are having sex a way to control unwanted pregnancys, its better that someone knows and can help rather than noone. They also offer check ups and advice to reduce sti's and std's.

Statistics show that teens are having sex regulary and to prevent it dramastically would be unrealsistic, birth control tablets offer risk but it is assessed under professional guidance (match suitably to your current health), birth control is needed more so for youth as the ability to concieve is much higher. Please be aware also that the statistics for actual side affects is very low as there is a risk of side affects in every tablet (even common antibiotics).
wildforwalla48

Con

First I will address some points made by my opponent before returning to my own argument.

My opponent has stated that "antibiotics are a medication and prescribed at any age they also have a risk of negative side effects". This is a perfect example of why prescribed birth control should not be prescribed without parental consent. Antibiotics are obtainable with parental consent for minors. We are not arguing whether or not minors should be allowed birth control, we are arguing whether or not they should need parental consent to be prescribed said birth control.
If a teen is not mature enough to approach their parents about obtaining prescribed birth control, then are they truly ready to be having sex? Yes, in some instances this may not be a plausible conversation, but to remove a parent's right to make a major decision for their child is not something we should be promoting. If it is safe sex we truly wish to be preaching, then perhaps we should be offering more condoms to the youth. Many uneducated teens believe that prescribed birth control means they do not have to use condoms. This is entirely untrue and only leads to an increase in STIs and pregnancies due to irregular pill consumption.
My opponent also has states that "A single pill will not reduce sti's or std's but professional medical advice is usually offered and regular tests are done under trained medical and professional guidance. Doctors must maintain high ethical and moral behaviour, they also have the ability to network, refer and also report if someone may be at risk." However, what she is failing to recognize is that most teens who are prescribed birth control are going through their pediatrician, who are not qualified to thoroughly inspect someone for the presence of STIs. These "regular tests" which my opponent mentioned would only be available through a gynecologist, which most girls do not start seeing until they are 18 years of age. Therefore, teens are at a very high risk of contracting STIs.
Finally, my opponent has states "the age to have legal sex is 16. You are not able to vote at this age either." However, this is untrue in many states in the United States, where in some places the age of consent is 18 such as Arizona, California and Delaware. This shows that the national maturity required to engage in intercourse is still disputed in the United States.

Now back to my argument:
Contention 1: The health risks associated with prescribed birth control make it unethical to allow children to obtain it without parental consent.
To reiterate, common side effects related to early usage of prescribed birth control include nutrient deficiency, weight gain, mood changes, fluid retention and depression. Prescribed birth control also puts users at a higher risk of migraines, infertility, endometriosis, psoriasis, PMS, depression, fibromyalgia and countless other maladies [1] due to the risk of developing yeast overgrowth. These side effects, if developed, will ultimately require cooperation from both the parent and the child, which will lead to discovery of the prescribed birth control, undoubtedly ruining any trust between the parent and child.
Contention 2: Prescribed birth control creates a false sense of security.
Prescribed birth control is not 100% effective, and it yields no protection from STIs. Therefore, we should focus on promoting abstinence or very safe sex instead of offering prescribed birth control to minors. If a teen seriously wishes to engage in sexual intercourse, the risks ought to be discussed with their parent(s).

Finally, I wish to add a third contention.
Contention 3: Allowing teens to obtain birth control without parental consent would be taking away a parent's right to authority.
By allowing teens prescribed birth control without parental consent, we would only be justifying their lie. If a parent does not want to go on prescribed birth control for any reason, be it religious, moral or ethical, then they ought to have the right to say no. By allowing teens to obtain prescribed birth control without consultation of their parents, we would only be taking away a parent's right to parent their own child.
Debate Round No. 2
lucyalice1989

Pro

First I will outline previous points made by my opponent before continuation with my argument.

My opponent has stated "Many uneducated teens believe that prescribed birth control means they do not have to use condoms. This is entirely untrue and only leads to an increase in STIs and pregnancies due to irregular pill consumption" please be aware that under the counter or shelf medication can somewhat provide a false security as medical professionals are not able to thoroughly outline what the medication does. Prescription medicine is more than likely to promote or offer cheaper condoms to teens, therefore teens would be less likely to contract std's ot sti's from visiting a professional.

Some would argue the fact of teens going through medical personel rather that a prefered doctor offers risk, please be aware that this should make no difference as it is illegal for a trained medical person to prescribe a un needed or uninformed prescription. If he/she is unknowing on any facts than he/she will network to other agencies. Networking is also available to check up clinics, guidance counsellors, practitioners and various other sources if needed.

The variation of ages and laws is extensive, if the government enforce the age of legal sex to be 18 in some states it is clearly unachievable and set up for failure. This would require more legislation and police time and input to warrant with no outcome. If the legal age is so important then why did the government make it legal for under age teens to acquire prescriptions, this shows the government is indecided on the suitable age to have sex. I believe this is a individuals right. Teens will continue to participate in sex as they do not have a fully developed brain for "repercussions". The percentage of high school students who have had sexual intercourse increases by grade. "In 2003, 62 percent of 12th graders had had sexual intercourse, compared with 33 percent of 9thgraders"(http://www.kff.org...).

Rising ages are only continuing more upset. "when President Obama has dropped this funding from his 2010 budget. A campaign against "abstinence only" has been gathering momentum, especially since 2007 when several studies were published purporting to show that it "doesn't work"(http://www.mercatornet.com...). President Obama has realised theres no point fighting something when you can support it and hope to bring down negative statistics.

Parents are also not willing to talk to there children about birth control, in most instances this means that two thirds of teens are uneducated about condoms and birth control. If doctors were to prescripe the medication it would bring down the health risks associated with sti's and std's as the proper information would be provided.

Now I will outline my argument

Contention 1: Doctors offer a informed decision relating to health

-Doctors can make a informed decision with ability to educate teens which usually are not educated
-They offer advice and can listen when parents do not. Parents usually do not wish to talk to there teens about sex incase they give them the false hope to have sex.
-Match suitability of medication, offer cheap condoms.
-Network to sti/std clinics, counsellors or police if teen is at risk.

Contention 2: Abstinence is unachievable
-Government pulled all funding
-Teens lack of ability to understand repercussions
-Ever rising statistics
-Teen pregnancy epidemics
-Peer pressure and normality

Contention 3: Teen Empowerment
-Teens will make their own decisions
-Require the ability to protect themselves from std/sti's
-Trust in a outer party/agencie
-Awareness
wildforwalla48

Con

I plan on first illustrating the falsities stated by my opponent before further crystallizing upon my own argument.

Once again, my opponent has tried to defend the status of prescribed birth control as protection against STIs, which is factually inaccurate. My opponent stated that "Prescription medicine is more than likely to promote or offer cheaper condoms to teens, therefore teens would be less likely to contract std's ot sti's from visiting a professional." However, this is largely based on a false assumption that teens would be willing to pay for the pill and THEN go pay for cheap condoms. The pill has shown that teens have more confidence in non-barrier sex, which dramatically increases the presence of STIs amongst the youth. In order for the STI rate to be lowered, we should be focusing on increasing the awareness of these infections and how we can prevent them. Furthermore, my opponent stated that "under the counter or shelf medication can somewhat provide a false security as medical professionals are not able to thoroughly outline what the medication does." However, this is also false due to the fact that over the counter medications/shelf medications are placed in their positions because medical professionals ARE sure of the risks, and they are not large enough to require a prescription. If prescribed birth control had no serious side effects involved, and if it was not prescribed on a need-basis, then it would simply be an over the counter drug. Since it is not, we can assume that the side effects are grave enough for it to require education before hand.

My opponent also stated that doctors will refer patients to other practices if needed. However, one thing I think we are failing to address here is how the teen at question would acquire transportation to these clinics. In addition, unless we are planning on making this a free service, how can we expect teens to pay for this expensive care and numerous doctors?

Furthermore, my opponent questioned the legitimacy of the age of consent being set to 18 in some states. However, there have been numerous instances where this age of consent has been enforced. Laws are scarcely implicated without a great deal of research, so this age has obviously been chosen by some states for a specific reason. Therefore, it would be impossible to issue this legislation at the federal level. Furthermore, it would be almost impossible to regulate this at the state level, making it implausible to implicate in its entirety.

My opponent also has stated that "teens will continue to participate in sex as they do not have a fully developed brain for 'repercussions'." This is the exact reason why we should be promoting sexual education amongst teens, not the ability for them to have sex. These teens participating in such frequent sexual activity that they find the need for prescribed birth control are obviously lacking impulse control. It is extraordinarily pertinent that we teach them the possible repercussions of their actions, not how they can avoid becoming pregnant.

Finally, my opponent has also stated that "If doctors were to prescripe the medication it would bring down the health risks associated with sti's and std's as the proper information would be provided." I think it is EXTREMELY important that we recognize the prescribed birth control DOES NOT prevent the transmission of STIs! Only abstinence can prevent STIs in their entirety.

My opponents second contention, that abstinence is unachievable, is largely based on assumption. While yes, statistics are rising, that does not mean that every underage kid is having sex. By placing a higher level of importance on abstinence and not just giving up on the youth, we will undoubtedly be able to send a better message than we would by offering prescribed birth control to minors without parental consent. My opponent's third contention, "Teen Empowerment", only further validates that not all teens are not able to make educated decisions for themselves. My opponent says that teens require the ability to protect themselves from STIs, but this is once again irrelevant because prescribed birth control does not prevent STIs.

Contention 1: The health risks associated with prescribed birth control make it unethical to allow children to obtain it without parental consent.
As mentioned before, the risks involved with prescribed birth control are extremely high, making it therefore unethical for a child to obtain a prescription for it without parental consent.

Contention 2: Prescribed birth control creates a false sense of security.
As my opponent has made clear, many believe that prescribed birth control protects one from STIs. This is entirely false, as only abstinence or careful use of a barrier can prevent STI transmission.

Contention 3: Allowing teens to obtain birth control without parental consent would be taking away a parent's right to authority.
Until the age of 18, teens are unable to make many decisions without parental approval. By allowing them to obtain prescribed birth control without the consent of their parents, we would only be increasing the gray area between teens in their parents, while also taking away a parent's right to authority over their child.
Debate Round No. 3
lucyalice1989

Pro

I will begin by outlining my opponents indiscretions before emerging into my own argument:

My opponent stated "If prescribed birth control had no serious side effects involved, and if it was not prescribed on a need-basis, then it would simply be an over the counter drug. Since it is not, we can assume that the side effects are grave enough for it to require education before hand." We must understand that in visiting a medical professional teens can acquire education around safe sex whereas elsewhere it is hard to find. My opponent has also outlined the fact of "need" and this is a very important word as birth control would not be prescribed unless needed. There is a difference between a need and a want and I believe that birth control is a necessary need for sexually active youth who have no intention of becoming abstinent. I ask the question.. who is to support these teens and educate these teens if they do not wish to turn to their parents and we do not have doctors who offer their expertise.

my opponent also outlined "In addition, unless we are planning on making this a free service, how can we expect teens to pay for this expensive care and numerous doctors?. this is the exact reason why we should be promoting sexual education amongst teens, not the ability for them to have sex." I wish to bring up the fact of "pregnancy" and how many check-ups, scans, and other involved appointments you would have to attend in relation to being pregnant. Low socio-economics would be on the rise and would contribute to a depression. Given the facts safe sex has been promoted extensively and some numbers have decreased but most continue to rise, who is to provide the education for safe sex and how will the promotion be funded? I believe that health professionals promote safe sex whom carry pamphlets on sti/std's and have numerous other resources. If you put yourself in a teen situation who would you take advice off for safer sex, and whom would you talk to if you needed advice. Again I also state "parents are decreasing to educate their kids incase belief of encouragement to have sex".

My opponent again states "I think it is EXTREMELY important that we recognize the prescribed birth control DOES NOT prevent the transmission of STIs! Only abstinence can prevent STIs in their entirety." The answer is "no" birth control does not prevent sti's and std's but young people can be advised by the prescribers (medical personnel) about condoms and doctors can also provide positive education for the young people of the future.

given the facts birth control DOES reduce unwanted pregnancy's by a substantial amount, if parents say "no" and a teen continues to have sex, the chance of teen pregnancy will rise. There is one rule that applies to a extensive majority of teenagers "once they have made up there mind, it is their choice", of course every teen is different. My point is.. if we were to decline teens of birth control and teens continued to have sex we would have a epidemic on our hands. Especially if parents did not agree to needed birth control. Youth would have baby's younger and younger, society would be pressed into a socio-economic depression and there would be a raise in crime rates.

The reality is that a majority of teens that are going to keep having unprotected sex and will not listen to their parents. How do they prevent pregnancy?.. PRESCRIBED BIRTH CONTROLL.

Contention 1: Doctors offer a informed decision,
A doctor offers certain education and assurance to teens needing birth control, he also has the ability to create awareness of sti's/std's. Matches medication suitably to reduce risks.

Contention 2: Abstinence is unachievable,
Teens will continue to participate in sex, majority's will conceive without birth control. Statistics will rise.

Contention 3: Teen Empowerment,
Teenagers have the right to make their own decisions and it would be foolish to try anything other then support them and encourage them to do the right things and give them 2. who %7y to seek advice off a medical professional.
wildforwalla48

Con

First, I wish to point out that my opponent has over dramatized the economic consequences of unwanted pregnancies. My opponent stated "society would be pressed into a socio-economic depression and there would be a raise in crime rates", which is largely an exaggeration. Undoubtedly, we would be required to pay more as tax payers in order to fund the prescribed birth control program being debated.

This leads me to my next point: how can we force tax payers to pay taxes for something they may not find ethical? Many religions are opposed to the usage of contraceptives. By forcing people to pay taxes to fund something they are against, we would only be encroaching upon the vital gap between church and state.

Contention 1: The health risks associated with prescribed birth control make it unethical to allow children to obtain it without parental consent.
As mentioned before, the risks involved with prescribed birth control are extremely high, making it therefore unethical for a child to obtain a prescription for it without parental consent.

Contention 2: Prescribed birth control creates a false sense of security.
As my opponent has made clear, many believe that prescribed birth control protects one from STIs. This is entirely false, as only abstinence or careful use of a barrier can prevent STI transmission.

Contention 3: Allowing teens to obtain birth control without parental consent would be taking away a parent's right to authority.
Until the age of 18, teens are unable to make many decisions without parental approval. By allowing them to obtain prescribed birth control without the consent of their parents, we would only be increasing the gray area between teens in their parents, while also taking away a parent's right to authority over their child.
Debate Round No. 4
lucyalice1989

Pro

I wish to outline my opponents statements before discussing my own argument.

My opponent did not agree with my point that "society would be pressed into a socio-economic depression and there would be a raise in crime rates" given the facts I wish back my comment supplied. Currently it is LEGAL to supply birth control to sexually active teens who are in NEED of contraception. This is with reasoning.. If we were not to do so, teen pregnancy which is already rising would continue to "dramatically".
From a liberal point of view this would put pressure on tax payers and may cause futuristic tax cuts in needed areas. From a social point of view, society already has a lack of support and social agencies required to assist in parenthood.

Teenagers would be LESS EDUCATED as percentage's shows a lowering completion rate of extensive education for young parents whom wish to pursue parenthood. I believe young parents are somewhat marginalized in society, if teen parents were to rise it would create more oppression, push class systems lower, raise crime rates as we are already in social deficit (due to liberation). The point of less educated generations.

If statistics in younger parents continue to rise each year it would be foolish to even consider taking away birth control. teen pregnancy's would dramatically rise at twice the speed... resulting in less educated generations and creating oppression.

I also wish to bring the subject up of "abortion" if we were not able to offer contraceptive, more and more teens would become pregnant. whilst not the majority would make the choice to abort it is still a option. By not supplying teens with contraceptive.. abortion statistics would rise and by taking the doctors consent for birth control away teens would have less informed support. We would see under market abortions take place and health risks and depression would rise.

My opponent also quotes "how can we force tax payers to pay taxes for something they may not find ethical? Many religions are opposed to the usage of contraceptives". First of all for medical professionals to be able to prescribe birth control takes alot of responsibility and planning. We must ask the question.. WHY this was legalised in the first place? By lowering teen pregnancy we save tax payers money. Less money is needed for the health sector, social work sector and also support networks that may be in place for young parents. We also have more contributing tax payers (our next young generation, teenagers).

Whilst many religions are opposed we cannot begin to accompany "all religions" in legislation and government decisions as this would be impossible, for the government to base all decisions on all religions would be foolish and unrealistic. It would not work as there would be no outcome for any decisions. If a religion is opposed then it is the freedom of choice that the person wishes to make concerning contraceptives.

Which brings me to my conclusion, If sexually active teens wish to engage in sex then there needs to be birth control available for them. If we fail to do so, more teens will become pregnant resulting in less educated generations, inflation in tax and class division. This will create a more oppressed and marginalized society.

Contention 1:

Doctors offer a informed decision relating to health,

Doctors are able to prescribe birth control in a safe environment, matching suitability to their patients. They offer support to teens who are unwilling or unable to consult anybody else. Doctors can inform patients of sexual diseases and infections and offer information and pamphlets on such thing and network to a check up facility. If a patient is at any risk/danger they are able to tell the right sources.65

We are a evolving society making more and more informative decisions for the interest of society, we have come so far and although we have a long way to go I believe we are making the right decisions, so I am for birth control.'o

Contention 2:

Abstinence is unachievable,

Government is not funding anymore support programs to encourage abstinence so is unlikely teens are going to become abstinent. Funding pulled due to teen statistics rising, abstinence is almost unimaginable and unrealistic in current society and present tenths.

Contention 3:

Teen Empowerment,

Most teens will make their own decisions regardless to anyone's input, we must support rather than barrier. By supporting we can offer encouragement and assurance to result in the best possible outcome.
wildforwalla48

Con

As this is the final round, I will make my argument concise, as I believe it has already been illustrate as to why you as a voter should negate this resolve.

My opponent has failed to use legitimate statistics through out the course of this argument, which leads one to believe that she is basing her argument solely on assumption and her own point of view. Therefore, I remind voters that if you affirm this resolve, you are affirming ONE person's point of view on this issue.

I think it is extraordinarily pertinent that we remember how vital the separation of church and state is in this case. My opponent stated "Whilst many religions are opposed we cannot begin to accompany "all religions" in legislation and government decisions as this would be impossible, for the government to base all decisions on all religions would be foolish and unrealistic. It would not work as there would be no outcome for any decisions. If a religion is opposed then it is the freedom of choice that the person wishes to make concerning contraceptives." However, what she fails to recognize is that tax payers have no control over where their money goes. Therefore, we would not be giving the religiously devout the option to not fund something that they do not believe in.

My opponent has given no examples as to how prescribing birth control to minors without parental permission will cause economic hysteria, so I urge you as a voter to leave this out of mind while voting, since it is completely unproven.

To review, here are my contentions:
Contention 1: The health risks associated with prescribed birth control make it unethical to allow children to obtain it without parental consent.
Common side effects related to early usage of prescribed birth control include nutrient deficiency, weight gain, mood changes, fluid retention and depression. Prescribed birth control also puts users at a higher risk of migraines, infertility, endometriosis, psoriasis, PMS, depression, fibromyalgia and countless other maladies [1] due to the risk of developing yeast overgrowth. Without thorough research, a teen would have no way of understanding the health risks involved with taking contraceptives. Therefore, it is pertinent that parents be involved in helping their child make this decision.

Contention 2: Prescribed birth control creates a false sense of security.
Prescribed birth control is NOT 100% effective in preventing pregnancies. If one were to consistently take their birth control at the EXACT same time, EVERY single day, there is still an 8% chance for pregnancy. [2] Additionally, prescribed birth control yields no protection from STIs, a common misconception amongst youth. The only way to avoid both teen pregnancy and STIs is through abstinence. Rather than allowing teens to obtain prescribed birth control, thus promoting underage sexual activity, we should focus on promoting the importance of abstinence.

Contention 3: Allowing teens to obtain birth control without parental consent would be taking away a parent's right to authority.
By allowing teens prescribed birth control without parental consent, we would only be justifying their lie. If a parent does not want to go on prescribed birth control for any reason, be it religious, moral or ethical, then they ought to have the right to say no. By allowing teens to obtain prescribed birth control without consultation of their parents, we would only be taking away a parent's right to parent their own child.

Thus, I urge you, to negate this resolve.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by lucyalice1989 3 years ago
lucyalice1989
lol yea ya know what they say tho.. nerdz always do the best!.. ha shud start a debate on that one.
Posted by wildforwalla48 3 years ago
wildforwalla48
Haha I wouldn't worry, you're doing fine. Gee thanks haha! I'm a nerd though.
Posted by lucyalice1989 3 years ago
lucyalice1989
I hope i'm not breaking any rules tho i should probably research debating rules, gee you are smart for your age!
Posted by wildforwalla48 3 years ago
wildforwalla48
Don't worry you're getting better and better each round :) Yeah it's pretty big where I'm from.
Posted by lucyalice1989 3 years ago
lucyalice1989
Yea it must be huge over there! wish NZ would acquire some debate teams, I don't know the proper rules but i'm gradually learning so bear with me lol. Good luck to you aswell :)
Posted by wildforwalla48 3 years ago
wildforwalla48
Oh wow you're from New Zealand? I'm from the US and debate is pretty big over here. Good luck! :)
Posted by lucyalice1989 3 years ago
lucyalice1989
Yeah I don't reckon the govt is not just, they say they are doing things to help society but when they are liberal and hierachial in thinking and application it just doesn't make sense. I have never debated before I don't think there is any such thing in New Zealand so hope I do ok.
Posted by zach12 3 years ago
zach12
Who cares if the government has "made a decision" about what minors are capable of. I know a lot of 17 year olds who could make a more informed voting decision than their parents.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
lucyalice1989wildforwalla48Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: When Pro made the point in Round three that abstinence is unobtainable becase "-Teens lack of ability to understand repercussions" she defeated her own argument... If they cannot understand the repercussions of having sex (and therefore cannot be abstinent), then they are NOT mature enough to be having sex in the first place, and they CERTAINLY are not mature enough to be making decisions about what medicines they should purchase.
Vote Placed by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
lucyalice1989wildforwalla48Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall better effort from con. I like how he restated his claims and contentions in the last round.
Vote Placed by Cobo 3 years ago
Cobo
lucyalice1989wildforwalla48Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con definetly get source vote. And I really liked her final round. New Arguments are a no-no.