THW ban biological parents from contacting children they gave up for adoption
Debate Rounds (5)
1) This debate will be in British Parliamentary style. If not, you may suggest another.
2) I am con in this debate (Against the ban)
3) THW = this house will...
4) The opponent shall go first (in british parliamentary style, the government side presents first- the Pro or For side.)
5) English please :)
Now moving on to the specific topic:
For the purpose of today's debate, I, as the contender, have the burden placed upon me to provide definition for a few key terms to allow for a consensus on terms debated as well as judging validity of arguments:
1> Biological parents: a parent who has conceived (biological mother) or sired (biological father) rather than adopted a child and whose genes are therefore transmitted to the child.
2> Contact: immediate proximity or association. However, I have also a few inquiries that is crucial to clear up in the context of today's debate for the instigator, and that would be namely 1> What you refer to by stating in the resolution THW; my inquiry is whether you wish to debate based on core principles and values of the Federal Agency for Technical Relief, or merely their singled-out policy concerning the resolution 2> Whether or not you wish to confine this debate to the present range and spectrum that the THW operates in; thus would you like to debate about how this resolution should be treated in Germany, where they are prevalent, or this policy in general. Resolving these issues as soon as possible will allow for a much easier debate on both our parts.
The jurisdiction of whether or not an individual as a biological parent should/should not be allowed to visit their children that they have given up for adoption does not rest upon the mere fact that they have sired or conceived the child; it comes to the distribution of rights as well as consideration for each parties' interests.
1> By giving up a child as an individual gives up the intrinsic right that we do to our children; merely siring or conceiving a child as a biological parent does not give justification to our ownership or possession of such a child. It is our willingness to accept such a child as an inherent aspect of our own lives and when we take into consideration the benefits as well as interests of them as individuals are we granted the possession of a child. In the same context, by giving up a child for adoption, an individual not only gives up the responsibilities that come hand in hand with fostering a child, but also the ownership and control over such a child. Allowing for contact to be re-established between a parent and a child they have given up for adoption not only provides an imaginary bond which does not exist that will impact the child's life, but also reinstating a right that the parent individual does not have to his/her biological child. The responsbilites that do come with a child are given up the instant that an individual forgoes the child, yet their right to contact and immediate as well as intimate association and being in proximity of their child is also given up. Additionally, there is also a interesting belief that contact entails not being able to talk with or come into relation with their child; the fundamental policy represented by the THW is not so; it advocates for the inability of a biological parent to come into the as stated 'close and intimate proximity or association with' for contact. Thus having a biological parent talk to his/her child is acceptable under this policy, and the only unacceptable aspect would be developing a long-term relationship with intimacy involved.
2> Affiliation with a biological parent involving a close and intimate relationship from an adopted child's perspective would destroy the concept of a parentage in its advocation. By having the child be adopted by another individual, the original biological parents are giving their own as well as their child's consent to have the new individual take their place in beholding responsibilities entailed to their child, and willingly do so. The parentage fosters a intimate relationship that is felt firsthand by the child as well as his/her new parents, and the responsibilities as well as moral obligations that come with parentage are considered by the new individual who acts as a parent to the child. The new individual thus becomes the guardian as well as providing for the interests and well-being of his/her new child; having the biological parents again come into close and intimate contact with the child would destroy the concept of moral obligation and responsibility that is entailed by a parentage. Thus we look to the inherent point that states that certain responsibilities and obligations come hand in hand with possession and acquisition; because the biological parent fails to come to terms with the such, he/she should not be allowed to maintain a steady and close as well as intimate affiliation with the child.
As I have provided for the above arguments as opposed to my opponents advocation on the con side of this debate resolution, I now eagerly await my opponent's responses to the framework of this case altogether as well as specific issues as addressed in this case.
Dictionary source: www.dictionary.com
THW is not alluding to the German Federal Agency for Technical Relief, it actually is an abbreviation for "This house will..." or "This house would..." in BP (British Parliamentary) or Canadian Parliamentary Debate Styles. The resolution is usually put in this form. The voting should still be judged upon who performs the best in the debate.
1: My opponent's only response to any of my as stated arguments and contentions remains that she, as the instigator, has a more fluid and profound understanding of a obscure aspect of the rules concerning parlimentary debate, and thus should win by knowledge. Not only is this insufficient in justifying any type of advantage over me as the contender, but also displays her misunderstanding of the fundamental rules of debate. I, as the contender, have the right to ask certain questions concerning issues in the resolution and the debate to allow for easier understanding, and she, as the instigator, has the burden upon her to clear up any difficulties or obstacles in understanding that may be presented to either side. Thus not only am I allowed to make inquiries according to the resolution, but also in the context of the debate.
2: Furthermore, my opponent fails to address any of my contentions, arguments, or inclusive subpoints, thus she, by the rules of debate in any interpretation, concedes to the arguments made, and they can be extended across the flow. By not responding to any of my arguments, and not making any contentions that support her side of the resolution, I have nothing to refute and furthermore have nothing to disprove the fact that I should win this round as well as the debate on a whole.
Thank you, and I am open for any other problems or further debate.
On with the arguments and rebuttals...
As the instigator supporting the CON side of this debate, my responsibility is to refute to what the PRO side has stated. Contact is defined as close proximity or association and therefore I must support that immediate association should be allowed; in affect, I support that contact between the biological parents and the child (As defined by the contender) should not be banned.
On the definitions and terms that the contender has placed I will be refuting the following claims made by my opponent:
-When you give up a child for adoption, you lose the intrinsic right that you have to the child.
-"...A biological parent involving a close and intimate relationship from an adopted child's perspective would destroy the concept of a parentage in its ad vocation. "
According to the definition of the bill, biological parents contacting children they gave up for adoption should be banned; however, that doesn't omit the possibility of an adopted child trying to contact his/her biological parents. Though the legal stipulations do favour the fact that biological parents loose the rights they have to their children when they put them up for adoption, the law does not forbid adopted children from communicating with them.
The adopted child has right to information about the biological parent, whether it be medical or family history. "If the proposed adoptee is over the age of ten, twelve, or fourteen, certain states will require his or her consent before allowing adoption. Adoption law is generally governed by state laws. All the 50 states have statutes governing adoption. Eight of them have adopted the Uniform Adoption Act."
Public policy believes in the complete detachment between the adopted child and the natural parents (biological parents).
It's natural for people who are adopted to wonder about their birth families (also called biological families) and where they came from. This curiosity often becomes more intense as part of the process of self-discovery that happens during the teenage years. Sometimes there are health reasons, or other important reasons, for searching for one's birth family. Strictly cutting of the tie between biological parents and their children could be detrimental to the development of the child when they are trying to find out who they are and what roots they were genetically born with.
"In certain states, adopted children may get access to the medical records of their biological parents where states have implemented an adoption registry. The adoption registry allows consenting biological parents to submit family medical history, accessible to adopted children." Why would a child want to have access to medical records? This may be important for treating certain diseases such as bone marrow cancer, that can be treated by accessing bone marrow from someone genetically similiar. Why would the child need to come into close proximity of their natural parents when it isn't needed? When looking at a case of organ donation, emotional aspects come into play when we consider the perspective of the child (again depending on his/her age). He/she might want to meet his/her natural parents when such medical procedures are involved.
Also, biological parents may have a reason to put their children up for adoption and that reason may range from inability to maintain good living conditions for the child and provide him/her a prosperous future due to an extrinsic force(like financial conflict) to the struggles of teen parents and their incapability to raise a child. Sometimes, it can be caused by havoc in the country or territory. Very rarely would you find parents put their child up for adoption because they don't want it.
There are many reasons why contact between natural parents and their children should not be cut off if the child as new parents/legal guardians and that is why I strongly stand by my side of the bill.
Quoted and Other Source:
There are a few key issues that form the criterion as well as the philosophical basis for which fundamental values can be judged in the context of this resolution, that are also imperative for any side, especially my opponent as the CON to achieve and justify through her point constructions. The meta-ethical framework for which we base all values empirically justified by epistemic normativity in this round bases itself off of subjective judgment and the modal operator of belief in of itself. Indeed, by looking at the overall framework for which my opponent feels has the sufficient and adequate grounds for which PRO can achieve her premise and values, we find a few fundamental obstacles to the logical flow in of itself, and obvious issues that are seen without the usual necessary inspection. Indeed, she specifically addresses my arguments and contentions with the statement intended to refute of: "Though the legal stipulations do favour the fact that biological parents loose the rights they have to their children when they put them up for adoption, the law does not forbid adopted children from communicating with them." The fundamental and basic framework for which she values her criterion of jurisdiction is opposed flagrantly and contradicted in this statement itself. This not only does not provide any grounds for which her arguments can be justified, but in its inherent nature, again goes to supplement points that I use for the framework of my case. My overall statements in the last constructive sufficiently established the point that as the PRO, it is my obligation in the context of this resolution to provide the point that states that individuals who have forsaken a child for certain societal and moral liberties and freedom from ethical obligations ascertains the basic fact that thus they should not be allowed to contact the children, as I have sufficiently provided all with points in my contentions.
Furthermore, what my opponent states in her first two paragraphs of refutations completely neglect the FUNDAMENTAL RESOLUTION itself. Looking to the exact specifications of the resolution, we see that: "THW ban biological parents from contacting children they gave up for adoption" not only implies but also EXPLICITLY states that the basis and grounds for which this debate rests upon is the overarching issue of individuals seeking their children that they have given up for adoption. It is not in the context nor capacity of this debate and resolution itself to concern itself with any points regarding 'curiosity' or 'subjective willingness' of children to seek out their parents; we can thus immediately see that my opponent's refutations are irrelevant not only in context to the debate and my contentions, but even to the resolution itself.
Now moving on to the last argument that my opponent again imposes upon this debate to further her validity; she says that the motive behind an individual who has given up his/her child does not necessarily mean that he/she did not merely want the child, and that it may be due to other concerns. Again, we look to the meta-ethical foundations for which jurisdiction must be based upon because of the subjective nature of this resolution in of itself. Indeed, it does not matter in any form of relevancy what the motive was behind an individual's discretion to give up his/her child for adoption; the objective fact that is tangible remains that as the individual who had given up the child, he/she loses certain societal responsibilities and obligations that form the basis for which they also lose control over their child. "In discussing what constitutes morality, the actual behavior is less important than the underlying capacities." (Flack and deWaal 2000) The fundamental value is not the motive behind an action, mainly because we see through deontological justification that it does not matter because the individual gains specific societal liberties, namely without social and moral obligations to fostering a child, at the expense of losing it in a legal or moral manner. Even if you discard this argument as inadequate for refutation, I will once again present you with a discretional value that is fundamental to values in this debate.
The motive behind an action is always justified by subjective concerns and ideologies that form the basis for an action. For a tangible example, the individual who specifically ascertained that it was necessary or preferrable to give up his/her child for adoption must have had a motive, which my opponent obviously and extraneously points out. Yet the underlying issue is that in the example that my opponent has imposed, financial difficulty and conflict, as well as including but not limited to all other aspects of such a decision, was always available for consideration before the parent conceived the child. Before a parent conceives a child, he/she must take into consideration all aspects of such fostering of an individual replendent with life, including social and moral obligations as justified by our present societal framework and contract under which we all live, and any issues that might come into direct conflict with such an action of raising a child. Thus, when the child is conceived and born, it is into a societal and moral contract into which it is born, with strings of moral and social obligations that the parent cannot refuse to take and handle, with pain of loss of certain societal liberties and/or expulsion from the moral and social contract. The specific societal liberties that I refer to will be the as stated intimate and close associate contact that the parent is forbidden to maintain with his/her biological child. From such a logical and metaphysical standpoint, I provide the much better grounds for which this debate can be judged, and how I, as PRO, achieve the premises for jurisdiction on this debate much better than my opponent.
Further points of consideration:
From the standpoint of metaphysical and ethical concerns that concerns epistomology and deontology for any form of subjective judgment, we find a key and core issue that becomes apparent in this debate: Moral realism. Understood, it is a conjunction of metaphysical, epistomological, and semantic views. By looking to a moral contract and the relativism it imposes in the context of this debate, we consider the primary subjective views of belief. By saying that an individual may not have considered certain aspects of the moral/social contract that entails specific obligations, you are doing so under pain of advocating for IRRATIONALITY itself. The primary modal operator is belief; yet when we disregard the capability as well as the obligated responsibilities of an individual parent when deciding to conceive a child, we are thus so advocating for irrational decisions without any form of justification by epistomological and meta-ethical views. This not only flagrantly goes against the basic foundational building blocks on which all subjective moral or tangible arguments are constructed, but also the inherent logical framework in of itself. Indeed, justifying by deontology gives a clear such concept:
S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p while it is not the case that S is obliged to refrain from believing that p.
The belief system is rooted in the epistomological and semantic contexts for which a rational framework and a rational normative is imperative and mandated for validity. As my opponent goes against these basic foundational and pivotal points, as well as providing little to no valid refutations as I have proved to my contentions, all of my points may be extended across the flow and be subjected to consideration when voting. Thank you so much.
riyavr forfeited this round.
riyavr forfeited this round.
Yet as I have provided sufficient grounds for which jurisdiction should be placed, I urge individuals to strongly...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: 2 rounds of forfeit=Pro wins
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.