WORKSHEET N 1: DEBATING Topic: Abortion, Parental Consent Summary: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women

to have abortions?

Teenage pregnancy is a stressful experience, and many people would agree that it would be sensible for a pregnant unmarried teenage girl to seek advice from a responsible adult. Parental involvement laws would make notification of pregnancy and consent for abortion from one or both parents mandatory. Such laws exist in 43 US states, but are enforced in only 32. Most of the statutes apply to young women under 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure should a young woman be unable to involve her parents. Most of them include exceptions for medical emergencies. In principle, of course, similar laws could be introduced anywhere where abortion is legal. The definition of underage will vary from culture to culture, and will need clear explanation by the proposing speakers. N.B. I would strongly recommend that this debate avoid arguments about the morality of abortion in general. The motion necessarily assumes that abortion is legal, so questions about whether or not it should be are beside the point - arguments against abortion in general would point to the need for an outright ban, not for parental consent for it. Pros Under-16s need parental consent for medical treatment and surgery: abortion should not be an exception. There are plenty of other things children are not allowed to do without their parents consent: tattooing, ear-piercing, school activities such as school trips; parents can withdraw their children from school religious activities without their childrens consent; under-16s are not allowed to get married without their parents consent. Abortion is at least as important a decision as any of these. Cons Parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over whether to have a baby must be the babys mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order: in effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good example for the proposition. There are good reasons for not telling parents of a pregnancy. Parents who are opposed to abortion may force their daughter to continue with a pregnancy against her wishes, even at a risk to her health or life. Disclosing that you are pregnant necessarily requires that you disclose that you are sexually active: some parents may disapprove of this to the extent that they throw their daughter out of the house, or become physically or emotionally abusive. This is irrelevant, because the proposal is not that parents should be able to compel their daughters to have abortions, only that they should be able to veto an abortion. The fact that parents of teenage mothers often play a major role in their grandchildrens upbringing does not mean that they are allowed to insist that their children should produce grandchildren for them against their will.

Parents have a right to know what their children are doing: they are legally responsible for their care, and as parents they have a proper interest in any case. Any good parent would want to know if their daughter were having an abortion; any good parent would want to help her daughter make a good decision on the matter, and to prevent her making a bad decision.

The parents of teenagers have to live with the consequences of teenage motherhood: they often bear a particularly large responsibility for looking after the children, because teenage mothers are usually 1) single; 2) living at home; 3) unemployed; 4) in full-time education. They are economically dependent, and unable to give all of their time to their children. If the mothers parents are going to have to look after their grandchild and to live with it, they should have a say on whether it is born in the first place.

WORKSHEET N 1: DEBATING Topic: Assisted Suicide/Voluntary Euthanasia Summary: Should assisted suicide be legalised? Assisted Suicide, also called Voluntary Euthanasia, is currently a contentious issue in many countries. The question in the debate is this: if a terminally ill person decides that they wish to end their life, is it acceptable for others to assist them? This would normally take the form of a doctor administering a lethal injection, which would end their life painlessly. A clear distinction must be made with involuntary euthanasia, by which someone is put down against their wishes, and which is simply murder by another name. In the United States, Dr Jack Kervorkian nicknamed Doctor Death for his actions beliefs has been campaigning for a change in the law for many years, and has assisted in the suicide of at least 45 people; he was recently found guilty of second degree murder and imprisoned after a widely publicised trial. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, voluntary euthanasia has been legal since 1983, with some 3,000 people requesting it each year. In Australia, assisted suicide was legalised in the Northern Territories with the backing of a substantial majority of the local population, but was then overthrown by the Federal Senate before anyone could actually use the new law. In Switzerland the Dignitas Clinic assists a great many people to kill themselves each year, including many who travel for that specific purpose from countries where assisted suicide is illegal. As a great deal hinges on the practicalities of this debate, it is imperative that the proposition provide a fairly specific set of criteria to explain when assisted suicide would be legal and when it would not. It is worth looking at the legal procedures proposed in Australia and those in use in the Netherlands, as examples of the kind of safeguards which may be needed. Pros Every human being has a right to life, perhaps the most basic and fundamental of all our rights. However, with every right comes a choice. The right to speech does not remove the option to remain silent; the right to vote brings with it the right to abstain. In the same way, the right to choose to die is implicit in the right to life. Those who are in the late stages of a terminal disease have a horrific future ahead of them: the gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to control their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and die with dignity. Society recognises that suicide is unfortunate but acceptable in some circumstances those who end their own lives are not seen as evil, nor is it a crime to attempt suicide. The illegality of assisted suicide is therefore particularly cruel for those who are disabled by their disease, and are unable to die without assistance. Cons There is no comparison between the right to life and other rights. When you choose to remain silent, you may change your mind at a later date; when you choose to die, you have no such second chance. Participating in someones death is also to participate in depriving them of all choices they might make in the future, and is therefore immoral. Modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but societys role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition. Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, if someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die.

WORKSHEET N 1: DEBATING Topic. Space Exploration Summary: Should mankind invest in the exploration of space?

The space programmes of both the USA and the USSR became perhaps the most important prestige projects of the Cold War. From the launch of Sputnik - the first artificial satellite - in 1957, through to the first human space flight by Yuri Gagarin in 1961, the first moon landing in 1969, and beyond, both superpowers invested huge amounts of money in order to outdo each other in the so-called space race. At the time, this was a convenient project to choose: while it allowed the two nations to compete in a supposedly peaceful area, proving their scientific achievements, the work on rockets also fed directly into work on the inter-continental ballistic missiles which would allow them to strike at each other with nuclear weapons in the event of war. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the future of space exploration has become less clear. Russia no longer has the resources to invest in a substantial space programme; without an enemy to compete with, the USA has also cut back on its exploration programmes. The emphasis is now on missions which are faster, better, cheaper grand projects such as the Voyager missions of the late 1970s seem unlikely to be repeated. In particular, the American commitment to manned exploration of space has diminished, especially after the 2003 Columbia disaster, when all seven astronauts on the Space Shuttle died during reentry. President Bush has committed NASA to a return to the moon with a long term aspiration of an expedition to Mars, but this seems unlikely to be realised with NASA's present resources. On the other hand, China has been developing an active space programme in recent years with several manned flights, while India is also beginning to launch its own rockets. The proposition in this debate will be proposing a renewed commitment to the exploration of space; the opposition focuses on the practicalities, and the fact that money may be better spent elsewhere. Pros Mankind must always struggle to expand its horizons. The desire to know what lies beyond current knowledge, the curiosity that constantly pushes at the boundaries of our understanding, is one of our noblest characteristics. The exploration of the universe is a high ideal space truly is the final frontier. The instinct to explore is fundamentally human; already some of our most amazing achievements have taken place in space. No-one can deny the sense of wonder, world-wide, when for the first time a new man-made star rose in the sky, or when Neil Armstrong first stepped onto the moon. Space exploration speaks to that part of us which rises above the everyday. Cons High ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot afford. Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves new targets. Once we have addressed the problems we face on Earth, we will have all the time we want to explore the universe; but not before then. The money spent on probes to distant planets would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement. Satellite technology has of course had a beneficial effect on our world. However, there is a huge difference between launching satellites into Earth orbit, and exploring space. Missions to other planets, and into interstellar space, do not contribute to life on our planet. Moreover, satellites are largely commercial they are launched by private companies, and are maintained by the profits which they lead to. True space exploration could never be

The exploitation of space has directly changed our world. Satellites orbiting the Earth allow us to communicate instantaneously with people on different continents, and to broadcast to people all over the world. The Global Positioning System allows us to pinpoint our location anywhere in the world. Weather satellites save lives by giving advance warning of adverse conditions, and together with other scientific instruments in orbit they have helped us

understand our own world better. Research into climate change, for example, would be almost impossible without the data provided by satellites. Space exploration has also led to many indirect benefits. The challenge and difficulty of the space programme, and its ability to draw on some of the finest minds, has brought about great leaps in technology. The need to reduce weight on rockets led to miniaturisation, and so to the micro-chip and the modern computer. The need to produce safe but efficient powersources for the Apollo missions led to the development of practical fuel-cells, which are now being explored as a possible future powersource for cleaner cars. The effects of zerogravity on astronauts has substantially added to our knowledge of the workings of the human body, and the ageing process. We can never know exactly which benefits will emerge from the space programme in future, but we do know that we will constantly meet new obstacles in pursuit of our goals, and in overcoming them will find new solutions to old problems.

commercial, and requires huge government subsidies - the Voyager missions alone cost just under $1 billion. This money could be much better spent elsewhere. These spin-off advantages could come from any blue-sky project - they are a result of the huge amounts of money and manpower devoted to the space programme, giving people the resources they need to solve problems, rather than a result of the programme itself. For example, many of the leaps forward in miniaturisation were in fact the result of trying to build better nuclear missiles; this is not a good reason to continue building nuclear weapons. It would be far better to devote similar resources to projects with worthier goals for example cancer research, or research into renewable energy sources. These too could have many spin-off benefits, but would tackle real problems.