Get your own Free Home Page"Teenagers need privacy; it allows them to have a life of their own. By providing privacy, we demonstrate respect."
My concurrence with the views of Dr. Haim Ginott causes me to stand resolved that "An adolescent's right to privacy ought to be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know".
In order to clarify the grounds of this debate, I submit the following definitions, those of adolescent and privacy. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, an "adolescent" is "a boy or a girl from puberty to adulthood." "Privacy" is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion."
Before I continue with this case, I must submit the following observations: OBSERVATION ONE : The resolution debated concerns a conflict between an adolescent's right to privacy and a parent's right to know. Because of this, we can conclude that both of these rights exist, and that we are limited to the discussion of situations in which they both fall in direct conflict. and OBSERVATION TWO : Privacy, as defined earlier, is the "right to be free from unsanctioned intrusion." An intrusion made with the intention of stopping an illegal or dangerous act would be considered sanctioned, and therefore not a violation of privacy, as the right to privacy does not apply in such situations.
In order to uphold my stance on this resolution, I shall utilize the value of Child Development, which will be upheld in the following three contentions:
CONTENTION ONE : The right to privacy is among the most valuable human rights. CONTENTION TWO : In general, adolescents possess enough maturity to render unnecessary a parent's right to know. and CONTENTION THREE : Privacy is essential to an adolescent's development.
Now, allow me to discuss these contentions individually
Starting with CONTENTION ONE : The right to privacy is among the most valuable human rights.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights supports it. The Constitution of the United States supports it. Since the advent of the social order, people have sought privacy in their own affairs both from the government, and from other individuals.
Today the problem is a bit more focused can an adolescent's right to privacy be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know? As I shall demonstrate, and because hypocrisy has no place in this logical discussion, adolescents, who are on the whole mature enough to possess such a right, can handle it in a situation of conflict. If a single individual were to be unjustly deprived of this right, then no one's right to this value would be safe. Considering that "Central to the cluster of human rights is the right to privacy," as William Bier stated in Privacy , we cannot make the mistake of unjustly denying this all-important right to any individual.
Now, let's consider CONTENTION TWO : In general, adolescents possess enough maturity to render unnecessary a parent's right to know.
Maturity comes in different stages, to different people, at different times, but people in general mature at roughly the same rate. When children become adolescents, they usually possess enough knowledge of the world not to stick their hands in the blender or play "chicken" on the interstate. Naturally, there are exceptions, as there are to every rule. However, on the whole, human nature is not self-destructive, and the right to know of a parent is can only be construed necessary to prevent physical damage to or the incarceration of an adolescent. As such situations, situations where and adolescent risked severe bodily harm or was engaging in illegal actions were earlier declared to be outside of the cover of privacy, the parent's right to know in conflict is unnecessary. Adolescents possess enough maturity to render this unnecessary, as Laura Purdy wrote. Quoted from In their best interest? : "Children are in general no less rational or competent than adults."
With these arguments in mind, let's consider CONTENTION THREE : Privacy is essential to an adolescent's development. Starting with
Subpoint A : Privacy is necessary for proper maturation.
A teenager raised in a household where privacy was nonexistent and safety paramount would have little or no knowledge of how to responsibly conduct their own affairs after leaving this "safe haven." Such a home environment would grant peace of mind to the parents, at the expense of their adolescent's natural maturation and growth.
Even if we are to discount this somewhat extreme example (that is, the utter absence of privacy), negating this resolution allows parents to invade their children' privacy if they perceive a situation exists that of which they ought to be aware. Even well-meaning parents have been known to overuse this right to know, and have damaged their adolescent's self-esteem and dignity as a result. No matter how minor, any violation of an adolescent's right to privacy may cause problems for that adolescent, as self-esteem and dignity, naturally enough, are essential to proper development.
Subpoint B : Parents who violate their adolescent's right to privacy are demonstrating a lack of respect for their adolescent.
"The reason for a right to privacy is that intrusions on privacy are, by nature, indignities. To violate a person's privacy without consent is to treat that person with disrespect .." stated Howard Cohen in Equal Rights for Children : Disrespect is never a good thing, and in this case it becomes particularly malignant. The disrespect I refer to often causes a great deal of hostility and resentment to enter into the relationship between the parents and children, which is certainly not beneficial to growth. To be able to respect one's parents is wonderful, but it is impossible to respect a person who does not reciprocate. As a result, for an adolescent to develop in a normal manner, the right to privacy must exist..
In conclusion, I made two key arguments that I defended throughout this case. The first I discussed in the second contention, where I demonstrated that adolescents are, in general, mature enough to handle their right to privacy without adult intervention. In my third contention I explained the second key argument, which was that for an adolescent to properly mature, the right to privacy is absolutely necessary.
For the reasons I have stated, I ask you to please join me in affirming this resolution that "An adolescent's right to privacy ought to be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know."
I now stand open for cross-examination.
Get your own Free Home Page