Home

TheSinner.net

Minutes from Ross Cup

Your opportunity to discuss goings on in the Debating Society, recent debates or any issues you believe are important. Questions or queries can be addressed to the moderator at debates@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Minutes from Ross Cup

Postby Jessica on Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:10 pm

The Minutes from the Ross Cup are now availible...right here.


The University of St Andrews Union Debating Society last met on Wednesday 26th April in the Year of Our Lord 2006. The motion before the House was that ‘This House would not allow assisted reproduction to women aged over 45’. The Convenor, Miss Rachael Whitbread was in the chair and welcomed the members of the House to the Ross Cup, a competition for Scotland’s most successful Schools’ debaters. Before proceeding to the debate, the Convenor called upon the Clerk to the House, Miss Beth Conner, to read the minutes of the last debate in the style of her old school headmaster. The Clerk had not demonstrated her rendition of a Stoke-on-Trent headmaster for long before Mr. Ewan Macdonald rose on a Point of Order requesting that the minutes be taken as read, on the grounds that he didn’t want the last remnants of his credibility destroyed in front of the competitors, that he felt would surely ensue from having his speech from the previous debate read in full. Miss Connie Grieve rose on a counter point, expressing her desire to hear the minutes in full as she was too stressed at the Balaka to pay much attention to the debate itself and would like to know how it went. Due to the obvious dissent in the House, the Convenor called a division by oral acclamation and despite the ‘nays’ clearly appearing to be in the majority, she felt it necessary to consult the Serjeant-at-Arms, who informed her that democracy was not up to much anyway. The minutes being taken as read, the Convenor asked if any individual had a matter of public importance they wished to bring forward. The Treasurer, Mr. Chris Hawkins wished to pass the motion that ‘This House would accept Charles Clarke’s resignation’. Seconded by the Serjeant-at-Arms, Mr. Tom Cahn, with the Championship Secretary, Miss Alex Jennings speaking in Opposition, the Convenor called Mr. Hawkins to the dispatch box to make his case.


Mr. Hawkins remarked that democracy, as Mr. Cahn had already stated, is currently not up to much. If we were to accept Charles Clarke’s resignation, perhaps some faith would be restored in the integrity of our system of government. The last time a minister actually owned up to being in the wrong was in the 1980s and we should embrace the opportunity when ministers admit that they have failed, to remove them from the role the have failed to fulfil. Accepting Charles Clarke’s resignation would restore the nation’s confidence in ministers being decent people who not only have a conscience, but also are prepared to act upon it. It would be more prudent for us to accept Charles Clarke’s resignation, and with the new wealth of time he would have on his hands, he could serve the nation productively by going and hunting for the criminals himself. (1.58)

The Convenor then called Miss Alex Jennings to the dispatch box to oppose the motion. Miss Jennings had been quite shocked to hear of Mr. Clarke’s blunder, but the news at least finally explained to her why she hadn’t been deported when there were problems with her visa. The problem has not resulted from Charles Clarke as a minister per se, but has ensued as a result of the implementation of excessive bureaucracy, which hinders, as opposed to helping ministers conduct their duties. It is the province of individual departments to root out problems such as this and blame should not be shifted unjustly. The problem referred to by Mr. Hawkins actually goes deeper than any issue of ministerial conduct and therefore cannot be solved by the mechanism he proposed. We would expect a minister to resign when they bring the government into disrepute and in this case, the government does not actually appear any worse than it has in recent times; this incident is merely another debacle in a long line of problems such as failed education reforms, Tessa Jowell and John Prescott. The solution proposed by Mr. Hawkins will not solve anything because the problem is not in fact Charles Clarke himself, but a number of factors of which bureaucracy is the most to blame. (2.57)


The Convenor then called a division and votes were cast as follows: votes for the Proposition, 13; votes for the Opposition, 5; Abstentions, 13. After conferring with the Father of the House, Mr. David Bean, the Convenor ascertained that she carried the deciding vote and ruled that the motion was carried.

The speakers for the debate were announced as (on the Proposition side), Miss Natalie Smith and Miss Rachel Watson of Aberdeen Grammar School and Miss Joanna Farmer and Mr. Robert Gallon of Robert Gordon’s College. On the Opposition, speakers were announced as Mr. Neil Dewar and Miss Lauren Pringle of the High School of Dundee, and Mr. Netan Dogra and Mr. Kenny Nichol of Grove Academy.


Without further ado, Miss Rachael Watson was called to the dispatch box to open the case for the Proposition. Miss Watson outlined the mechanism as being quite simply what the motion stated. Women over 45 would not be considered for IVF treatment and any doctor who offered assisted reproduction to them would be subject to a review, with the possible penalty of being stuck off. If women are still able to have children naturally over the age of 45, of course it is not our place to attempt to prevent them from doing so, but the state has absolutely no duty to help them conceive. The age of the women referred to renders them unsuitable to be mothers due to the greatly increased risk to the baby in terms of birth defects, and also an increased risk to the mother herself. The state should refuse to actively help individuals take risks such as this. By the time the child becomes a teenager, the parents will be even less able to meet their needs and the disparity in age will be so significant as to cause harm to the relationship between them. Miss Watson accepted a Point of Information from Mr. Nicholl who asked why this scenario was any different to a terminally ill individual having children. Miss Watson stated that while having a terminal disease was not a personal choice, having a child when you are over 45 is a personal choice and it is a choice that the state should not endorse, due to the tangible harms already demonstrated. Allowing assisted reproduction to women aged over 45 is actively inconsistent with the duty of the state to protect individuals from putting themselves and others at risk. The extent of the risks involved indicate that this issue is beyond any vague idea of freedom of choice the Opposition may present and the state should not even condone, let alone assist an individual in taking these risks and as such, we have a duty to side with the proposition. (4.56)


Miss Lauren Pringle was then called to the dispatch box to open the case for the Opposition. She began by rebutting some of the points raised by the Proposition. The issue that was central to their case, regarding the inability of parents to look after their children was, according to Miss Pringle, a weak point in that surely, it should be the province of the parents to ascertain their individual capabilities, as opposed to being patronised by the state. Miss Pringle stated that she could imagine how bad it was to be in one’s forties, but there was absolutely no reason to legislate against individual choice solely on these grounds. The issue of exactly how much right the state has to dictate the lives of those born into it has been largely misunderstood by the Proposition. There are measures that can be taken, such as scans, to circumvent the possible harm to the mother or the foetus so the point of denying it on these grounds simply doesn’t stand. Miss Pringle accepted a Point of Information from Mr. Robert Gallon who asked her how she felt about the harms to society that result from allowing assisted reproduction to women over 45. Miss Pringle responded by stating that allowing the individual, as opposed to the state the right to make an informed choice about their life will not actually inflict any external harm anyway. The notion that the embryo may have birth defects and should be prevented from existing on account of this possibility is incoherent with protection already enshrined in the status quo. The state has no right to insist on the abortion of handicapped children and it should therefore have no right to insist that an embryo cannot even come into existence on these grounds. The Proposition has ignored the fundamental importance of allowing individuals to make their own decisions. We must acknowledge that the individual is the best person to make decisions that maximise their own utility and we must respect their freedom of choice. Refusing assisted reproduction to women over 45 would unjustly eliminate this freedom and consequently, we must side with the Opposition. (4.56)


Miss Natalie Smith was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the Proposition. She stated that the line the Opposition have taken so far is that the choice of the parent is explicitly more relevant than the duty of the state. On the Proposition however, it has been acknowledged that by allowing women over forty-five to have assisted reproduction, we are condoning the possible harm they may be causing to their unborn child and the duty of the state to protect vulnerable individuals (of which the foetus is the ultimate example), must be exercised to prevent this harm. This merely extends the principle that already exists regarding the duty of care that the state objectively has towards its citizens. The extent of possible harm to the foetus and the greatly increased risk of this harm occurring are binding enough to warrant the state stepping in. The duty of the state is to protect the vulnerable and by failing to prevent foetuses from being harmed by allowing assisted reproduction to older women, the state is fundamentally failing in its duty of care. Women over the age of forty-five have made a conscious choice not to have a child earlier in life and the state has no right to prioritise the woman’s right to change her mind on a whim over the safety of the unborn child. Having a child is not a fundamental, inalienable right and if a doctor believes that the harms of a woman having a child will outweigh the benefits, they have a duty of care to use their professional discretion and refuse to allow assisted reproduction to women who are unsuitable. Therefore, the Proposition must be supported. (5.00)


Mr. Neil Dewar was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the Opposition. Mr. Dewar began by asking the House whether they thought that preventing something from existing actually counted as protecting its rights. The Proposition have misunderstood the nature of the protection the state should legitimately offer, and as such, their argument is undermined. The ‘throwaway’ line about the state having a morally binding duty to prevent all harm simply doesn’t stand when we allow individuals to engage in Boxing and other activities which cause significant harm to them. The Proposition are not actually preventing harm to a child by preventing it from being born; they are instead preventing it from engaging in what could potentially be a fulfilling and happy life. It is surely the decision of the parent whether it is suitable for them to have a child, and whether the benefits to them and to the child would outweigh the slightly increased possibility of harm. It is not the right of the state to dictate that this slightly increased chance of harm should prevent parents from engaging in the possibility of much greater benefit. Mr. Dewar accepted a Point of Information which stated that a child was not a commodity to be bought at will. He responded by saying that if IVF meant the choice between someone having a child or not, it was an immensely valuable service and should not be forbidden to any woman solely by virtue of her age. The impact of allowing assisted reproduction over the age of forty-five would prove immensely valuable to women in terms of career opportunities. The existing pay disparity between men and women is largely due to the fact that women may be forced to take career breaks to have children. Extending the biological clock allows increased opportunity for women to have children when it is beneficial and not harmful to them. The state has no right to make it even harder to break through the glass ceiling by forcing women to be governed by narrow time constraints in which to have children. By refusing assisted reproduction to women over forty-five, we are making a bad situation far worse. (5.13)


Mr. Robert Gallon was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the Proposition. He began his case by stating that the idea of parents being objective arbiters over the balance of benefits and harms simply did not stand. Due to the emotional attachment of parents to their desire to have a child, it is impossible for them to be objective. The idea of terminally ill parents has been discussed and for the Proposition, reaching the age of forty-five is like the start of a terminal illness. You will never get any younger or better able to look after your children and as such, the harms already discussed cannot be discounted. The Opposition seem to think that we are depriving embryos from existing when in fact, the argument of the Proposition is to use embryos created by IVF for more suitable candidates where there is a much lower degree of potential harm. The idea of women in the workplace discussed by Mr. Dewar is a misunderstanding of our duty to women. As opposed to allowing them to reach executive level and then encouraging them to finish their career altogether, we need to encourage women to have children at a more suitable age and then encourage them back into the workplace after the birth of their child. A parent cannot be good company for a young child if the parent sits in an armchair all day or shuffles around with a walking stick. It is an objective fact that a pension will not fund a University education. Mr. Gallon then informed the House of the need for parents to be of the same generation as their children, although for reasons of clarity and the physical possibility of this, he amended his comment to encompass the need to close the generation gap to a greater degree. An embryo is a potential human being and as such, we must accord it certain protective rights in order to ensure that the life it will have is one of quality. The purpose of IVF should not be to allow any individual to have a child for any reason, at any time; the screening of potential candidates must be more stringent in order to ensure the best possible life for the potential child. (5.06)


Mr. Kenny Nichol was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the Opposition. He opened his case by commenting on the fact that the Proposition appear to be failing to ask, let alone answer, the key questions of the debate. The debate has become one about whether individuals over 45 have the right to adopt, or the nature of the influence of Grandparents as opposed to a debate centred upon the moral rightness of allowing assisted reproduction to women over the age of 45. The idea of ‘suitability’ has been addressed on both sides of the table but the Proposition have overstated the ‘unsuitability’ of individuals over the age of 45 to engage in sports and activities with their children. Everything argued by the Proposition only serves to indicate that maybe Grandparents shouldn’t be running marathons but in terms of the debate regarding the suitability of parents over forty-five, the issue of fitness has been massively overstated. Mr. Nichol then examined the duty of the state in this case, which he again perceived to be overestimated by the Proposition. The state does not in fact have a morally obligatory duty to prevent harm being caused to unborn children, as demonstrated by the thousands of abortions carried out each year. Surely, a foetus is ‘fairly endangered’ by the state when abortions are condoned and even encouraged in some cases. Individuals should be able to ascertain for themselves the degree of possible harm engendered by having a child over the age of forty-five and compare this with the potential benefits. Additionally, doctors will also have a major input in providing advice with regard to the degrees of harm and benefits in each individual case of IVF in women aged over forty-five. The proposal is also markedly sexist; society condones older men having children, but when women wish to do the same, their right to choose is treated as a moral abomination. This is an exceptionally unjust situation and every attempt should be made to ensure that the freedom to choose is made more, not less accessible to women over the age of forty-five. (5.07)


Miss Joanna Farmer was then called to the dispatch box to conclude the case for the Proposition. She intended to summarise the debate in terms of two main questions, the first being whether active harm is caused to the child, and the second being whether individuals actually have a right to have children at any time they wish. She perceived that the Opposition’s denunciation of the proposal as ‘sexist’ simply did not stand. As opposed to being inherently sexist, the proposal is simply in keeping with biology. In answer to the first question she raised, Miss Farmer commented that not only is active harm caused to the child, but the extent of this harm is so significant that it does indeed render any concept of the woman’s choice absolutely void. A child has a right to a life free from preventable illness, and the increased risks involved in women over forty-five having children indicates that the state must intervene to ensure that the increased possibility of harm to the child is prevented from occurring. The Proposition have also demonstrated that older parents may be less capable parents in certain areas of a child’s upbringing and the state again has a duty to prevent older individuals having children due to the fact that the quality of life of the child may be severely impinged upon. The selfish desire of individuals to have children at any time of their life must not be allowed to come before the protection the state must accord to those who cannot defend their own interests. If individuals wish to have children, they should do so at a time of their life that will be less harmful and more beneficial to their potential offspring. Even with the argument of infertility, it is still possible for women to ascertain before the age of forty-five whether they will struggle to conceive. The Opposition wish to present children as commodities, to be bought at will regardless of the consequences and it would be grossly unjust and harmful for the state to allow this to occur. (5.05)


Mr. Netan Dogra was then called to the dispatch box to conclude the debate for the Opposition and indeed the debate as a whole. He intended to summarise the debate under three main issues; firstly the degree of the threat, secondly the right to choose and finally the inherently sexist nature of the proposal. The Proposition focused on two different threats. Firstly they perceived that older parents would be worse parents generally, secondly they feared that the women undergoing these procedures would not be medically sound. The Proposition have presented the House with what they perceive to be a Utopia; they believe that an ideal world would be populated exclusively be teenage parents (and that wasn’t even raised only by the Dundee contingent). The notion of the medical difficulty was never actually explained adequately enough to provide a valid reason not to offer women over the age of forty-five these procedures. Under the status quo, doctors can already influence decisions regarding the suitability of IVF candidates. The Proposition has acknowledged that the role of the doctor in deciding upon the suitability of certain procedures for certain individuals is worthwhile, indicating a central contradiction in their proposal. The Proposition have also failed to demonstrate that there will be a tangible harm in every case of IVF in women over the age of 45 and as such, the state has no right to impose blanket legislation against it. It is unjust to legislate against the freedom of an individual to choose, unless that choice will result in significantly increased possibilities of harm to others and the Proposition have conclusively failed to prove that such harm exists, preferring to offer generalisations and assertions that simply do not hold. With regard to the sexist nature of the proposal, it is quite simply unjust to perpetuate the harmful attitude that men can choose to have children at any age whilst women cannot. It is now medically possible for women to have children later and as such, the state has a duty to allow them to take advantage of this increased choice. (5.10)


The debate was then opened to the floor.

The Convenor recognised the Serjeant-at-Arms, Mr. Tom Cahn. Mr. Cahn argued that the central problem with the case presented by the Proposition was that they had insisted that having children was not an absolute right. This notion is simply wrong; enshrined within declarations of rights is the right to Family and it is fundamental that this right is supported by the state wherever possible. Humankind has pushed the boundaries of biology and it is unjust for the state to deny women over forty-five the right to a family when we have the medical expertise necessary to allow them to have a child. We recognise the family as an inherently good thing that should be encouraged and there are benefits to having fifty-year-old parents with boundless energy as opposed to inexperienced seventeen year olds. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (2.35)


The Convenor recognised the Father of the House, Mr David Bean. Mr. Bean commented upon the certain want of sensitivity. The Proposition has at times verged upon the slanderous with regard to the motives of older women wishing to undergo IVF treatment. As opposed to the negative view that selfish desires impel individuals to wait to have children, women actually wish to have children because it is something they care deeply about. Many women may actually have been trying to conceive before the age of forty-five and a greater degree of sensitivity is essential in a debate of this nature as opposed to making assertions with regard to the motivation of these women. In order to respect the right to choose and remain in accordance with basic humanity, we must side with the Opposition. (2.28)


The Convenor recognised the Treasurer, Mr. Chris Hawkins, who declared his desire to come up with a funny speech. As Treasurer, Mr. Hawkins commented upon his inclination to focus on money (a rather useful trait for this position) and he consequently implored the house to consider the greater number of presents that a child may get if their parents are older and financially secure. There is a current trend for individuals to marry later in life. The decision to have IVF over the age of 45 is a conscious choice and must be respected. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (2.18)


The Convenor recognised Ms. Diana Gott who commented that the age of forty-five was perhaps slightly too young to allow the Proposition to fully bring out the central issues, but this is not their fault. She commented on the nature of IVF and the fact that if a resource is limited, it should be made available to those who have the greatest chance of maximising its potential to be effective; in this case, the resource should be targeted at younger women initially. It is fundamental to consider the welfare of the child in any circumstance regarding treatments such as IVF. Although Ms. Gott maintained that the age of 45 was too young an age upon which to rest the proposal, she felt that it remains mandatory to consider younger women as a priority for IVF treatment. Therefore, she sided with the Proposition. (2.36)


The Convenor recognised the former Schools’ Secretary, Mr. Aaron Laycook. He informed the House that a key issue had been ignored; the dependency of older parents upon children. Should a child wish to go to University, their aged parents may struggle to assist them with paying tuition fees when they receive only a pension. Additionally, the child may be faced with an extra burden if they have to help take care of their parents whilst studying, creating a dual hardship. Therefore, he sided with the Proposition. (2.00)


The Convenor recognised the former Steward to the House, Mr. Rob Rollings. Mr. Rolling wished to comment upon the issues raised regarding single parent families. The reason why a family with two parents is considered ‘better’ is because it may be a more stable environment to grow up in and stability is a key factor in the quality of life of a child. While children in single parent families can also function equally well, in certain cases of Stepfamilies for example, a greater element of instability may exist, even though individuals can emerge from this family structure sometimes as equally stable as those from other family structures. However, it is highly evident that two caring parents who wish to have a child later in life can create a greatly beneficial home environment for a child. As we now have the biological and medical capacity to offer older parents this chance, coupled with increased life expectancy, there is no logical or moral reason not to do so. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (2.48)


The Convenor recognised the Championship Secretary, Miss Alex Jennings who informed the House that a child will never believe their parents understand them, no matter how old they are. The idea raised by the Opposition (albeit inadvertently) about it being beneficial for parents and their children to be in the same generation is empirically a bad idea; on a council estate somewhere, a 28 year old woman is a Grandmother after her 14 year old daughter had a child. Some people may wish to have children in their twenties, while others wish to wait; this choice must be respected. We have the technology to allow women to have children later in life and the Proposition have not presented any conclusive reasons why we should not use it. Delaying having children gives an individual more time to consider the consequences and to reflect on their suitability to do so, which can only be beneficial in such a life changing decision. Therefore, she sided with the Opposition. (2.43)

A division was called and votes were cast as follows; votes for the Proposition, 8, votes for the Opposition, 20, abstentions, 7. Therefore, the motion fell.

The Convenor then thanked the speakers for their contribution to an enjoyable evening and invited the chair judge, Mr. Jason Vit, to announce the result of the competition.

Mr. Vit thanked the speakers once again and commented on the unique pleasure of seeing the style of argumentation and analysis develop greatly in those who had participated in the debate. The debate had been thoroughly entertaining and informative when it could quite easily have been dull. Mr. Vit commented that he was both grateful and embarrassed to see the calibre of the speakers in the way that they debated this motion after seeing University debaters cope so appallingly with the same issues. After much deliberation and an arm-wrestle with Jenni Harrison, the conclusion had been reached that the winners of this evening’s debate are Mr. Netan Dogra and Mr. Kenny Nichol of Grove Academy. Mr Vit then invited the speakers to come forward for their ‘delightful certificates’ and requested applause from the House for the winners and an exceedingly good debate.

The Convenor then announced that the winner of the floor prize (which she hadn’t yet got around to buying) was Miss Alex Jennings.


The Inter’Varsity Secretary, Miss Connie Grieve, then announced that those wishing to try out for the World debating Championships should email her by tomorrow.


Finally, the Serjeant-at-Arms called the House to rise and led the singing of the Gaudeamus as it adjourned.

(Written by Beth Conner)
Jessica
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Return to Union Debating Society

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron