Those parents who adamantly insist that their children should NOT have access to birth control often think that contraceptives (I am including condoms here) do nothing more than contribute further to the decline of the moral fabric of society. In that respect, the argument is that contraceptives = endorsement of teenage promiscuity. It’s an interesting debate, to say the least, because from everything I have read on the subject, teach abstinence is largely ignored by teenagers. Personally, I think access to birth control should be supported. Just because you tell your children not to have sex before marriage doesn’t mean they will do so. Teenagers have sex, and they need not only education but also the tools to arm themselves against both pregnancy and disease. Forbidding these things, in my opinion, is much like sending a soldier into battle with a pillow. It might be nice to have out there, but it’s not really going to be very effective against an enemy. You might as well call it a “suicide mission.”
Even though people are divided over the issue, it’s fun to talk about it.
Another debate I have seen in the past focuses on the use of vaccinations to help prevent against human papillomavirus (HPV). Some people think that it should absolutely be administered to teenaged girls before they become sexually active, in order to protect them from contracting the virus. Other believe that the vaccination should not exist at all, for similar reasons provided when discussing the prevention of teenage sex and pregnancy. I remember I read a blog by a truly detestable person on the subject last year sometime, and I was absolutely stunned and horrified when he argued that children should be abstinent, and if they can’t do that, then they should have to deal with the consequences of their actions. I can’t quote the blogger, because he is no longer on here, but he argued that teenagers (particularly girls, since they are the ones who might receive the vaccination) are slutty little whores, and if they have sex before marriage, it is a fitting punishment for their amoral behavior. I think that the drugs currently on the market, including Gardasil and Cervarix, should be further tested to ensure the safety of the drug, first, but once it has undergone extensive study and modification, it should absolutely be administed. I would even go so far as to say that it should be requires much like vaccinations for measles, mumps, and rubella are. We are dealing with the lives of children, after all.
One thing that stands out about that blog, in my mind, was that the blogger seems to ignore the possibility that a girl might practice abstinence, avoiding all forms of sexual conduct completely, and then contract HPV on her wedding night. He never addressed that possibility.
For me, the scenario I gave about a chaste, virginal bride who contracts the virus, is the reason I absolutely support the administration of the vaccination. Are such girls in the gross minority at this point, with most teenagers throwing all caution to the wind? Probably. Nonetheless, I think that this something that should be implemented universally. The analogy that comes to mind is that of those currently on death row who have strong supporters outside the prison who insist that the possibility that one innocent person being executed is worth a universal moratorium on all executions.
Does that make sense?
And in the midst of all this, there is the debate about those teenagers who do have sex, fail to use protection, and get pregnant. Nobody relishes the consequences of such pregnancies. Kids aren’t able to be kids. They are not financially secure and often rely on governmental assistance, which burdens us all. They lack maturity. I could go on and on.
If you are still with me, thanks!
Now, with all this in mind–contraception, vaccinations, and unwanted pregnancy, I have been thinking of something for a while now. What would happen if parents are given the option at the birth of a child to opt for some procedure, or the administration of some longterm contraception, that would last until a child reaches the age of 18 or 21? Assume, if you will, that the procedure or drug has absolutely no negative side effects at all. Taking it one step farther, how would society benefit if the contraception does not automatically expire? What if those who underwent the procedure had to pay money, let’s say $2500, in order to reverse the procedure of negate the contraceptive drug?
Would you opt for the procedure or drug at the birth of your child?
I believe that it is not unconstitutional to sterilize the mentally retarded, if Buck v. Bell is still good law. In that case, the United States Supreme Court upheld compulsory sterilization in such caes “for the protection and health of the state.”
But you CAN’T adopt a statute mandating the compulsory sterilization of convicted criminals if the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, i.e., you can’t just sterilize those convicted of a sex crime. If you are going to do it, it must be an option for ALL inmates, even those who committed “white collar” crimes. That case was Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). I am not sure if that case is still good law, though.
So, it’s not illegal to sterilize a mentally retarded person, under the rational that that person might lack the mental capacity to care for a child. Wouldn’t the same be true for teenagers? Moreover, since the rate of teenage pregnancy suggests that many won’t take steps to avoid unwanted pregnancy, would it be so very wrong to allow the parents of every newborn to eliminate that possibility from the moment of birth?
What would the ethical problems be if parents COULD make that choice for a minor child? Or is it something that most children would probably never challenge such laws, because they don’t WANT to get pregnant at that point in their lives? If a teenager DID attempt to challenge the law, would the court have no choice but to allow that child to have the procedure reversed to protect that childn’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” I can’t think of very many children who could successfully argue that they should be able to conceive at 14 years of age but, you know, it could happen.
More than likely, opponents would condemn any procedure or “vaccination” as the continuation of the moral decay of society. You know that argument would be a main point in the debate. I would expect nothing less.
To my knowledge, infant sterilization (temporary) has never been addressed, but if it were what would you do? Would you absolutely oppose it, or would you opt in with a quickness to ensure that your teenage would not have a child too soon? If you would opt for the procedure or contraceptive drug, would you make it automatically reversible at the age of majority, or would you want people to provide some financial evidence in the form of a reversal fee in order to eliminate that barrier to contraception?
No clue why this has been on my mind lately, but there it is. What are your thoughts?
Leave a Comment