Is Mandatory Contraception the Solution to Teen Pregnancy?

[russ_watters]

I wasn't sure were to put this, but I'm interested in the ethical ramifications, so I figured philosophy might be the right place...

Teen pregnancy is one of the larger social problems facing the US and to a lesser extent most of the rest of the western world. It creates poverty by preventing the parents from getting an education and good jobs and making it difficult to raise the kids...and that then makes it cyclical. I'm not a parent yet, but I can imagine the #1 fear of a parent of a teenager has to be that they will get someone/become pregnant.

So my question is: As a parent, why not have your child be given an implantable contraceptive such as Norplant? It's good for 5 years and it protects against one of the biggest life-ruining events that a parent otherwise has little control over preventing.

I have heard from female friends that the issue of giving birth control to teenage daughters is highly contentious. A girl wouldn't ask for it unless she is/wants to be sexually active (though I know there is a hormonal benefit as well). So this puts the daughter and the mother both into an awkward situation and makes it more difficult to make rational decisions on the issue. Basically, I've heard of mothers saying, in effect "no, you're not going to get birth control pills because you aren't going to have sex".

So since there exists an implant with a 5 year lifespan, you could give it to a girl at age 13 or 14, depending on the girl, with the reasonable assumption that she's probably not having sex now, but probably will sometime in the next 5 years (and after that 5 years, she'll be an adult and can get it herself). That way, we can eliminate the uncomfortable conversation and the risks associated with waiting.

Opinions?

 

[Evo]

I think that is an excellent suggestion. There is no reason why a teenage girl would need to get pregnant and every reason to want to prevent accidental pregnancy.

Of course you'll have parents that wish to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that their children do not have sex.

I was lucky, both of my girls came to me when they decided to become sexually active and asked for birth control, which I was more than happy to ok with their doctor.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't think the head in the sand is as much of an issue for social conservatives as "if I give them birth control, I'm giving them permission."

 

[Evo]

I don't think the head in the sand is as much of an issue for social conservatives as "if I give them birth control, I'm giving them permission."

Yeah, that's so stupid.

Good example. A girl my daughter knew from school. Nice, wealthy family, their kids could do no wrong. My daughter and her friends mostly avoided that girl, not too bright, did drugs, and went after bad boy types.

After 2 unsuccesfful suicide attempts (ages 14 & 15) ansd stays in mental hospitals. It was her third suicide attempt where she jumped out of her 2nd floor bedroom window and broke her leg that they discovered at the hospital that she was pregnant, on top of being mentally ill and and on drugs. Her parents were always in denial. What does it take?

 

[magpies]

Or really smart. One or the other.

 

[Kerrie]

Contraception such as Norplant doesn't prevent disease. This can ruin a person's life just as much as an unplanned pregnancy. Also, I have known several women to actually get pregnant on Norplant more than any other female contraception. The one thing with birth control is, one type doesn't serve all. As a parent of a 13 year old daughter, I feel I have the obligation to preach abstinence before granting my blessing on birth control. I don't deny she will become sexually active in the near future, and am prepared to get her contraception when that time comes.

And what about the teenage boys? It seems that our society is focused on protecting our daughters, but what about our sons? They can get caught up in the teenage pregnancy trap too, often becoming disconnected with a child when they are children themselves, and this guilt is carried with them for life. I feel it's important to have the same open communication with them as our daughters.

 

[JoeDawg]

Opinions?

Sounds borderline fascist to me.

And you'd never be able to implement it. People get very upset about anything that has to do with procreative rights... the Catholic church would be against it because its unnatural, social conservatives who think it gives children license to have sex would be against it (they'd rather their daughters get cervical cancer than admit they might have sex), and people with libertarian inclinations would oppose it too... as you're basically taking away the 'right to procreate' from people, and putting it in the hands of government. Who determines how old is old enough? Is it 18,19, 21? Sounds like a can of worms.

Also, it doesn't address the more serious problem of disease.

 

[russ_watters]

Contraception such as Norplant doesn't prevent disease. This can ruin a person's life just as much as an unplanned pregnancy. Also, I have known several women to actually get pregnant on Norplant more than any other female contraception. The one thing with birth control is, one type doesn't serve all. As a parent of a 13 year old daughter, I feel I have the obligation to preach abstinence before granting my blessing on birth control. I don't deny she will become sexually active in the near future, and am prepared to get her contraception when that time comes.

I certainly understand it has limitations and admire your openness about discussing the issue with your daughter, but how will you know "when that time comes"? That's the primary problem I'm trying to address.

And what about the teenage boys? It seems that our society is focused on protecting our daughters, but what about our sons? They can get caught up in the teenage pregnancy trap too...

If such a thing existed for boys, I'd certainly be in favor of it.

 

[Galteeth]

There's also the question of the side effects of the implant.

 

[Galteeth]

I wasn't sure were to put this, but I'm interested in the ethical ramifications, so I figured philosophy might be the right place...

Teen pregnancy is one of the larger social problems facing the US and to a lesser extent most of the rest of the western world. It creates poverty by preventing the parents from getting an education and good jobs and making it difficult to raise the kids...and that then makes it cyclical. I'm not a parent yet, but I can imagine the #1 fear of a parent of a teenager has to be that they will get someone/become pregnant.

So my question is: As a parent, why not have your child be given an implantable contraceptive such as Norplant? It's good for 5 years and it protects against one of the biggest life-ruining events that a parent otherwise has little control over preventing.

I have heard from female friends that the issue of giving birth control to teenage daughters is highly contentious. A girl wouldn't ask for it unless she is/wants to be sexually active (though I know there is a hormonal benefit as well). So this puts the daughter and the mother both into an awkward situation and makes it more difficult to make rational decisions on the issue. Basically, I've heard of mothers saying, in effect "no, you're not going to get birth control pills because you aren't going to have sex".

So since there exists an implant with a 5 year lifespan, you could give it to a girl at age 13 or 14, depending on the girl, with the reasonable assumption that she's probably not having sex now, but probably will sometime in the next 5 years (and after that 5 years, she'll be an adult and can get it herself). That way, we can eliminate the uncomfortable conversation and the risks associated with waiting.

Opinions?

"Mandatory" seems to imply no right to refuse.

 

[Char. Limit]

While it's somwhat of a restriction of rights, I'd support this. Remember that teenagers (at whom this idea would be aimed) already have their rights vastly restricted. What's one more going to hurt?

So, in short, rights aren't an issue here.

 

[JoeDawg]

So, in short, rights aren't an issue here.

LOL, maybe not your rights, but it certainly is a rights issue.

Forcing perfectly healthy children to injest a drug is a rights issue, both for the child and the parents.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

LOL, maybe not your rights, but it certainly is a rights issue.

Forcing perfectly healthy children to injest a drug is a rights issue, both for the child and the parents.

Nobody said anything about a government mandate. The question was directed at parents.

 

[Pengwuino]

Forcing perfectly healthy children to injest a drug is a rights issue, both for the child and the parents.

I'm pretty sure vaccinations have had the final word on the issue of forcing healthy children to use a drug of some sort.

 

[madness]

Sounds great. Then we can move on to disabled people and the mentally ill. And how about old people? Old people having babies is even worse than teenagers.

 

[JoeDawg]

I'm pretty sure vaccinations have had the final word on the issue of forcing healthy children to use a drug of some sort.

Which equates a pregnancy with contracting a deadly disease... I'm thinking some would object... quite a few actually.

 

[JoeDawg]

Nobody said anything about a government mandate. The question was directed at parents.

Still a rights issue.

 

[Char. Limit]

Still a rights issue.

Except for the fact that there is still precedent for requiring that children take certain drugs, even if they're perfectly healthy. It doesn't matter if they're for a deadly disease or not, vaccinations still set a precedent.

 

[Evo]

I believe that parents have the decision making abilities for children under 18.

I agree "mandatory" won't fly, but education aimed at parents is the first place to start.

 

[Char. Limit]

I believe that parents have the decision making abilities for children under 18.

Yes, they do. I'm under 18, so I know. That's where "in loco parentis" comes from.

 

[Evo]

Yes, they do. I'm under 18, so I know. That's where "in loco parentis" comes from.

Not all parents are capable of making good decisions.

 

[DanP]

Bad idea. You force contraceptives on girls. Then what ? You force testosterone inhibitors on young man ? Or put retard release drugs which act on brain chemistry in all children to keep them obedient ?

It's a woman's right to do with her body as she see fit. Not her parents. Nor the society in general, or the state.

 

[Char. Limit]

Bad idea. You force contraceptives on girls. Then what ? You force testosterone inhibitors on young man ? Or put retard release drugs which act on brain chemistry in all children to keep them obedient ?

It's a woman's right to do with her body as she see fit. Not her parents. Nor the society in general, or the state.

Actually, until the woman is 18, she's just a girl, a minor, and her parents really do have all of her rights.

 

[DanP]

Actually, until the woman is 18, she's just a girl, a minor, and her parents really do have all of her rights.

Actually, no, they DO NOT have all her rights.

 

[haael]

Teen pregnancy is one of the larger social problems facing the US and to a lesser extent most of the rest of the western world. It creates poverty by preventing the parents from getting an education and good jobs and making it difficult to raise the kids...and that then makes it cyclical.

If you say that teenagers pregnancy causes poverty, you must ask whether implanting such a thing nation-wide (order of magnitude of millions of girls) causes even more poverty due to costs.

It's better for people to be free and responsible, than to take freedom and responsibility from them.

I'm catholic and also libertarian.

In Poland there is no such problem with teenagers pregnancy. Maybe you should implement our laws, rather than test new ideas on humans?

 

[magpies]

I'd like to point out that a right is only a right as long as your willing to fight for it.

 

[zomgwtf]

Actually, until the woman is 18, she's just a girl, a minor, and her parents really do have all of her rights.

This is wrong.

I don't think the idea of mandatory birth control is good at all. I believe it gives up too many rights of the child for too "little" benefit. I know that sounds weird but the fact is that the vast majority of teenage girls do not get pregnant. Yet they'd have to give up the same rights as those that 'may' have gotten pregnant.

I firmly believe that condoms are the best practical way to protect against both sex and STDs. I mean you use birth control or whatever have you, you can still contract a disease, very easily. If you use a condom properly you are protecting against both, at the same time! Go figure! However we can not implant a condom on our young boys... I sure hope no one tries this at least.


To address the main issue of teen pregnancy, I believe it's not about mandatory contraception. I believe it's about properly educating EVERYONE about sex and pregnancy etc.. I think my school system did a very poor job of educating specifically myself about sex and pregnancy. So I assume since it did a poor job educating myself, it also did a poor job educating others. If this is the way sex-ed is run in most other school systems then it doesn't surprise me at all that teens are out there getting pregnant! The first people that should educate the children are the PARENTS, however my parents never really talked to me about sex or pregnancy. I knew that I didn't want to have a baby just because I was brought up by my grandparents with no father since my mother had me when she was 15 and I knew my entire life I couldn't allow that to happen to my own child. Others however don't grow up with these circumstances that allow them to realize things on their own. That's where education comes into play.

The only part of my school systems sex-ed class that I would say was good was showing us pictures of the various 'organs' after contracting a disease. Trust me, if you see that picture and you love your penis, you would probably right there and then decide that you will only EVER have sex with a condom. I know I did. Other than that though it failed horribly, it never really got the message across that sex can lead to pregnancy and the issues that come with a pregnancy. If it didn't get the point across well enough to me (I would consider myself relatively smart) then I highly doubt it got the point across to those that actually needed that help.

I think a main problem happens to be religions. The school systems in my opinion are 'afraid' to bring things too far to offend the various people (living in a multicultural society like Canada this is quite hard to do actually, you'd be surprised). It does start quite early, I started learning about 'sex-ed' in grade 5, but by that time I already knew everything... and more than what they taught, just from living in this society. (they just teach you about puberty and the penis/vagina etc.) In I believe grade 8 they take it further and teach you how to put a condom on a wooden penis. It turns into a real festival and big joke though, nothing serious comes out of it. Grade 9 gym you go really deep into STDs and maybe see a few issues with teen pregnancy. Being an all male gym class though the only thing we cared about was not getting those nasty diseases all over our penis's.

During this process the point was never really driven home about pregnancy and having sex.

The Ontario government recently tried to pass legislation that would begin sex-ed at grade 1. I was all for the idea, however MANY people were against it. It's like they just want to pretend that their children will never have sex so they will never need the knowledge to protect themselves. This issue as far as I understand doesn't exist in Europe. It's mainly a Canadian/western problem in that we have made a voodoo of sex and nudity.

The LAST issue in my mind is the age of consent. In Canada the age of consent was 14, however a person over 12 but under 14 may have sex with a person within 2 years of their age. This got changed in 2008 to 16. They also made it a person over 14 but under 16 (I think) may have sex with a person within 5 years their age. This is much more appropriate to prevent rape or unwanted approaches on our youth by elder pedophiles but I do not think if our youth are properly educated they should be told it's ok to have sex amongst themselves.

Sex in my mind is a privelge and it must be earned, not through buying that pretty lady things but through education.

In short I agree fully that teen pregnancy is a real issue in our societies today and it does breed more and more poverty (on average). I disagree, though, that mandatory contraception is the answer. I don't think it's come to that just yet. In my opinion we should focus on education of our youth and of the future/current parents to MAKE SURE they drive the point home in their children. Not in a DON'T YOU DARE HAVE SEX way but in an informing way. We don't want to try to indoctrinate them but we do want to educate them such that any reasonable person could see that proper use of protection is necessary to engage in sex.

Sorry for the long post, I had a lot to say. I just noticed I also had quoted Char Limits post, this isn't all directed at him, just the beginning.

 

[DanP]

Sex in my mind is a privelge and it must be earned, not through buying that pretty lady things but through education.

How is sex a privilege ? Reproduction is a natural right.

 

[zomgwtf]

If you say that teenagers pregnancy causes poverty, you must ask whether implanting such a thing nation-wide (order of magnitude of millions of girls) causes even more poverty due to costs.

This is a good point, implementing such a mandatory contraception would more than likely only be for those that could afford it. So it wouldn't even be protecting those that are most prone, heavily effected and potentially creating more poverty from teen-pregnancy. Unless of course the government decided to step in and take charge, but that's going EVEN further than the OP and giving the persons rights to the government. Very not good!

It's better for people to be free and responsible, than to take freedom and responsibility from them.

Agree completely. Especially about the responsibility part.

In Poland there is no such problem with teenagers pregnancy. Maybe you should implement our laws, rather than test new ideas on humans?

And my friends from Italy, Czech Republic, France, Switzerland and the list goes on all claim that teen-pregnancies are not as often. While I admit I come from Canada where in 2007 based on a study which I'll have to dig up there were only 12 per 1000 teen-pregnancies which is comparable to European nations, I'm still concerned about this having been a child born to a teen.

For those numbers the amount in USA is 44 per 1000 teens (teen is classified as 15-19). For comparison the amount in Iraq is 42 and Rwanada was 45. I think the most amount was 200 something from Niger. I have to dig up this report, I have notes on it from school but I forgot the name of the freaking organization that published it.

 

[zomgwtf]

How is sex a privilege ? Reproduction is a natural right.

Sex isn't the same as repoducing. Reproducing is having sex with the intent of procreating. Humans are lucky to be one of few animals that can have sex for sheer pleasure. This isn't a right, it's privelge which must be earned through proper education. I think my post clearly illustrates that I'm not against people having the right to reproduce only that they should it's our job to make sure they are properly educated and to make sure that they can differenciate, unlike you just did, between reproducing and just having sex for pleasure.

 

[haael]

I'm still concerned about this having been a child born to a teen.

I have also been born by a teen (my mom was 17). However, when I was born, Poland was still communist. Today the stats are better, thanks to education.

Also, you must know that in non-developed countries procreation is not the thing that causes poverty, but it prevents poverty. People have children to have them work. Sad but true. So I wouldn't compare USA and Iraq so carelessly. Reasons are different.

 

[DanP]

Sex isn't the same as repoducing. Reproducing is having sex with the intent of procreating. Humans are lucky to be one of few animals that can have sex for sheer pleasure. This isn't a right, it's privelge which must be earned through proper education.

Ok, so if I make sex with the intention to procreate I don't have to earn the right ?

 

[zomgwtf]

Ok, so if I make sex with the intention to procreate I don't have to earn the right ?

That's where the education part kicks in. No you do not need to 'earn the right' to reproduce but I'm hopefull that proper education will prevent younger people from making this decision. The reason education plays a part in sex being a privlege is because most teens do not have sex with intentions to procreate. They are merely having fun etc. this in my opinion is a privlege that should be earned.

I think you're trying to go towards a 'people can just lie' scenario though. This doesn't refute my statement because it has to do with intent right? So if you can honestly say that you want to reproduce then go for it, again I hope that proper education I spoke of earlier would make you choose to do this at an appropriate time in your life, but I'm not going to tell you that you have to earn that right. That'd be bogus on my part.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense to you.

 

[zomgwtf]

I have also been born by a teen (my mom was 17). However, when I was born, Poland was still communist. Today the stats are better, thanks to education.

Also, you must know that in non-developed countries procreation is not the thing that causes poverty, but it prevents poverty. People have children to have them work. Sad but true. So I wouldn't compare USA and Iraq so carelessly. Reasons are different.

This is true but I wasn't making the comparison on the basis of perpetual poverty. I was just citing the numbers so that it would maybe put it into clear view how big of a problem this really is.

I agree that the situation in Iraq is different from America but I assume that people understand that in Iraq or Cambodia etc. that the people there have 'lots' of children at young ages. My comparison just shows that America is having the same amount of children born to youth. I didn't intend for it to attempt to show that poverty is the result, sorry for the confusion.

EDIT: Here's the report I was talking about earlier. I had taken some notes for an essay before but lost the citation. It is found though! . It's not that big around 600kb.

http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Measure_of_Survival/mos.pdf

 

[DanP]

That's where the education part kicks in. No you do not need to 'earn the right' to reproduce but I'm hopefull that proper education will prevent younger people from making this decision.

So in fact it doesn't have anything to do with the fact it's a right or a privilege, but with your vision that young adults should not reproduce. When in fact it is not your decision to take. It's theirs. Educated or not.