rwp@hogpc.UUCP (R.PAUL) (04/06/84)
[]
David Pugh:
Given a safe, effective, and long duration (1 year?) birth
control drug, why not make its use semi-mandatory for children
attending public high school? I say 'semi-mandatory' because I
think it is reasonable for a person to be excused for religious
beliefs, or other valid reasons. The idea, of course, is to make
the use of effective birth control the norm (rather than the
exception, as it seems to be now).
Since posting his original article, several arguments against this
proposal have appeared and David Pugh has posted his rebuttals to
those arguments. I won't take any position as to the truths and
fallacies of the arguments and rebuttals, but I would like to bring
up one point that, as yet, hasn't been mentioned.
That point is that this drug would be given to all high schoolers
(except those with a good excuse, of course) regardless of whether
or not they would be having sex before their eighteenth birthday.
Does anyone out there have figures to indicate the percentages
involved here? I would guess (naive me?) that the majority of high
school students (let me define "high school" here as from fertility
to graduation) have not had sex. If that is indeed the case, and
I admit it is possible I may be naive since I don't have any figures,
how can anyone justify giving this "wonder drug" to a large number
of people (YES, HIGH SCHOOLERS ARE PEOPLE, TOO!) for whom it cannot
possibly do any good. I know that I don't like to take any drugs,
even aspirin, unless I feel confident that I need them.
Of course, you could always change the proposal to say that any
high schoolers who wished to have sex had to take the drug, but
how many would admit to that who would not have used the presently
available birth control methods? Very few, I would venture.
In closing, I think the proposal was pretty stupid, not to mention
dehumanizing to those it would effect. If the author had not public-
ly replied to the arguments against, indicating his seriousness, I
would not have even thought it worth debating.
Rick Paul
AT&T Information Systems Laboratories
Lincroft, New Jersey
ihnp4!hogpc!rwpken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/07/84)
--
The vote on this one seems to be "stupid and dehumanizing".
But I think that speaks to the presentation, not the argument.
Most school districts *REQUIRE* students to be vaccinated
against a plethora of icky diseases. No one considers this
either dumb or degrading. When you got your polio shots,
did you think, "Those bastards don't think I'm smart enough to
avoid the plague!"? No, you winced and hoped it wouldn't hurt too
much. Even at a young age you knew that accidents happen, and
getting polio can leave you scarred for life. You never considered
that rather unpleasant experience a violation of your right to
contract polio, nor a de facto admission that you would otherwise
certainly get it. Indeed, childhood pregnancy is probably as
frightening and painful as polio. The only difference is in the
epidemiology.
The news in Chicago yesterday: A 6-lb. baby was just born to a
*TEN YEAR OLD* girl.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 06 Apr 84 [17 Germinal An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/15/84)
David Pugh:
Given a safe, effective, and long duration (1 year?) birth
control drug, why not make its use semi-mandatory for children
attending public high school? I say 'semi-mandatory' because I
think it is reasonable for a person to be excused for religious
beliefs, or other valid reasons. The idea, of course, is to make
the use of effective birth control the norm (rather than the
exception, as it seems to be now).
Great, just great. I love these proposals which have no foundation
whatsoever in reality. Exactly which "safe, effective, and long-
duration" birth control method do you have in mind? The only one I
know of which qualifies as such is abstinence and we all know what
the enforcement of this one has done on teenagers...
Seriously, why must we always resort to such sweeping generalised
band-aid methods. Don't you think that teenagers have any brains
to decide for themselves whether to have sex or not and whether to
have birth-control or not? The advantages of birth control vs no
birth control are obvious and I don't think that any teenager in
his/her right mind would say that it is wiser not to use any form
of birth control. It still remains true that many don't.
Given this the most sensible things we could do is to first find out
why some do not use birth-control and try to change those reasons.
My guesses is that the reasons are very simple:
1- cost. Solution: make birth-control free (cheeper than massive
enforcement of birth control being proposed above)
2- fear of being discovered by parents. Solution: remove "squeal"
laws and emphasise confidentiality in birth-control matters.
3- ignorance. Solution: educate all teeenagers on the matters of
reproduction and birth control.
4- attitudes: non-assertiveness from the part of the women, carelessness
from the part of the men (usually).
This is probably the hardest since there are many people (not just
teenagers) who know about birth control and can afford it and are
not afraid of being discovered by their parents, but who are still
shy about these matters. The solution of course is for adults
to help them develop a sense of responsability both towards others
and towards themselves. This of course is a life-long process and
implies that adults and society as a whole must provide a role-model
of responsability for these people. I am afraid that this is
probably too big a sacrifice to make and this is why it is much
easier to blame the kids for not being responsible and force some
birth-control on them since they are nit-wits rather than reassess
our own attitudes on the matter.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley