Is Mandatory Contraception the Solution to Teen Pregnancy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the controversial proposal of mandatory contraception, specifically the use of Norplant, to prevent teen pregnancies in the U.S. Participants express strong opinions on the ethical implications, parental rights, and societal responsibilities surrounding this issue. While some argue that such measures could alleviate the cycle of poverty associated with teen pregnancies, others raise concerns about individual rights, the effectiveness of contraception, and the potential for societal backlash. The conversation highlights the complexity of addressing teen pregnancy through legislative or parental mandates.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Norplant and its implications as a contraceptive method.
  • Knowledge of the social and economic impacts of teen pregnancy.
  • Familiarity with ethical considerations in reproductive rights.
  • Awareness of parental rights and responsibilities regarding minors' health decisions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effectiveness and side effects of Norplant as a contraceptive.
  • Examine case studies on the impact of teen pregnancy on socioeconomic status.
  • Explore ethical frameworks surrounding reproductive rights and parental consent.
  • Investigate alternative approaches to sex education and contraception access for teens.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for parents, educators, policymakers, and healthcare professionals involved in adolescent health, sexual education, and family planning initiatives.

  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
zomgwtf said:
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 ?
 
  • #33
DanP said:
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.
 
  • #34
haael said:
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! :-p. It's not that big around 600kb.

http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Measure_of_Survival/mos.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
zomgwtf said:
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.
 
  • #36
DanP said:
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.

:smile: How'd you draw that conclusion again, lay it out for me. Please.
 
  • #37
zomgwtf said:
:smile: How'd you draw that conclusion again, lay it out for me. Please.

By outlining your hopes that "proper education" will prevent young ppl from making the decision to reproduce.
 
  • #38
DanP said:
By outlining your hopes that "proper education" will prevent young ppl from making the decision to reproduce.

I don't see how your conclusion follows or what point you are trying to prove. You shifted goalpost on me and I'm not certain where you want me to jump next.

However it appears your attempting to put words and statements I never made nor intended to make into my mouth so that's where this discussion between me and you ends. Until of course you draw out exactly how you concluded that:

When in fact it is not your decision to take. It's theirs. Educated or not.
 
  • #39
zomgwtf said:
I don't see how your conclusion follows or what point you are trying to prove. You shifted goalpost on me and I'm not certain where you want me to jump next.

Maybe clarify your statements. The conclusion follows from this:

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.

You state clearly that you hope that what you think is "proper education" will prevent young adults from taking the decision to reproduce.
 
  • #40
DanP said:
You state clearly that you hope that what you think is "proper education" will prevent young adults from taking the decision to reproduce.

From which you conclude that I am making decisions for them? You make detective!
 
  • #41
zomgwtf said:
From which you conclude that I am making decisions for them? You make detective!

Lets be serious, you can't make any decision for them. We both know that. You can only try and make public the policy in which you seem to believe, that young adults should not reproduce. And yeah, screwing around is not a privilege. It comes naturally.
 
  • #42
DanP said:
Lets be serious, you can't make any decision for them. We both know that. You can only try and make public the policy in which you seem to believe, that young adults should not reproduce. And yeah, screwing around is not a privilege. It comes naturally.

So instead of answering how you concluded that I am making decisions for people you go ahead and say 'you can't make any decision for them'? Well ok then. I'll take that for you concede to me you were originally wrong about what you said about my statement. Good day sir.
 
  • #43
zomgwtf said:
So instead of answering how you concluded that I am making decisions for people you go ahead and say 'you can't make any decision for them'?

Your whole point is wrong. You are by default in a position where it is impossible for you to make any decisions for said teenagers. I merely reminded you that.
 
  • #44
DanP said:
Your whole point is wrong. You are by default in a position where it is impossible for you to make any decisions for said teenagers. I merely reminded you that.

So I'll merely remind you that this is the third time I'm asking for you to draw out how you have concluded I am attempting to make or proposing that decisions be made by myself or any other individual other than those actualy making the decision.

I've asked you plenty of times and instead of answering you are asserting that's my position, even though I have stated multiple times it's not my position and I want a reason why you continue to say it. Again, do not put words/statements into my mouth.

In fact all that has gone on the last few posts is me asking you to explain how you concluded that followed by you posting that it is in fact my position and then you try to refute that I shouldn't be in that position as though you're actually arguing against what I had posted. In reality what you've continued to post has little to nothing to what I'm asking you and is just your feeble attempt at asserting I said something that I never did.
 
  • #45
zomgwtf said:
In fact all that has gone on the last few posts is me asking you to explain how you concluded that followed by you posting that it is in fact my position and then you try to refute that I shouldn't be in that position as though you're actually arguing against what I had posted. In reality what you've continued to post has little to nothing to what I'm asking you and is just your feeble attempt at asserting I said something that I never did.

Because you ask the wrong question time and again.
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking said:
Nobody said anything about a government mandate. The question was directed at parents.
He probably saw the title and assumed something different than what I described in the OP. At some point, I actually wanted to expand the discussion to that, but probably should have worded the title differently to avoid confustion. He just jumped ahead of me, that's all...

...don't have time for this right now, though. But in short, I don't see the issue too much differently than mandatory innoculation.
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
I don't see the issue too much differently than mandatory innoculation.

On women only ? Why not force all males to go through reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance or similar procedures ?
 
  • #48
DanP said:
On women only ? Why not force all males to go through reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance or similar procedures ?

Because I don't think we know how to do a reversible, yet complete, inhibition of sperm.
 
  • #49
Char. Limit said:
Because I don't think we know how to do a reversible, yet complete, inhibition of sperm.

Give it a few years. But the point is, you can't mandatory inject women with anti-fertility drugs, and let man roam free. Besides the fact that creating infertility in a human being, even temporary, against it's will is a violation of the most elementary rights, targeting only women is sexual discrimination.
 
  • #50
...if I had a nickel for every time I heard the words "sexual discrimination", used in an argument, I'd go buy Tahiti.

However, that's not a valid counterargument. So I'll just say that it's not really sexual discrimination to follow the path of least resistance that guarantees the desired effect.
 
  • #51
Char. Limit said:
...if I had a nickel for every time I heard the words "sexual discrimination", used in an argument, I'd go buy Tahiti.

However, you did not bought Tahiti. The lawyers winning sexual discrimination cases did :devil:
 
  • #52
Char. Limit said:
Except for the fact that there is still precedent for requiring that...

Pregnancy is not a disease, so your vaccination 'precedent' doesn't apply.
 
  • #53
JoeDawg said:
Pregnancy is not a disease, so your vaccination 'precedent' doesn't apply.

try reading the rest of the post, where I say that even though pregnancy isn't a disease, vaccination is still a precedent; especially considering that pregnancy can cause diseases, especially if the pregnant one is too young.
 
  • #54
DanP said:
On women only ? Why not force all males to go through reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance or similar procedures ?
I did say on the first page that if a good male equivalent existed, I would support it.
 
  • #55
One does it's called a tool shed and an axe.
 
  • #56
magpies said:
One does it's called a tool shed and an axe.

It has to be nonpermanent... and not something that every male would rather commit suicide than have happen to them.
 
  • #57
magpies said:
One does it's called a tool shed and an axe.

It's got to be reversible!
 
  • #58
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.

It's not going to work. And here's why.

In the U.S., teen pregnancy is primarily a problem in religious societies, particularly among Catholics. Normal people like you and I allow and approve of sex-ed, condoms, abortion in the first trimester if it comes to that. Religious zealots do not approve of any of it. Their standard answer is "abstinence till marriage". And, of course, it fails. It fails so bad that teen pregnancy rates among latina girls (for the most part, raised in zealous Catholic households) can be literally TEN TIMES higher than those of godless white residents of Silicon Valley.

You can have the best available kinds of contraception in the world, and they won't help if the only thing that the teen's parents would accept is abstinence till marriage.
 
  • #59
Just tell the morons that they will grow back in a few years they will probably buy it.
 
  • #60
magpies said:
Just tell the morons that they will grow back in a few years they will probably buy it.

Thanks, just thanks. I happen to be one of those "morons", and I definitely didn't buy even the implication.
 

Similar threads

Fiance's parent's retirement (need advice)
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Share about Our Moms This Mother's Day Weekend
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Why are parents putting so much pressure on their kids?
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
10K
From todays Daily Telegraph in the UK
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
One of the more disturbing crimes
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
Teen Pregnacy, Sex, Abortion, Statistics
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
14K
Bringing Back the Woolly Mammoth - A $10 Million Dollar Endeavor
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Who Is George Jones in the Meet a Mentor Series?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
What types of illness would be allowed on a generation ship and why?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K