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?