Originally Posted by duncan_idaho
It's all well and good to debate parents "knowing" about the sexual activities of their children. And in most cases, it's smart practice.
But I think what often gets overlooked when discussing a parent's right to know if his or her 15 year old is sexually active is what happens to the child if the parent refuses to allow access to birth control or emergency contraception.
Point of order: I'm not condoning sexual activities from young teens, but anyone with the ability to use logic understands that abstinence is not going to work, and at some point most children will have sex in their teens. It's a biological thing.
What happens to the 15-year-old whose mom and dad are Catholic and don't believe in using birth control? (or don't believe in birth control for any reason, even if it's just trying to promote abstinence for their kid)
That child doesn't have access to birth control. That child certainly wouldn't have access to emergency contraception if her parents were required to sign off on it.
That doesn't sit right with me.
Emergency contraception serves a critical need and prevents unwanted pregnancy. Its effect is really no different than taking birth control on an ongoing basis. It does the same thing - prevent implantation.
Abuse of emergency contraception exists, but it is less rampant than opponents insist.
Yes, young teens having sex is less than ideal. But we all know it's going to happen. I don't think it's fair or right to leave it entirely up to the parents whether their child has birth control access or not.
Why do you think you need to meddle with that parent/child relationship and fix it? Why not let those families decide how best to mitigate risk and deal with consequences?
"Well, it is one thing for Bill Clinton to say, I feel your pain. It is another thing for Barack Obama to say I feel your pain that I have caused." - George Will