Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sb1!mb2c!uofm-cv!rlp
From: rlp@uofm-cv.UUCP (R. L. Phillips)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Second round: Semi-mandatory birth-control
Message-ID: <544@uofm-cv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 22:46:24 EST
Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.544
Posted: Thu Apr  5 22:46:24 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 05:31:02 EST
Lines: 73

<>

   I've had several flames on my idea of semi-mandatory birth-
control, and I thought I'd summarize the arguments against it,
and well as my rebuttals (if you feel I've misquoted you, please
flame).

My proposal:

      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).


Arguments against it [and my reply]:

  1 --	Students need to learn to take responsibility for their
	actions, if they will become responsible adults. Enforced
	birth-control allows them to duck this responsibility.

       [I agree that students should learn to be responsible for
	their actions. The sad fact is that, at least as far as
	sex is concerned, they are NOT acting responsible. The
	use of enforced birth control won't change this, but it
	WILL reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which is
	the proposal's purpose.

	A similar argument is that state supported birth-control
	would encourage sexual activity, and is, therefore a bad
	idea. I feel, however, that the risks are FAR outweighed
	by the benefits or wider use of birth control.]

  2 --	Some students want to raise a family, and this proposal
	eliminates that option.

       [No, it won't. I said that a person could be excused for
	'religious or other valid reasons.' The desire to raise a
	family seems to be a pretty valid reason. The purpose of
	the program is NOT to prevent ALL pregnancies...just the
	unwanted ones.]

  3 --	Some high-school students are adults. Enforcing birth-control
	on adults could lead to similar programs for food stamp/
	welfare recipients.

       [You may be right, but the law could be changed so that
	you don't need to even give a reason for taking the drug
	after your 17th birthday (this would prevent a 1 year
	duration drug from being active when you are an adult).
	Its an arbitrary rule, but the law contains many arbitrary
	age limits. As for extending the program to food stamp/
	welfare recipients, I don't see that it would be a problem
	given my reply in (2).]

  4 --	Forcing a person to take any drug violates that person civil
	rights.

       [I agree. My intention for the program was NOT to force those
	who are strongly opposed to use the drug, only those who
	have no strong preference one way or the other.]

    A final comment: I think an very effective sex education program
would be a good alternative to this program. Unfortunately, sex
education programs have not had 100% success record in preventing
unwanted pregnancies. Until they do achieve a very high success rate,
I think they should be supplemented by my semi-mandatory birth-control 
program.

David Pugh (uofm-cv!rlp  [Note the change of address])