Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Sep '12 11:30
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/morning-pills-13-nyc-schools-17307816

    What are your thoughts?
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Sep '12 12:01
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/morning-pills-13-nyc-schools-17307816

    What are your thoughts?
    Giving a 14 year old the morning after pill on demand without parental notification or consent is, IMO, infringing on the rights of the parent. While allowing some sort of judicial bypass of the parent is understandable in cases where the parents are likely to be physically or emotionally abusive, just taking the matter completely out of the parents' domain is reprehensible. Notifying the parent of the general existence of the program and how their daughter can opt out is not enough. If the school wanted to take the child on an overnight camping trip, the parents would have to consent. Does anyone think that "Plan B emergency contraception" (I love the phraseology that these people come up with) is less of a parental decision than an overnight camping trip?
  3. 24 Sep '12 12:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Does anyone think that "Plan B emergency contraception" (I love the phraseology that these people come up with) is less of a parental decision than an overnight camping trip?
    I don't think these pills are forced on the girls in question. So, if they are using them, then they believe they are at risk of getting pregnant. So, either they have parental consent to take the risk of getting pregnant or they don't. If they do not have parental consent to risk getting pregnant then surely that should be of greater concern to you than the fact that they are getting some pills without parental consent.
    Worst of all is the whole position you appear to be taking which is that a parent has the right to try to stop their children from engaging in casual sex by means of threatening them with accidental pregnancy. Not only do I believe that such threats are largely ineffective but they are bad parenting tactics.
    Its like withholding safety helmets from your children in the hope that they won't ride motorcycles if you do so.
  4. 24 Sep '12 12:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    Giving a 14 year old the morning after pill on demand without parental notification or consent is, IMO, infringing on the rights of the parent. While allowing some sort of judicial bypass of the parent is understandable in cases where the parents are likely to be physically or emotionally abusive, just taking the matter completely out of the parents' domain is ...[text shortened]... hat these people come up with) is less of a parental decision than an overnight camping trip?
    From the perspective of the minor is the morning after pill that different than any other forms of contraception. Schools have been giving out free contraception for years. The kid isn't undergoing a surgical procedure and my undestanding is the risk of taking a pill is minor.

    The issue of teenage pregnancy is NYC school is very real. My wife taught high school ESL at a public NYC school and one week she had three different girls give birth to sons.
  5. 24 Sep '12 12:58
    I don't know about your schools, but my child can't even take aspirin to school if he has a headache. You gotta love NYC. They encourage children to have sex, which could lead to numerous sexually transmitted diseases but they ban sugary drinks over 16 ounces.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Sep '12 13:10
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't think these pills are forced on the girls in question. So, if they are using them, then they believe they are at risk of getting pregnant. So, either they have parental consent to take the risk of getting pregnant or they don't. If they do not have parental consent to risk getting pregnant then surely that should be of greater concern to you than ...[text shortened]... safety helmets from your children in the hope that they won't ride motorcycles if you do so.
    Believe what you want to believe, but it's not your decision. It's the parents' decision as to how they manage their 14 year olds' lives. You may believe that the best thing for a 14 year old is to take a 14 day camping trip in Yosemite but if the parent says no, the child isn't going and anyone who takes the child on that trip is a kidnapper.

    Worst of all is the whole position you appear to be taking which is that a parent has the right to try to stop their children from engaging in casual sex by means of threatening them with accidental pregnancy.


    That's completely ridiculous. I never took that position. Maybe the parent believe that taking the morning after pill is immoral. Maybe the parent just wants to have a discussion with the child about perhaps keeping the baby. Maybe the parent would have no problem with the child using the pill but would like to know so as to be able to take steps to prevent re-occurrence (maybe they won't let little Jane go to that college booze party next time). There are any number of reasons a parent would want to know that his/her child is sexually active other than "to stop their children from engaging in casual sex by means of threatening them with accidental pregnancy."
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Sep '12 13:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    From the perspective of the minor is the morning after pill that different than any other forms of contraception. Schools have been giving out free contraception for years. The kid isn't undergoing a surgical procedure and my undestanding is the risk of taking a pill is minor.

    The issue of teenage pregnancy is NYC school is very real. My wife taught ...[text shortened]... chool ESL at a public NYC school and one week she had three different girls give birth to sons.
    That's no excuse to cut the parents out of the process.
  8. 24 Sep '12 13:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    That's no excuse to cut the parents out of the process.
    When I taught they allowed parents to opt out of the free contraception for their children program. Would this ameilerate your concerns?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Sep '12 13:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    Believe what you want to believe, but it's not your decision. It's the parents' decision as to how they manage their 14 year olds' lives. You may believe that the best thing for a 14 year old is to take a 14 day camping trip in Yosemite but if the parent says no, the child isn't going and anyone who takes the child on that trip is a kidnapper.

    [quote]Worst o ...[text shortened]... en from engaging in casual sex by means of threatening them with accidental pregnancy."
    It's not the State's business to inform parents that their kids are sexually active. Making it a requirement that parents be informed AND have to give permission BEFORE the sexually active teen received a morning after pill would eviscerate the purpose of the program i.e. it's highly improbable that these requirements could be met in a timely fashion even if most teens would be willing to tell their parents they had had sex the night before (which is doubtful).

    The program is a worthwhile one meant to reduce teenage pregnancies. I fail to see how it is any different from giving out condoms.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Sep '12 13:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    When I taught they allowed parents to opt out of the free contraception for their children program. Would this ameilerate your concerns?
    Yes, it would.

    I thought about that, but the article said:

    how their daughters can opt out of it


    I inferred from this that parents could not opt out on their daughters' behalf. If parents got proper notification of the program (say, at the beginning of each year) and could opt out on behalf of their children through the mail or email or phone, I'd have no problem with the program.
  11. 24 Sep '12 13:40
    Originally posted by sh76
    Yes, it would.

    I thought about that, but the article said:

    how their daughters can opt out of it


    I inferred from this that parents could not opt out on their daughters' behalf. If parents got proper notification of the program (say, at the beginning of each year) and could opt out on behalf of their children through the mail or email or phone, I'd have no problem with the program.
    From a practical matter I wonder if opt out clauses are really respected though.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Sep '12 13:41
    Originally posted by sh76
    Yes, it would.

    I thought about that, but the article said:

    how their daughters can opt out of it


    I inferred from this that parents could not opt out on their daughters' behalf. If parents got proper notification of the program (say, at the beginning of each year) and could opt out on behalf of their children through the mail or email or phone, I'd have no problem with the program.
    That would be a foolish exception detrimental to the efficiency of the policy for no good reason.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Sep '12 13:42
    Originally posted by quackquack
    From a practical matter I wonder if opt out clauses are really respected though.
    They probably would be for legal liability reasons. And kids would get pregnant who wouldn't have except for it.
  14. 24 Sep '12 13:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's not the State's business to inform parents that their kids are sexually active. Making it a requirement that parents be informed AND have to give permission BEFORE the sexually active teen received a morning after pill would eviscerate the purpose of the program i.e. it's highly improbable that these requirements could be met in a timely fashion eve ...[text shortened]... to reduce teenage pregnancies. I fail to see how it is any different from giving out condoms.
    It's a blatant strike against the relationships of kids and their parents. Now any girl at these schools is free to make awful decisions which impact their lives in a negative way without the burden of risking disappointing their parents or incurring their wrath. If they do something they regret, the school helps them sweep it under the rug. Also, what a win for pedophiles. At a time when girls are most vulnerable to predation, NYC has cleared the way for older males by offering to take care of that pesky pregnancy for you, and you don't even have to tell your parents.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Sep '12 13:51
    Originally posted by dryhump
    It's a blatant strike against the relationships of kids and their parents. Now any girl at these schools is free to make awful decisions which impact their lives in a negative way without the burden of risking disappointing their parents or incurring their wrath. If they do something they regret, the school helps them sweep it under the rug. Also, what a ...[text shortened]... ng to take care of that pesky pregnancy for you, and you don't even have to tell your parents.


    Moralistic claptrap. Teens are going to have sex whether you or anybody else likes it or not. The policy merely gives them the opportunity to prevent pregnancy and teenage pregnancy has many adverse societal effects. Your punishment solution has been found wanting in preventing teenage pregnancies. Kudos to the NYC school system for its wise policy.