Should we sterilize teenage girls?

[Largest of Als]

OK, so I know it's the daily mail.. but...

Last week, an intriguing proposition was mooted by Government minister Dawn Primarolo.
Teenage girls, she said, could be steered towards what is described as "long-term contraception".

This is now possible thanks to the development of contraceptive jabs and implants which can last up to five years.

In other words, there is a way of effectively sterilising girls for a lengthy period of time.

At what age? Well, doesn't 12 until 17 sound rather sensible?

This would have the advantage of bringing down the teenage pregnancy rate, so high in this country it makes us a disgrace among the nations - the worst offenders in Europe.

The abortion rate would fall sharply. And silly young girls could get on with the education that is meant to produce serious, responsible taxpayers, not benefit recipients.

Now, many people will see this modest proposal as little short of horrific - nothing less than state interference in our reproductive lives.

But think about it: it might not be such a bad idea.

Full story is here..

Not to go all Scapegoat here, but I can think of large sections of the population i'd love to sterilize...


Al

[LesMTS]

There was a story in the paper in Dundee a few weeks back about a 29 year old grandmother.

[Largest of Gregs]

im sterile

[McLeary]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

There was a story in the paper in Dundee a few weeks back about a 29 year old grandmother.

That's Dundee for you though. Teen pregnancy capital of Europe. COME ON!

[supernothing]

The Daily mail is amazing; if the government wants to 'interfere in our lifes' by raising taxes, allegedly ban 'bah bah black sheep' from schools etc it goes bush.
Sterilizing children on the other hand; batter in!

[I'm Your God Now]

Yas, nae johnnys needed!

[System_Star]

It's not really sterlizing girls though, is it? It's just like the implant, or the coil. Contraception for 3-5 years.

If they want it, why not.

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by System_Star

It's not really sterlizing girls though, is it? It's just like the implant, or the coil. Contraception for 3-5 years.

If they want it, why not.

I dont think they're talking about this being a voluntary thing...


Al

[Rhöna of the Rhein]

hmmm. well the pregancy rate may fall, but you can bet your arse that the STD rate will go up.

[Campestral]

i think we should senile them this fucking alimony is killing me

[Connor O'Bain]

or alternatively inject the male equivelent with bromine

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by Rhöna of the Rhein

but you can bet your arse that the STD rate will go up.

the up the arse STD rate?






Al

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

I dont think they're talking about this being a voluntary thing...


Al

Or, you know, we could just expose large numbers of the population to radioactive material without their knowledge.

This is a bad idea. Far too many civil liberties being infringed.

There would also be the risks of long term side effects showing up once it's in common use and increase in STDs from lassys thinking they are 'safe' just because you can't get pregnant.

[Puppy]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Or, you know, we could just expose large numbers of the population to radioactive material without their knowledge.

This is a bad idea. Far too many civil liberties being infringed.

There would also be the risks of long term side effects showing up once it's in common use and increase in STDs from lassys thinking they are 'safe' just because you can't get pregnant.

Its not really infringing civil liberties, like all contraception, they will be offered it. No-ones slipping it in thier tea at night, or sneaking it into the vending machines at school. True "steered" towards it, it might be touted as an "easier" more convenient way of protecting them from pregnancy but no-ones making them take it.

Risks of long term side effects? Given that most women are on the pill, injection, implant etc for years at a time and have no "long term side effects" that you describe. This form of contraception has already been in common use for years in this country.

I hear your point about STD's though. That was something that I do have a concern about, as the rate of STD's in this country is rising, even though there is an increase in the sexualth health budget for clinics and an increase in the health education aimed at teenagers and young adults.

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

I dont think they're talking about this being a voluntary thing...


Al

as above. You couldn't force them to take the contraception if they refused it. Given the huge kick-up just now that the mosquito device is causing I don't think we'd really get away with holding 'em down and sterilising them temporarily.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by Hammer

There would also be the risks of long term side effects showing up once it's in common use

The first thing that popped into my head was "Thalidomide". Although that's true more often than I'd like to admit.

I don't think there's any place for restricting people's ability ("right") to reproduce but it's hard to make a watertight argument.

We do abride people's natural human rights in certain circumstances: minors are deprived of all sorts of things that are inalienable rights for adults. If we can say that by law they're not allowed to reproduce (by virtue of not being allowed to have sex) at 15, then isn't the hard moral decision already past us, and enforced (temporary) sterilisation a mere practicality?

If it were absolutely beyond question that it was 100% safe and free from harm I'd say that's how the debate would settle in my mind, though I wouldn't agree with it - just not be able to raise an argument to counter it. Same as the death penalty I guess, if I write the arguments down on paper I come out supporting it, but in my heart I know i don't really...