In this article, the main issue addressed is whether or not it would be a good idea to let middle schoolers have access to contraceptives. One perspective of this argument is that "Some children are having sex anyways...so shouldn't we keep them as safe as possible?" This perspective is supported by providing information that King Middle School is made up of poor and immigrant students; some of the girls who attend this middle school are already sexually active. Because they are poor, they are not able to afford "the same kind of health services available to teenage girls who can afford private gynecologists". Therefore the district wants to make these kinds of services available to these girls. While in the process of obtaining birth control, the Boston Globe states, "No one, moreover, is simply handing these girls the pill. Girls requesting birth control must 'first travel a long--even arduos--road of conselling'", where they are informed by the nurses of the risks of underage sex.
The counterargument is that 11 year-olds shouldn't be having sex anyways. This perspective is supported by arguing that providing contraceptives is like encouraging middle schoolers to have sex, as stated using the analogy "It's no less absurd than dealing with the reality of teen smoking by handing out low-tar cigarettes to the seventh grade," said M.D. Harmon in the Portland Press Herald. But both perspectives level off, as stated in the article "the evidence supports a 'combined approach'...urging kids to delay sex until they're older, but also helping them to avoid getting pregnant or a STD if they listen to their hormones, instead of to lectures by adults".
One perspective that was overlooked was the part of the parents within this issue. Although while obtaining birth control, the nurses do urge those girls to speak to their parents, but those girls are still able to receive birth control without the consent of their parents. I think at that young of an age, the role of the parents should be taken into consideration, especially since sex is a sensitive, but also serious issue. It could lead to many threats, such as STDs, and responsibilities for the action. Although the girls will be informed of the risks of their actions by the nurses, their parents should also play a part in educating their daughters about sex.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great, in-depth post. I wonder, though, if the argument that they shouldn't be having sex anyway is a counterargument to the people who argue that they are having sex so we should at least make sure they're safe. Isn't there a logical leap there? What is the natural counterargument to the safe sex argument?
I like the way you pointed out the different perspectives. It was really easy to follow, and accurate. Using quotes helped make your points clear and specific. Also, good point about overlooking the role of parents. When I read it, it didn’t even occur to me how much parents affect the situation. This perspective is important both when parents are really supportive and involved with their kids, and when their parents provide a negative example or home situation.
I totally agree that parents should be involved in their child's life, especially with the whole issue of sex. They may think that their child is not having sex at their age, but in reality they are. Parents need to open their eyes and be open to talking about sex with their kids. If parents are more involved and talk with their kids then their kids would be more responsible with their decision making toward sex.
Post a Comment