Saturday, April 30, 2005

Too young to choose

So, in our country, a 13 year old girl is apparently too young to learn about sex (thanks to President Bush's abstinence only plan) and too young to make decisions on the consequences of her having sex. This is downright appalling. Really. So, we're not going to teach young people how to protect themselves and how to have healthy sexual lives when they are ready to do so yet we expect them to have to deal with all the consequences of having sex (which we did not warn them about because we righteous Americans think that no one is having sex).

I just don't know what to say in response to this. There are so many things wrong with this. The 13-year old girl had sex. She made the decision to have sex (hopefully it was her choice) and yet she can't make the decision on whether to have an abortion. In both instances, it is her body.

What happens if she does have a baby? Can she make the decision on whether to bottle or breast feed? Can she make the decision on whether it's time to potty train? What will this mean for the thousands of 13 year old girls? I mean, either we have to teach them about sex and how to say no until they decide that are ready for its consequences (and to make decisions about those consequences) or we're just going to have to put chastity belts on every kid until they turn 18.

1 comment:

Irony's Brother said...

Yes, but the point of contention would be the girl's capability to handle the mental gravity of her choice. In much the same way that our society has deemed certain adult individuals devoid of the right to fully execute decisions about their own lives, it has too argued that children aren't fully mature, intelligent, or cogitatively aware of the impact their decision will have.

In much the same way, can you blame a parent for interceding when a two year old needs medication due to a life threatening infection? Of course that is extreme, but at what age do you draw a distinction? Parents have a vested interest and right to oversee the actions of their children so long as they are in the best interest of the children. There is certainly an age in which sexual activities would fall under the parent’s authority for how to handle the situation, so it all depends on what age that would be. Given your post here, it seems 13 is old enough for you, but what age is not?

And as a rebuttal of your first point: “So, in our country, a 13 year old girl is apparently too young to learn about sex thanks to President Bush's abstinence only plan,” I, for one, would argue that it isn’t the government’s job to educate children about sex, it’s the parents. School based sex education should augment family discussions and parental talks, not replace them entirely. Of course 13 years old isn’t too young to learn about sex, but why are you trying to hold President Bush responsible for the error of the parents?