Informal poll for women: Government Forced Contraceptives?

Question

I'm writing an essay for my ethics class on an essay be Margaret Battin entitled Sex & Consequences, in which she argues for compulsive contraceptives, such as the IUD and Norplant, for every women in the world to prevent more population growth. She likens it to vaccination and how we forced vaccination for the public good, so we should force this for the public good. The idea behind it is that during high school, you must have one to be admitted similar to vaccinations, and when you are ready to become pregnant, you go to the doctor to get the device removed, so it prevents unwanted pregnancy completely.

My essay is an argument against this because of the clear violation of rights, but I wanted to take an informal poll to know how women would feel about this so I can get an idea of the cultural implications this would have. Please state what country you are from as well to give me a better idea. Post in support of or against her idea. Thank you.

Answer 1

I'm against the idea. I'm strongly for a woman's right to control her own body; the choice of whether or not to use birth control should not be up to the government.

I do see how population control is important to the government. The only reasonable way they can tackle it is through education and maybe through incentives.

For example, in my country (Singapore), we actually have the opposite problem of a low birth rate. There are campaigns (tv, print advertisements) promoting large families and even monetary incentives like "baby bonuses" for the 3rd child and beyond. I believe this is the most that a government can do. Anything else, like intruding on the private lives and private choices of the individuals, is going too far and a violation of rights.

Answer 2

In the US, a public school can't legally deny admission to a student on the grounds they've not been vaccinated if the parents sign a waiver that they are refusing to have their child vaccinated on religious, moral, or medical grounds.

At least in the US, forced contraception would be a clear violation not only of our right to medical autonomy, but also to our constitutional right to freedom of religion. Implementing a law to enforce mandatory contraception would require a constitutional amendment overturning a portion of the first amendment. That's a bit problematic if you ask me.

Now, legal issues aside, it's my body, and the government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. There's a risk of side effects from any medical procedure. For someone who's not sexually active, a contraceptive implant is unnecessary, and is an irresponsible medical decision.

Another thing, what do you think would happen in third world counties, where medical supplies aren't readily available, even to governments? People would have fake, potentially danger implants put in under unclean conditions, resulting in ineffectual contraception, and also potentially life-threatening infections. People would be given injections with needles that were not sterilized, potentially resulting in new infections. It's thought at the HIV virus most likely resulted essentially from the reuse of needles during smallpox vaccination campaigns. So this risks creating a bigger problem than it's solving.

In a perfect world, where governments aren't corrupt, medical procedures don't have side effects, and everyone has access to adequate medical care, why not? Then again, a perfect world could sustain an infinitely large population.

Oh, and if you didn't figure it out from the first two paragaphs, I'm from the US.

Answer 3

The implications are too far to expound on here, but I personally would be against something like that. Here's why... What if the government decided only people who met a certain criteria could have these contraceptives reversed. That would start a situation that would be a mix of genocide and the theory behind the movie Gattica. Where you can engineer your children thus the population. Like Hitler said about the Arians being the perfect race. My question is what so perfect about everyone being the same i.e blond hair blue eyes?

Answer 4

I live in the US and vaccinations are required for children to enter into school, unless you have certain beliefs against them (religous beliefs).

In my oppinion, the parent(s) of the child should be responsible of putting a child on a contraceptive when they become of age. Certain religions do not believe in practicing contraceptive measures as well as vaccinations, so in my country they would not be required to obtain the methods to enter school.

Parent(s) should be more involved in their children's life and ask questions, even snoop around, and if they have suspicions of promiscuity; put the kid on the pill. Boy's should be taught how to use a condom, because female contraceptives are not always guarenteed. I am proof of that!

Therefore, I disagree with this woman's statements. If the parent(s) of the child do not wish to have grandchildren and raise those grandchildren, then they should take matters into their own hands and take preventive desicions for the child.

Answer 5

Such a program as Battin describes would be clearly unethical and in violation of the US constitution.

I do think that reliable contraceptives should be available to both men and women who choose to use them. The more educated women and men are about their bodies, the better position they are in to control their reproduction as they see fit. One of the main problems with sex ed in the US is that it overemphasizes abstinence to the detriment of giving a true education about how the body functions and what forms of contraception are most reliable. Therefore, you get people who believe that a condom is so unreliable, it's better to take one's chances with unprotected sex.

Answer 6

Even if they could find some odd reason to justify this, imagine the lawsuits when women start having strokes and other things. I suppose society believes women are dogs that can be fixed.

Maybe when the population sinks to a new low then they will legalize the unwanted impregnating of women too.

I guess you can tell I am opposed.

Answer 7

I'm in the U.S., a former Sex. Ed./Health teacher in high school and college and a member or NARAL and prochoiceamerica.org. I STRONGLY believe that contraception should be voluntary and yes, is abused in the developing countries.

HOWEVER...since so many young people seem not to care about unwanted pregnancies and the damage done to millions of innocent children, I advocate forced sterilization of MEN, or any women under 21 or who already have 1 child and are non-monagamous.

The hormones in the Norplant (and its tendency to get infected and lost sometimes) are far riskier to women than a vasectomy in men that is usually reversible.

Our planet is SO overpopulated, that it's estimated that in a couple decades, there will be no fish left in the ocean! We're ruining our planet by over-reproduction, and everyone's worried about the "rights" of careless people who won't be around to witness widespread famine, disease and wars over food. MY kid will be around and I want him healthy and happy, not drowning in a sea of people produced by selfish bunny-rabbits who couldn't bother to use a condom or take a pill! (this INCLUDES the United States!).

China has a "cap" on # of kids...why can't the entire world?

Answer 8

hmm that's hard.
i agree that the world is overpopulated with humans and that it would be better for everyone if there were just less people, and thus more resources per person.
also, i wouldn't mind it for myself, because i don't really want children.
BUT: the thought of the government knowing and regulating women that way is terrifying. what if someone wants to have a baby and they don't for some reason approve? could they deny them the fulfillment of the biological drive to pass on one's genes?

so i guess i would say that while i favor birth control and population reduction, i think that it needs to be individually-motivated and that government intervention and control would constitute a gross violation of privacy.

USA

Answer 9

i do not artwork finished time, yet I did for my first being pregnant (i'm now on my third). i did not ought to rigidity about that because between the only some people I informed yelled it by the total workplace. So, interior of a week everybody knew, and understood why I spent the morning with my head contained in the can. It replaced into interesting! LOL. i does not difficulty about people supplying you with humorous looks about taking the elevator. enable them imagine your lazy, you've your human being little secret! yet, for morning disease, except you've a unmarried bathing room, i'm not confident how that can help you you with that one. Sorry!

Answer 10

no no no no!!! no forced contraception! smacks of 1984. yes we have immunizations here in the u.s. but one can decline based on religious objections. there is no reason for forced contraception other than the higher echelons of society or government to use in perpetuating selective breeding, -who will decide?? will the governing body in charge of enforcing or implementing this plan determine who does and who doesn't..like the Nazis did- this is so wrong on so many levels- it is a clear violation of human rights to decide who does or does not get to procreate and/or when- I'm in the U.S.A.