Teen sterilization? Yikes.

The Daily Mail, a UK daily paper has come up with one of the most controversial solutions I could ever dream of to solve the teenage pregnancy conundrum.

That solution? “Temporary” sterilization. I know, it sounds completely ridiculous. But this is the idea that Dawn Primarolo has come up with. Described as “long term contraception”, this would render teenagers sterile from the ages of 12-17. It consists of an inter-uterine implant that would prevent pregnancy.

It i a pretty shocking proposition, and one I hope never makes it past the stupid little concept stage. Teen pregnancy may be a problem, but I highly doubt that this is the appropriate solution.

I expect right and left wing activists to unite against such a proposal for a variety of reasons. I can’t imagine right wing activists, who abhor the thought of sex education and the promotion of condom use because it “promotes promiscuity” to agree to something like this. And left wing activists should be up in arms about the threat to civil liberties. This is something the government should likely stay out of.

Fay Weldon, the author of the article suggests that this could have benefits across the British economy. No children as teens means that “silly young girls could get on with the education that is meant to produce serious, responsible taxpayers, not benefit recipients.” It’s a pretty terrible statement to make, especially from a self-professed feminist.

Weldon address the concerns I listed above, and states that it won’t promote promiscuity because girls these days are no longer afraid of pregnancy and already are having sex with wanton abandon. I think that is possibly one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard. For one, it shows how out of touch adults can be with the younger generations. Kids these days do make bad choices. Sometimes. There are far more people out there who do not. And there are those who are responsible for whatever events transpire in their live and go on to lead productive lives. Having a child or getting pregnant does not affect an individuals self-worth or ability to contribute to society. To even suggest such a thing is ludicrous.

Weldon is insane. That’s all there is to it. Read this excerpt from her article.

Suddenly, they can give birth to someone who will offer unconditional love in a bleak, busy, money-grubbing world.

The council will offer a free home away from nagging parents. They will have independence, sexual freedom and no more humiliating exams to try to pass – because, more than likely, their education will fall by the wayside.

Nowadays, ask some girls why they want a baby so badly and they will say vaguely: “Oh, I want to fulfil myself.”

Once, they would have confidently said of the father: “I love him. And I want a bit of me, a bit of him, to go on for all eternity.”

It’s not like that any more. Love is seen as little more than a neurotic dependency to the young.

How pessimistic can one person be? Geez. She seems to think that teenagers have no sense.

I’m still of the opinion that education programs are the way to go. Safer Sex programs have done a tremendous amount to reduce the transmission of STIs and to reduce pregnancy. I truly hope that Weldon is attempting to bring this issue to light and playing a bit of the devil’s advocate. But to be honest, I really can’t tell. Perhaps that droll British wit is too much for me, but if she is even remotely serious, I think she needs to be sat down and lectured for a while.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *