The Morning After Pill for 13 Year Old Girls

    There has been considerable discussion in the TV news concerning making the morning after pregnancy pill available to children of 13 years or so by over-the-counter means.
    It may come as a surprise to some that I, as a conservative, support this viewpoint.
    I do so reluctantly but from a pragmatic consideration.
    A few generations ago, parents made themselves responsible for the outside sexual activities of their children, particularly daughters. There were two primary reasons for this; economic and moral  The economic reason is obvious. Birth and subsequent care of a child costs money, and the economic burden of a grandchild from an unwed daughter was a considerable strain to a family already on the edge of poverty. One solution was for the unwed daughter's father to coerce his pregnant daughter's male partner to assume the responsibility of marrying his daughter and supporting both the daughter and maybe as a traditional family. So-called shot gun weddings were common.

    At that time, most people were also religious and tended to follow the precepts of the bible, which advocated sexual morality, marriage, and family development.

    With subsequent generational increase in the power of government and an increase in relieving the populace from individual responsibility, the father's responsibility for the welfare of the family has now been usurped. This has been an easy transition. A father's previous role as breadwinner and controller of his family's activities was difficult. Anyone who has raised a teenager will attest to that. Therefore, the indirect offer that fathers give up their leadership responsibilities in this aspect of family life was met with ready acceptance.

    However, the nature of government is such that government administrators cannot control the detailed lives of teenagers, particularly sexual activities. Fathers and mothers had difficulty doing it. For government, it is impossible.

    The net result of reduced sexual control of teenager's activities thus leads to a significant increase in  pregnancies. The ramifications are that since the daughter's family had no control over the situation, it feels it has no responsibility for financial support. This is also consistent with the government's desire to eliminate personal responsibility from the populace, as it takes over this power. 

    In many cases, this leads to more abortions, as the personal responsibility of a birth is forced back to the daughter and the family. An alternative is to proceed with the birth, and since government can now control the results of such birth, it pays for  the birth and subsequent support of the child. But government has no money of its own. It must take the money from the general population. Because taking money from the government is easy, the daughter then moves to separate quarters and attempts to raise the child in an atmosphere without male authority or responsibility. In fact, the child is taught irresponsibility, as a number of irresponsible sexual boyfriends of the daughter move through the child's life.

    I consider the above process an intentional government program to increase its power through destruction of families and responsibilities of individuals. While I am strongly opposed to the program, and have been through my few generations of life, I have concluded that there is nothing I can do about it. However, I can take pragmatic approach.

    I want young sexually girls to have easy access to birth control pills, in the hope that this will reduce young girl pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions and reduce the number of children doomed to irresponsibility, which I as a taxpayer would have to support. I regret having to take this position, but it has been forced upon me by government.