Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent
Debate Rounds (3)
But it's not just that condoms fail, but it's the shockingly high number of teenage pregnancies. In America in 2010, 367,752 infants were born to girls between the ages of 15-19. Granted those numbers did fall from 2009 when the numbers were about 9% higher, but that number is still too high if you ask me (stats from http://ww.cdc.gov...). And you do have to imagine that there are more pregnancies if you consider that there are some girls under the age of 15 who engage in sexual activity. Then you have to consider the cost of raising a child from day 1-year 18. In health class (I'm only 13) I discovered that raising a child from day 1 to year 18 for just the bare essentials (food, shelter, child care, etc.) averages around $250,000! How many teenagers do you think have the financial support to afford that? That is too big an investment for a person who's independent life hasn't even truly begun.
My last point is the transmission of STD's and STI's. Every year in America, 3 million teenagers contract an STD. One of the most common STD's is chlamydia, which affects up to 40% of girls between the ages of 15 and 19. And chlamydia can cause sterility in both males and females. Another common STD that strikes among teens is HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), which affects 15% of sexually active teenage girls, and the most common strain can lead to cervical cancer. And some teenagers are going to have to live with the fact that some dumb choices they made will affect their lives forever (stats http://www.bhg.com...).
Now, my rambling may seem senseless at first, and would be a good sermon to tell teens why not to have sex, but there's a method to my madness. And my method is, when a teen puts on a condom or injects spermicide or uses another method of contraceptive, they tend to get cocky. They tend to feel that they're 100% in the clear if they use contraceptives. But what they don't realize is that nothing will work 100% of the time. But the thing is, who supplies the 15 year old, the 14 year old, or even the 13 year old with the condom package with that one broken condom? And what happens if that teen puts on the broken condom? But that could be avoided if the teen never got the condom, never felt on top of the world, and never had sex.
Thanks for an interesting Case Pro. I'll be arguing against the resolution that Resolved: Pharmacies should not be allowed to sell contraceptives to teenagers under the age of consent. I will present my case, refute yours next round. 3k limit is hard.
C1: Violation of private property rights
Note that the only possible way to affirm the resolution is to affirm governmental intervention into how individuals use private property. Property rights are violated in two ways with these laws:
1. The Pharmacy has the right to sell it's products to whomever it wishes. To support this, I'll bring in the ethical position of the Non-aggression principle, which essentially states that individuals can morally do whatever actions they wish so long as they do not damage the property or person of another individual. Thus, the resolution cannot ethically b affirmed.
2. We each have sovereignty over our own bodies and can thus ethically perform any action with them that does not violate the rights of others. Hoppe tells us that our bodies our nessecarily private property:
"One is not used to thinking of one’s own body in terms of a scarce good, but in imagining the most ideal situation one could ever hope for, the Garden of Eden, it becomes possible to realize that one’s body is indeed the prototype of a scarce good for the use of which property rights i.e., rights of exclusive ownership, somehow have to be established, in order to avoid clashes"
Thus, teenagers have a right to sex and the right to purchase whatever commodities are on the market.
C2: Teenagers will have sex anyway
This essentially turns my opponents entire case, which basically says "sex is bad". Be that as it may (I'll dispute it later), if contraceptives make sex safer than teenagers shouldn't be denied access to them. Unless my opponent proves that banning contraceptives leads to less sex, he gains no advantage.
He won't manage to prove that anyway, the horomone onslaught experienced during puberty causes teenagers to naturally desire sex. The Gaurdian UK writes:
"In male adolescents, testosterone is driving them to think of sex every six seconds (as little as that?). Meanwhile, their reasoning is temporarily disabled while their brain sets up the "under reconstruction" sign."
C3: The age of consent is meaningless
"Age of consent" laws are arbitrary and not an actual representation of when someone is ready for intercourse. I lost my virginity at 16 and was completely fine with it, other friends of mine have lost theirs at 18 and been completely crushed by it. It may be a personal example, but there are no known statistics on the subject so we have to go with my anecdotal evidence anyway. These are useless, draconian laws founded on fear mongering and ignorance that should not be implemented or enforced; only parents know when teens are ready, not a random age limit.
The resolution is clearly negated.
http://www.cga.ct.gov...). Example, Gabriel, age 17, goes over to see his girlfriend Nicole. Over the night, the two have sex, but in the middle of it Nicole's father interrupts and kicks Gabriel out. Gabriel was then charged with statutory rape charges and was sentenced to 3 years in prison, while Nicole has to deal the fact that this is always going to stay with her.
And here's the thing, I'm not saying that "sex is bad," I'm merely saying that a pharmacy should at least see ID or something to prove that the teen is at the age of consent. I understand that teens will naturally have a want, or more accurately, a NEED to have sex, but studies show that most teens lose their virginity at ages 16 and 17 (stats from Mayo Clinic Family Health Book). Those numbers are mainly above age of consent, so I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is when a pharmacy allows a 15 year old, 14 year old, or even 13 year old to buy contraception. I mean, if it's illegal for a teenager to have sex because he/she is under the age of consent, then why should a pharmacy be allowed to be an accomplice to a crime by selling a teenager a package of condoms? To me, if it's illegal for a teenager to have sex because of their age then why should a pharmacy have the right to blatantly become an accomplice to a crime that could put a young teenager in prison? Prison is no place for a young person, especially is it's sexually related. If I own a pharmacy in the future, and I had a magical crystal ball that told me that in the near future, my sale would put a kid into prison, I sure wouldn't sell that kid the condoms or spermicide or whatever they brought their money to buy. It just doesn't make sense to me.
And, although the human body is private property, you can't do whatever you want with it. You can't do drugs like cocaine and heroine. Why? Because they can harm your body. So can sex to the teenager who isn't prepared for the consequences.
Thanks pro. First I'll respond to your points. My Opponent didn't bother to tag his arguments, so I'll do so as best I can.
Contraceptives are bad
Turn: Teens will have sex anyway. Unless my opponent can prove that he teenage sex will decline without access to contraceptives, he gains no advantage.
His entire argument can basicaly be summed up as "contraceptives are bad and sometimes fail" But really, I don't need to respond to this. With contracetives the chance of pregnancy and diseases declines.
STDS are bad
Again, the same logic applies. At least contraceptives have a getter chance of protecting an individual from diseases than unprotected sex does (hence the name). My Opponent argues: "[Teens] tend to feel that they're 100% in the clear if they use contraceptives". First off, dont buy this without evidence, secondly the way to avoid this problem, if indeed it is one, is by educating teenagers on the dangers, instead of banning condoms and expecting them to figure it all out on their own.
He ends by claiming that contraceptives will keep teenagers from having sex, without any warrant, evidence, or logic. Thus you already negate because he's failed to make any positive arguments for his position.
Age of consent useless
My Opponent makes my case for me, he argues that " he age of consent is 16, so if a 16 year old or older has sex with a 15 year old or younger, the crime of statutory rape stands. And depending on the age of the prosecutor and the defendant, the total sentencing could be up to 20 years". I think throwing a 16 year old in prison for 20 years because they have sex with a peer that's a couple months younger than them is evidence enough that these laws need to be overturned. Thanks, Pro!
He also argues: " nobody is above the law. Absolutely NOBODY!", however if the law itself is unjust than we shouldn't follow it. Using his logic, Rosa Parks was wrong in refusing to sit in the back of the bus and blacks and whites would still drink from seperate water fountains.
His entire argument is based upon sex being a crime, but since he hasn't responded to my self autonomy point his objection falls.
Violation of property rights
Extend. Pro can lose the deate right here considering he hasn't offered any sufficient arguments for his position.
His sole response to this is a concession that the body is private property, then stating "You can't do drugs like cocaine and heroine... Because they can harm your body" but again, he hasn't responded whatsoever to the ethics behind this, that you can do whatever you wish with your body so long as it doesnt harm others. Extend the Hoppe card. Drugs should be legalized, pro can't just point to something that's illegal and say that makes it immoral, recall that inter racial marriage was illegal at one point as well.
Teen will have sex anyway
You have no logical option except a Con vote.
ZacharyDamon forfeited this round.
Extend my argument please. Cudos to my opponent for appologizing in the comments for the forfeit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF'd round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.