Dear Editor,
The wisdom of the ancients suggests that an ounce of prevention is always better than a pound of cure. As I assess certain recent pronouncements of the minister of education regarding condoms in schools, teenage pregnancy, and the proposed support of school-age mothers in the care of their children, I think I'm seeing a bit of an absence of the conventional wisdom being applied.
Let me categorically say that I in many ways admire and do often find the minister to be balanced, logical, and generally agreeable. What has me puzzled about his statements is that whatever it is that informed his stance to not distribute condoms in schools seems totally derailed by his proposition to financially support school-age mothers who are not able to adequately provide for the care of their young children. That's of course assuming that he is advocating abstinence as the undisputedly 100% effective contraception to reduce the incidence of pregnancy among schoolgirls. There may also be the moral platform on which this position is staged; to issue condoms may be seen as endorsement of premarital sexual intercourse. Incidentally, to offer support after the fact may equally be seen as an invitation. It may even have a stronger pull factor - an unplanned-for child will be taken care of by the government.
It seems to me that the post-natal support would also be a much more expensive undertaking than to make condoms available. I must ask if the ministry is not interested in the reduction of schoolgirl pregnancy. And if so, wouldn't condoms be a much more cost-effective means? After all, pre-pregnancy intervention (condoms) and post-natal support (proposed government financial aid) will both provide similar incentives for sexual engagement in schools. So it raises the question, is the ministry's problem with contraception, period? That would be a bit of a luxury especially for a government that has to be limiting benefits customarily accorded to teachers.
I believe the minister's statements on the prospects of gay marriage being eventually approved (from a government's position) clearly articulates that he understands that positions sometimes taken by governments don't necessarily reflect the moral posture of the government on the issue itself, but only reflect an appreciation of human rights, equity, economic imperatives. It comes down to how the government defines the individual in terms of rights, responsibilities and privileges. Within this realm of Government acting independently of individual members' personal values should be the consideration of the most feasible way of treating with the situation of schoolgirl pregnancy. Being substantively informed by the minister's presentation, here's a priority listing of what I believe should happen:
A. Yes, there should be an ideal sex education programme in our schools that among other things should discourage such inappropriate activities as would result in untimely pregnancies.
B. Where "A" fails to convince students not to engage, then it would make sense to help them to be safe. Make the condoms available.
C. If "A & B" fail, of course these girls should be kept in school, and yes, reasonable financial support should be offered where it is established that the fathers are not able to provide for the newborn. Hopefully the incidence of coming to this stage will be few and far between.
There are laws/rules/policies that protect an individual's right to make certain choices. These laws/rules/policies don't require specific actions; they simply leave some choices to the individual's discretion. All this comes down to the definition of who an individual is as subscribed to by a government. The case for condoms in schools respects the right of the individual to protections afforded by their use. The case for Government being the agent to distribute is that it would otherwise have to pay for its non-use.
Charles Evans
charock01@yahoo.com
The wisdom of condoms in schools
-->
The wisdom of the ancients suggests that an ounce of prevention is always better than a pound of cure. As I assess certain recent pronouncements of the minister of education regarding condoms in schools, teenage pregnancy, and the proposed support of school-age mothers in the care of their children, I think I'm seeing a bit of an absence of the conventional wisdom being applied.
Let me categorically say that I in many ways admire and do often find the minister to be balanced, logical, and generally agreeable. What has me puzzled about his statements is that whatever it is that informed his stance to not distribute condoms in schools seems totally derailed by his proposition to financially support school-age mothers who are not able to adequately provide for the care of their young children. That's of course assuming that he is advocating abstinence as the undisputedly 100% effective contraception to reduce the incidence of pregnancy among schoolgirls. There may also be the moral platform on which this position is staged; to issue condoms may be seen as endorsement of premarital sexual intercourse. Incidentally, to offer support after the fact may equally be seen as an invitation. It may even have a stronger pull factor - an unplanned-for child will be taken care of by the government.
It seems to me that the post-natal support would also be a much more expensive undertaking than to make condoms available. I must ask if the ministry is not interested in the reduction of schoolgirl pregnancy. And if so, wouldn't condoms be a much more cost-effective means? After all, pre-pregnancy intervention (condoms) and post-natal support (proposed government financial aid) will both provide similar incentives for sexual engagement in schools. So it raises the question, is the ministry's problem with contraception, period? That would be a bit of a luxury especially for a government that has to be limiting benefits customarily accorded to teachers.
I believe the minister's statements on the prospects of gay marriage being eventually approved (from a government's position) clearly articulates that he understands that positions sometimes taken by governments don't necessarily reflect the moral posture of the government on the issue itself, but only reflect an appreciation of human rights, equity, economic imperatives. It comes down to how the government defines the individual in terms of rights, responsibilities and privileges. Within this realm of Government acting independently of individual members' personal values should be the consideration of the most feasible way of treating with the situation of schoolgirl pregnancy. Being substantively informed by the minister's presentation, here's a priority listing of what I believe should happen:
A. Yes, there should be an ideal sex education programme in our schools that among other things should discourage such inappropriate activities as would result in untimely pregnancies.
B. Where "A" fails to convince students not to engage, then it would make sense to help them to be safe. Make the condoms available.
C. If "A & B" fail, of course these girls should be kept in school, and yes, reasonable financial support should be offered where it is established that the fathers are not able to provide for the newborn. Hopefully the incidence of coming to this stage will be few and far between.
There are laws/rules/policies that protect an individual's right to make certain choices. These laws/rules/policies don't require specific actions; they simply leave some choices to the individual's discretion. All this comes down to the definition of who an individual is as subscribed to by a government. The case for condoms in schools respects the right of the individual to protections afforded by their use. The case for Government being the agent to distribute is that it would otherwise have to pay for its non-use.
Charles Evans
charock01@yahoo.com
The wisdom of condoms in schools
-->