There's a line from a morality play that went out of vogue with my youth. However, there is a morality issue here. The question is, what's moral?
When I read that
Judge orders FDA to let 17-year-olds use pill I wondered if Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston would have been spared a lot of grief and heartbreak had it been available to them. When I was young one of the great deterrents to pre-marital sex was the chance of getting pregnant. Those who partook were playing with fire for their reputations would have been ruined. My, how times have changed. Sex between unmarrieds these days is as common as getting up in the morning. Maybe that isn't the best analogy but you get the idea. This no longer seems to be a matter of morality.
Does use of the pill? The pill being referred to is the "Plan B morning after pill". It is available across the counter without prescription for anyone 18 and older. Unless, in some instances, where the pharmacist finds it goes against his or her conscience. Is that morality or travesty?
The good thing about the pill is that the youngster who had sex, thinking or not, has up to three days to potentially prevent a pregnancy. It gives them a chance to consider the consequences of their actions.
My dilemma is knowing how many girls in their teens, even their early teens, are having sex. The opposition to making this pill available to every female, no matter her age, is that it prevents ovulation or fertilization which they feel is equivalent to abortion.
Which is worse; access to the pill or children having babies? Economically the pill makes sense considering how many of those babies become the responsibility of the tax payer. The parents don't have the financial ability to provide for them. Or the father wants no part of the situation and leaves a teen age girl to fend for herself - and the baby.
I look at young Bristol and Levi. They've decided to go their separate ways. There wasn't enough maturity nor love to offset the results of lust. It makes one wonder how long the father will stay involved with the child. Without an education, how long it will be before he can assume a proper degree of financial support?
For all young people who find themselves in this dilemma, it seems it's a shame they are denied a solution to a misstep on the grounds of someone's elses sense of morality. Morality. How the meaning has changed over the years. It used to be a guide as to how to conduct your life. Now it seems to be something to impose upon others.
Morality. Forget about pre-marital sex. How about not having children out of wedlock? Or how about anyone in the business of dispensing medications shall not impose their wills upon those using them? Or - how about making available to any individual who needs it, a life saving solution to a problem? Life saving? Absolutely. The quality of life for the mother, the father and most of all the child who through no fault of it's own is the consequence.