Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I've decided I like you peekaboo, I like to push people's buttons to try to expedite acquiring things I can use against them but you responded wonderfully. I consider an analogy to be a bit broader, more a tool of conceptualization then testing logic. For example an analogy can be made between patterns in music theory and a picture, playing the pattern might be analogous to following a line on a paper but the properties' of the paper, it's lines, and the properties' of the music and its pattern are quite different and the analogy making sense depends a lot on interpretation. Your correct, it is a balancing act among rights; I consider taking at most 4 or 5 years and likely 2 to 1 of a medication you may not want to take, less of a violation then a insurance against other violations which would cause a longer lasting and worse affect.The logical structure among P,W, and S I would suggest is the following:H,W,S,and P are categories of rights.If P and W are both subsets of H, then S is at least what defines them as a subset of H. W and P as subsets of H must them have an S. As subsets of H, W and P must include all properties of H. Thus S is H. Properties of S and W which are not merely properties of H restated to the circumstances of P or W are not valid rights/properties, for all those are included in H. Rights apply to all humans and are universal, but are applied individually due to each individual's unique circumstances. Thus all Properties of S and W are properties of H, but stated in a more specific manner. To deny the specific, is to either deny it as a specific rendering of the general H or to deny the general itself. So S and W are different ways H is applied, and replacing S with W or vice versa is a way of testing the logic against H, but in a manner which changes possible biases.I know the stance was stronger then what you believe, which means there is something tempering your stance so that you do not agree with the general argument but do with the specific.Parents allowing for the possibility of a large financial, emotional, social etc burden when it can be easily be avoided seems counter to the responsibility of parents to me. Parents tend to understand risks, yes often times being overly protective; but that is because of the value to them of what is being protected. If they believe that their daughter is prone to be caught in the moment, to rebel, to be swayed by peer pressure, etc then I see them having her take the pill as them fulfilling their parental obligation to her. Children are forced to do many things by parents, go to sleep at a decent time, do homework, eat vegetables etc. many times it is for the betterment of the child. My guess of what is causing your stance is a deep respect for a right derived from more basic ones, to the point where it is considered as nearly a basic one itself. People have the right to control over what goes into their bodies, granted certain conditions are meet. If they are unconscious and are in a emergency situation it could be said that that right to decide is being violated, but it is so one of a more basic and essential one may be preserved, the right to life(and liberty, pursuit of happiness etc since you must be alive to pursue happiness and have liberty.). I view parents as in a similar situation to a paramedic, more subtle but similar.I also believe that children have a certain level of responsibility to their parents. A minor shouldn't have a problem with taking a pill, so long as it's one selected properly(under guidance of a health care professional) such that there are no serious side affects, if it brings their parents a better state of mind. It may be insulting as a minor if your parents think you would have unprotected sex, or sex at all but it should be recognize that their paranoia if not their guidance has useful applications and that denying it without good cause has bad consequences which should be avoided, even if its something simple like not worrying them as much if your out with a boyfriend or such(there is less to worry about). Unless they are just terrible parents and shouldn't have custody to begin with that is.  If in order to take care of her own child, a teen in the majority of cases must sacrifice her own needs, but her parents are obligated to not allow such a sacrifice. It may be necessary for them to look after their grandchild, and in the majority teen pregnancies which are carried to term, this is the case for at least a while. It is preferable for teens to be inoculated with safe sex practices, but every year many teens become impregnate despite health classes, perhaps friends becoming pregnant before them or their own mother having been a teen mom, etc. Safe sex practices are not only a function of the quality of parenting, but other variables are involved which a parent may not feel able to over ride by means other then the pill. I do believe the pill shouldn't be the first thing a parent does, but it should be an option when other methods have failed. For example, if a parent catches their daughter having unprotected sex despite condoms being available and being educated on their use, it seems reasonable to me to have her go on the pill; even if she doesn't want to. Its like catching a young child just off of training wheels riding his bike without a helmet, you may put the training wheels back on since he isn't the most skilled in not falling down yet. It may make him feel like a baby and he may protest, but it insures he won't be severely wounded. I enjoy debating with you.