Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I know that you replicated my expression in an attempt to mock me. Your attempt backfired because you misused the expression, and ended up criticising your argument instead of mine.And I've never heard of the term "category replacement", in logic or in anything else. Unless you can provide evidence as to what it is and how you have used it correctly, I'll assume you made it up.I don't normally pick on people for their writing errors, as writing skill is irrelevant to most debates, and doing so is bound to create unnecessary antagonism. But when you mess around with words to ridicule me, you'd better know what you're doing, or I may throw it back in your face.I haven't gone off subject. You used an analogy to argue that my argument could be used to justify anything. I responded by arguing that your analogy is flawed, and hence it does not defeat my argument.Onto the content of the debate -You're right in saying that children are under the protection and guardianship of their parents, and should not be allowed to do whatever they please. That point isn't in dispute. The question is how much authority the parents have over a child, and specifically, whether that authority extends to forcing their child to go on the pill. For reasons I gave in earlier posts, I would regard this to be an unacceptable violation of their child's bodily integrity, as well as more generally a sign of poor parenting.Unlike what you say, it is not necessarily the case that parents must care for their teenage children's children. There are places where they do not have such an obligation. So an alternative to arguing for forced pills is to argue that parents should be absolved of this legal obligation in places where they do have such a obligation.But even assuming that parents must take care of their teenagers' children, I don't see what is fundamentally unjust about it. As I said earlier, parents should be prepared for unexpected circumstances. If their daughter breaks her arm, they have to pay for her medical care and pay especial attention to her health while it is healing. If their daughter gets pregnant, they have to pay for whatever costs are involved in that and look after her during and after pregnancy.Sure, there are some measures they can take to reduce the chances of these unexpected situations coming up, for their daughter's health and for their own peace of mind, but there's a limit to what they can do. They can have their daughter wear proper protective gear when playing dangerous sports so she's less likely to break her arm. They can have their daughter refuse unprotected sex so she's less likely to get pregnant. But it would be going overboard to, say, chain their daughter to her bed day and night to prevent her breaking her arm. Similarly I argued that it would be going overboard to force their daughter to go on the pill to prevent pregnancy. (Not that I'm saying chaining her to her bed and making her go on the pill are entirely analogous situations - I'm only using the former as an illustration.)Parents have the right and responsibility to educate their children on sexual safety and to monitor their children's activities including sexual activities, and children have the obligation to follow their parents' directions where reasonable. Hence I wouldn't be opposed to parents telling their children that they can't have sex unless they use a condom, or even parents telling their children that they can't have sex at all until they reach majority age.But medication is something that pushes the boundaries of reasonableness. I believe that everyone who is of sound mind, which means adults and minors who have reached the age of reason, should have the right to reject taking medication that is unnecessary to their health and possibly harmful. That's exactly what the pill is.