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

I'm rather surprised to see that you know what an analogy is and are able to roughly describe it, and yet did not know the term, it being a relatively common word. Call it "category replacement" if you will, or simply "analogy" as most people do, but what you wrote two posts back was not it, as I have explained.I take it you're arguing that it is an absolutely unrestricted right of every person to decide which children they take care of. Like I have been saying, I don't share this view. I don't see human rights as a set of absolute dicta that every person should have unrestricted freedom to do this or that; I hold the more pragmatic view that rights are a matter of balancing one person's or group's interests against another's. People have the right to decide which children they take care of, but people also have the right to refuse unnecessary medical treatment. When the rights of two parties clash, I find it necessary that either one trumps the other, or the two make a compromise and both sacrifice something. Hence my argument cannot be represented as saying "that a violation of the rights and duties between parents and their children is not a violation of human rights".To make my meaning more clear, I will represent the essence of your argument in rough logical form:----------------------------P = the rights of parentsW = the rights of walkers of dark alleysH = human rightsS = some property that makes P and W analogous for the purposes of this debateP is a subset of HW is a subset of HTherefore, P and W share S----------------------------This argument can be made valid only if S is said to be a property that is shared by all H. You implied that it is, and dismissed my argument to the contrary as an irrelevancy.I was arguing earlier, as I continue to argue now, that S is by no means shared by all H. The properties of parents, or, to be more colloquial and specific, the responsibilities of parents are precisely what I listed and meant when I said "expectations of parents". I was arguing that parents have very different responsibilities - both in nature and in extent - from walkers of dark alleys, and that the responsibilities peculiar to parenthood are such that they need to be prepared to sacrifice more of their rights than walkers of dark alleys.I won't call your argument a straw man, since it may be that you had genuinely misinterpreted my paragraph about the expectations of parents. But in any case, you were attributing to me something that I didn't believe.You have also attributed to me a stronger stance than the one I'm taking in saying: "Your argument was that something carries with it a risk that a person's basic rights might be violated, and that they should accept such a violation should it occur because they choose to risk it." I don't hold the universal belief that if someone chooses to do something, they must accept whatever dangers come with it. To hold this belief would be to agree with your first analogy of parenthood to walking in dark alleys, and as I'm sure you know, I do not agree with it.As I have said, I do not find it unreasonable to expect parents to bear the costs - both in terms of money and time - of their children's activities, including pregnancy and its consequences. I see it as one of those responsibilities peculiar to parenthood.I'll also remind you of what I said in my last post, that parents are not necessarily obligated to look after their minor children's children.As to alternatives to the pill: Yes, condoms can be dangerous as well. But the crucial difference is that I'm not saying parents should have the right to force children to use condoms. I'm saying that they should have the right to disallow children from having sex unless they use condoms. It is a conditional. Similarly, I wouldn't be opposed to parents who tell their daughters they're not allowed to have sex unless they go on the pill, as that would not be forcing them go to on the pill.Your analogy of taking pills to drinking milk, again, does not illustrate the crucial point of difference. I'm not saying that parents cannot force their children to do anything that has a chance of causing a bad effect. If this were the case, parents would have no authority at all over their children, since pretty much everything has a chance of causing a bad effect.Rather, I was saying more specifically: "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".Milk is not medication, and drinking milk or some nutritionally similar product is necessary to promote health. Taking pills is unnecessary (I'm speaking here of taking pills for birth control, and not for medical reasons like menorrhagia). Not taking pills does not leave you medically deficient. It only comes into use if the teen engages in unsafe sex practices, and this is something that is very avoidable if the parents had inculcated safe sex practice in them.I do see some merit in your comparison of pills to medication for ADHD. They're not so different. But ADHD, epilepsy, bipolar disorder, and various other conditions that may not require medication, or only require it for specific situations, still differ from the pill in one important aspect: there isn't all that much that parents can do about such conditions except give them medication. With the pill, there is everything the parents can do. I see it as the responsibility of parents to train their children to look after their own bodies, and specifically to properly inculcate safe sex practices in them. If they are resorting to a brute force method like making them go on the pill whether or not they want to, they're already failing in their parenting duties.