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

Eh, I enjoy debating in general, which is why I'm on CD :) But yes, it is fun to argue with you - you're more challenging than most people I've come across so far.I don't know what you define to be category replacement, but "analogy" accurately covers what has been used so far. The physical properties of music and paper are different, but there is arguably still some point of similarity between patterns of music and lines on a paper, perhaps on a conceptual level. If that point of similarity is what your argument uses, then it is appropriate to use this analogy.I see now where our disagreement lies. Our arguments don't match up because we're thinking along different lines - you're thinking of rights only, I'm thinking of something else as well.This, I think, is the gist of your argument:---------------------------Every person has the right to choose which children they take care of. Parents are a subset of persons. Therefore, parents have the right to choose which children they take care of.Every person has the right to walk down dark alleys without obstruction. Walkers of dark alleys are a subset of persons. Therefore, walkers of dark alleys have the right to walk down dark alleys without obstruction.These two situations are analogous because they involve general human rights applied to specific situations.---------------------------The problem I have with this argument is that it concerns only rights, which does not reflect the opinion that human rights is a matter of balancing the interests of one group against another. An argument that reflects this opinion would also involve the concept of responsibilities - which I'll define here as the recognition and observance of other people's rights.I agree that if P (rights of parents) is a subset of H (rights of humans), then properties of P are properties of H. The same goes for W as a subset of H. But parents have more than rights - they also have responsibilities. All humans have responsibilities, but the nature and extent of them depend on their circumstances and on the circumstances of people around them.I'm not saying "people in general have the right to decide which children they raise, but parents in particular don't". I'm saying "people in general have the right to decide which children they raise, and this applies to everyone including parents, but when another person's right clashes with this right, there may need to be a compromise". The rights of a minor to bodily integrity, I argue, is something that may clash with parents' right to decide which children they raise.This concept of rights and responsibilities applies to walkers of dark alleys as well. You have the right to walk in a dark alley without obstruction. But if there has been a murder in this alley, and the police have cordoned it off so they can take evidence, then your right to walk in the dark alley clashes with their right to analyse a crime scene, and their rights may trump yours..In most circumstances I agree that parents have the authority to make their children do or not do something, and that children are obligated to obey their parents when their parents' orders are reasonable. But I see medicine being a very borderline subject.I'm wary of medicine in general - while medicine can be helpful or necessary in some circumstances, they can also cause dangerous side-effects, some of which are not discovered by the medical community until years or decades after a medicine has been in general circulation. Hence I believe that any adult of sound mind should have the final say as to whether or not they take any kind of medical treatment. In the matter of children, their right of consent is to a certain degree delegated to their parents, but children still maintain some rights. If the medicine is something that is necessary to their health and safety, I'd see it as the parents' right (and duty) to ensure their children take it. But in the case of unnecessary medicine, children should retain the choice.I can accept requiring a teen to go on the pill under specific circumstances - for example, if the teen has such a mental handicap that they don't grasp the concept of safe sex. I can possibly fit your example into this category, when parents catch their teen having unsafe sex. But in such circumstances I think parents should have to obtain medical permission to do so, so that a third party medical or psychiatric professional will have looked into the situation and judged that it is reasonable to require the teen to go on the pill. I see it similar to admitting someone into a mental ward against their will - sometimes you can do that, but you shouldn't be able to randomly decide they need to be admitted. You have to get approval from the appropriate authorities.If parents are allowed to make their children go on the pill regardless of the circumstances, this not only violates the children's right to bodily integrity; it also creates a dangerous loophole for irresponsible parents to force pills down their children's throats as a cheap substitute for proper sex education. Some parents may even start using the pill as a method of discipline, especially if their child reacts to a particular brand ("if you don't do your homework I'll make you go on the pill for a month so you get a headache every night!").