The Issue: Dispensing Norplant to Teen-Agers...

San Fernando High School is believed to be one of only a handful of school-based health clinics in the nation to offer teen-age girls the contraceptive Norplant. What makes Norplant unique is that the system requires no effort on the recipient’s part. Six matchstick-sized plastic capsules implanted under the skin of the upper arm release birth-control chemicals into the bloodstream for up to five years. The school gives parents the option of refusing reproductive services for their children. But under state law, once parents allow such services, they are not told what type of care the student receives.

Q. Why do you oppose giving Norplant to teen-agers?

A. There are about 10 reasons. One of them is that teen-agers just aren’t capable of making a five-year decision like that. It’s like becoming a drug dealer instead of occasionally smoking marijuana. A teen is not mature enough to weigh the risks.

Q. Advocates say schools must make Norplant and other contraceptives available to teens, otherwise the teen pregnancy rate will continue to soar. Doesn’t that sound reasonable?

A. No. You can’t just say kids are having sex, so we have to supply them with contraceptives. That’s like saying go ahead and drink and do drugs and we’ll just teach you how to stay out of jail. The whole emphasis in the schools should be on teaching chastity instead.

It’s not just a Catholic issue. There are great moral thinkers who thought it was the wrong way to go. Even Gandhi thought the Indian people had to learn sexual control because he said there was a connection between lack of sexual control and violence.

Q. So you believe that Norplant and other contraceptives encourage promiscuity?

A. Yes. Kids are under enormous pressure to have sex. They’re not going to read the fine print, and with Norplant, you’re not safe from venereal disease or AIDS. You’re risking your life in order to experience momentary thrills and popularity.

When I was a teen-ager, I was an atheist and contraceptive pills were just coming in. My experience and that of many of my college friends is that this liberated us to get hurt real bad. Whereas before, we’d be real cautious about having sexual intercourse with anyone, we got the idea that we would be safe, and instead we got very emotionally hurt. I don’t see it as healthy for human beings to engage in that level of intimacy with someone whose name they don’t even know.

Q. But don’t teen-agers have sex anyway, regardless of the availability of birth control?

A. If that happens, she should go ahead and have baby and give it up for adoption. That would mature her fast. Instead of just killing the baby, it would be better for her to realize she’s not just a sex object. That realization will teach her more about life.

Q. But wouldn’t that lesson come at the expense of the baby as well?

A. As a philosopher, I believe in eternal life. So, to me, it’s worth carrying the child to term even if you know he would have a life of suffering. Since there is eternal life, this life is only a tiny, minuscule portion of the whole thing.