LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: TEENAGERS RESPOND TO `A MODERN SOLUTION'; PROPOSAL TO `NORPLANT 'EM ALL' MEETS STRONG RESISTANCE

The following letters were written by advanced placement students in a junior English course at Sikeston High School. They are in response to a previous letter to the editor in the Southeast Missourian (A modern solution for teenage pregnancy, May 6). Some of the letters have been edited for length.

Birth control is a personal issue

Dear Editor,

I think the idea of inserting something like Norplant in girls between the ages of 10-20 is absurd. John Bierk quotes Dan Quayle as saying that parents should instill "the virtues of chastity, fidelity, self-control, and responsibility" in their teenagers so that they will abstain from sex. If teenagers knew that they have a fail safe method of birth control, the number of sexually active teenagers would skyrocket. Thus, the cases of STDs and AIDS would also increase.

I agree that teenage pregnancy is a prevalent problem in today's society. However, I do not think that the solution is to invade a girl's body. Whether or not you use birth control is a personal decision; not one/that the government should make for you.

TRISH PILEZYNSKI

Sikeston

Norplant safety isn't fully established

Dear Editor,

As to the letter to the editor regarding a possible solution to teenage pregnancy, while I agree with John Bierk that teenage pregnancy is a problem in this country, and it does have the "domino effect" on the U.S. social and economic systems described, I don't agree with his purported "solution". One reason I don't agree is that Mr. Bierk suggests that a young girl should have this implant at age ten.

In my opinion, a ten-year old girl really shouldn't know a lot about sex, and how would parents answer their daughter's questions about why this was being done to her? Secondly, what if a woman's body had a bad reaction to this implant device? It would have a devastating effect on her both emotionally and physically. This device could cause damage to her reproductive system, and she may not be able to have children.

Finally, the use of these devices would probably increase the number of people who are sexually active. This device does not protect people from sexually transmitted diseases.

Now, I am a 17-year-old male, and while it would be a relief not having to worry about a possible pregnancy, I don't believe that one night should ruin a woman's chances to have children for her entire life.

MATT SUTTON

Sikeston

If teenagers are old enough to have sex, they're mature enough to raise children

To John Bierk,

I must say that upon reading your commentary, I was disturbed. I feel that the whole idea of "immunizing against teenage pregnancy" is discriminative and thoughtless. For one thing, if teenagers are old enough to have sex and get pregnant, then they are mature enough to handle caring for the child.

Also, as a female in the age group "10-20", I was offended that I would have to undergo some medical procedure, which would limit my freedom to make a decision on pregnancy.

Finally, I believe that if teenagers are concerned enough about getting pregnant, then they would invest in this procedure. It shouldn't be a government decision, because it would end up being more trouble than it's worth.

STACIE LAMBERT

Sikeston

Proposal opens doors to larger, more devastating problems

To the Editor:

I agree with Dan Quayle that what teenagers most need to learn are "the virtues of chastity, fidelity, self-control, and responsibility." If every teenager would abide by those morals, then an enormous number of problems would be solved. But realistically, that would be virtually impossible. Something must be done to put a halt on the problems.

John C. Bierk's idea of an immunization for all female teenagers would definitely help to solve the problem of teenage pregnancy. But along with solving that problem, a larger and much worse problem is created. If Bierk's immunization idea goes through, the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, will skyrocket. Teenagers will have much more unprotected sex (without condoms) if they don't have to worry about becoming pregnant. There will be a definite increase in the spread of other diseases.

An increase in the number of deaths is much worse than becoming pregnant as a teenager.

HEATHER BOLLINGER

Sikeston

Bierk stereotypes youth, calling for action against all because of failures of some

Mr. Bierk:

I strongly disagree with ideas presented in your article "A modern solution for teenage pregnancy." First of all, you make it sound as if all teenagers are immoral, irresponsible, hormone-crazed idiots, which is a horribly unfair generalization. Age seems to be the last group left that people still think they can stereotype and make fun of. It's slowly becoming taboo to do it to women or blacks, but teenagers are still fair game for many of those in your supposed "mature" age bracket.

There are stereotypes about elderly people too, you know. How would you like it if someone saw you, say, in the last few years, and said, "Oh, there's an old guy. I bet he drives ten miles an hour, uses Lifecall, and sits around all day talking about the weather and his gallstones"? You'd consider that an unfair generalization, wouldn't you?

There's also a whole other issue present here. It's one thing to establish laws that control voting and the use of alcohol. It's quite another to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. I am reminded of Communist China, where they dictate how many children a family may have. This is a democratic nation, and a democratic government is not going to walk up to me and tell me that I am so irresponsible that I need to have something implanted in my body to keep me from adding to the "illegitimacy trend."

America is the "land of the free," but we will not truly be free until people quit stereotyping any groups, even age groups. And we certainly won't be free if the government starts telling us what we're going to put into the most personal thing we'll ever own, our bodies.

ROXANNE DeREIGN

Sikeston

Education, not Norplant, is way out of problem

Dear Dr. Bierk,

It is impossible to deny that there is a severe problem in this "experiment known as the United States of America" when it comes to teenage pregnancy. However, it is lazy, irresponsible, and completely unrealistic to think that all of the problems connected to teenage pregnancy could be virtually obliterated by "immunizing" teenage girls. Society would be taking the easy way out of the issue, taking the place of the education that all teenagers need to be exposed to.

It would also be totally irresponsible to send our children out with the message that we don't care what they do, because there would be no risk involved. It would be giving teenagers the green light to become sexually active before they were physically or emotionally ready.

Furthermore, there are numerous other problems related to teenagers having sex besides just the possibility of pregnancy. If this program was implemented, the cases of sexually transmitted diseases would skyrocket. I agree that there is a problem, but is this really the solution?

Alex Norton

Sikeston

It takes two to tango

To the Editor:

I am responding to the guest commentary, "A modern solution for teenage pregnancy." In this piece, John Bierk states that teenage pregnancies could be reduced if teenage girls were placed on Norplant.

I agree that many teenagers are not responsible enough to make the right choices and to face the consequences of those actions. In that case, putting girls on Norplant would be beneficial.

I also feel there are a few issues that need to be addressed. For one, all the responsibility seems to be placed on the girls. We need to remember that it takes two to conceive. Also, Norplant is not foolproof and it could be harmful to the girl.

TRACY TOWERY

Sikeston

Blame not the youth without blaming yourself

Dear Editor,

I have decided to disregard Mr. Bierk's asinine proposal about young women and Norplant, and address the larger problem in his article. I think that Mr. Bierk is guilty of ageism. Ageism, as directed toward young Americans, is a terrifying trend that is as unfair and wrong as racism or sexism. Blaming the "under 21" generation has become a rallying point for older generations. Older generations fail to consider that we, the young, are being forced to reap what the generations preceding us have sown.

Consider what has happened during your lifetime: the banning of prayer in school, the legalization of abortion, and Vietnam. These things have forever changed the shape of our nation. To believe that we can go back to the "good ole days" when children were conformists to adults' ideas is ludicrous. In this article, the young and unwed mothers are being blamed for this nation's problems instead of the true perpetrators -- old, rich, white bureaucrats.

I guess ageism has reached such an extreme point that because someone is under the age of 21 their civil rights have no validity.

Jessica Morris

Sikeston

Solution to problem must start at home

Dear Mr. Bierk,

Having read your column suggesting the government "Norplant 'em all", I think that your values of society, in general, are warped. True, the federal government has passed laws controlling certain things to teenagers (ie. alcohol, driver's license, etc.), but all of these things affect not only the individual but others as well. (A young person attempting to drive an automobile could crash into others, seriously injuring fellow drivers.) Alcohol leads to violence and what not; the list is numerous.

The solution to the pregnancy problem of today must start at home, in the heart and mind, not with some government mandate. This act would infringe on the personal rights of an individual. Believe it or not, sir, there are people in my generation who do have morals. I am 17 years old and my girlfriend and I have agreed not to make love until we are married. To force her and thousands like her to undergo a needless operation to keep her from becoming pregnant is idiotic.

What you suggest is a foolish attempt to solving a problem with government rule. Sorry, but I still think, I still feel, and I will continue to do so no matter how strong the government becomes. "Big Brother is watching" indeed. Thanks, but no thanks.

BRYAN SCHOETER

Sikeston

Norplant side effects undermine proposal

Dear John Bierk,

I read your article "A modern solution for teenage pregnancy" in the Southeast Missourian. Although I think you intentions are good, I don't agree with what you have to say. I was flipping through a magazine one day when I came across a Norplant advertisement. I decided to read all of the microscopic print because I didn't know much about it. Norplant can have some terrible side effects. Like other birth control methods, Norplant isn't foolproof.

Maybe you should read up on Norplant a little bit more before you declare it the solution to teenage pregnancy.

REBECCA CRAIG

Sikeston

Revoking the rights of Americans

Dear Editor:

After reading Dr. John Bierk's article "A Modern Solution for Teenage Pregnancy," it seems to me that he has directly contradicted himself on several occasions throughout his editorial.

He begins by recommending that we in the United States look for a cost effective method to remedy the problem of teenage pregnancy. However, Dr. Bierk's solution of a medical procedure such as Norplant is fairly costly. How does he believe that we can afford this procedure for all teenage girls in a time when the American media is crying foul over the rising costs in the medical industry and an already overwhelming debt that coincides with it?

He went on to say that this "procedure" would stop teenage pregnancy. Yes, Dr. Bierk, here you may have a valid point. However, along with ending teen pregnancy you will create a problem of teen promiscuity, as more responsible young people will no longer have pregnancy to worry about. Maybe you need to reassess your ideas on this subject.

The underlying theme of Dr. Bierk's article was the suggestion to take away the rights of teenagers. In a society where we pride ourselves on democracy and the rights of all men, if we begin by allowing the federal government to take away the rights of teens, will we next push for taking away the rights of the elderly? Then Dr. Bierk, will you allow the federal government to revoke your rights to free speech and to free press? What you are suggesting is a fascist nation where the state comes before the individual and we have no rights in our private lives.

The angle that we need to take in reducing the problem of teenage pregnancy is restoring the values that this nation was founded on. We need to begin by focusing on teaching children responsibility rather than threatening them with a procedure that could have unknown long term effects.

I believe, Dr. Bierk, that on a subconscious level this article was not on teen pregnancy but on restructuring and, most importantly, revoking the rights of a free people known as Americans. Remember, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!

STEPHEN STRICKER

Sikeston