In the past, women in America had to pay for their contraceptives expenses because many health insurance plans did not provide this cover. However, in 2011, birth control services become free with the signing of the birth control mandate into law by President Obama. Birth control is the prevention of conception and not the interference of pregnancy. It influences the family income, the health of the already born children, and the standards of living the family would like to maintain (Sanger, 2019). Ignorance of birth control measures contributes to infant and maternal deaths, unemployment, child labor, and overcrowding.
Relief Authorities in America are concerned with the high birth rate of low-income families. According to Sanger (2019), couples who plan the birth of their children at an interval of three to four years can comfortably provide for a family of four children. However, when destitute couples give birth to too many children, they cannot care for their families, and these children are eventually fed and educated through government support. Some of the children from destitute families develop delinquent tendencies which eventually lead to crime. Rehabilitating a criminal is expensive because it involves the police, a judge, counselors, and jail costs. The finances the government uses in rehabilitation centers and to feed destitute people could have been utilized in other ways if only the poor families practiced family planning.
Adapting birth control will ensure that the living standards of people improve. The reason for this is that the colossal amounts of money spent on delinquent children of couples who never planned their families would be used in the constructive planning of better education opportunities and development (Sanger, 2019). Therefore, the idea of using birth control should be embraced by parents who want to maintain high standards of living.
The opponents of birth control argue that God told Noah to multiply and fill the Earth. It is, therefore, against the law of God to try and hinder procreation. However, proponents of birth control argue that when God ordered this, there were only eight people on the Earth, and since then, the Earth’s population has significantly grown, and now most of the viable territories are inhabited. Besides, the critics of birth control argue that it is against nature’s law to control conception since the body is designed to conceive when there is intercourse. However, Sanger (2019) dispelled this idea because the brain should be used to think and plan for the family’s well-being. According to Sanger (2019), the use of birth control is not the problem, but lack of self-control is the cause of promiscuity. Birth control does not advocate for promiscuity, but rather it empowers parents to plan the family.
Some religions advocate abstinence as the only valid way of birth control. The idea of abstinence in marriage is based on the assumption that sexual behavior should only be experienced when there is a need for conception. A couple can also have sex during the safe days of a woman’s cycle. However, Sanger (2019) notes that these safe days are few or even non-existent among some women. Practicing abstinence in marriage would mean that a couple that wants to have three children will only have intercourse three times in their marriage life, which is not feasible. Abstinence is not a practical family setup, and other birth control methods should be adopted instead.
Birth control has enhanced the quality of families because couples can plan on the number of children they wish to procreate. Children from parents who practice family planning are well-mannered and are less likely to engage in delinquency since their parents closely monitor them. Some people are misinformed about family planning methods, and the government should educate society on the available birth control options.
Reference
Sanger, M. H. (2019). The case for birth control: A supplementary brief and statement of facts. Wentworth Press.