Author: Butera Michael

There are many studies that have proven the adverse biological effects of contraceptives.

For example, the National Research Council (US) Committee on Population documents that oral contraceptives are likely to cause cardiovascular disease, in particular, the risk of venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke;

Neoplastic Diseases: neoplasia that are of greatest concern with the potential effects of OC use are breast cancer, cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, and ovarian cancer; Metabolic Effects.

The intrauterine device (IUD) is also said to cause pelvic inflammatory disease, tubal infertility, septic abortion, spontaneous abortion, and uterine perforation.

These are too few to mention and various sources provide alarming evidence.

Again, contraception is a form of abortion and this is overtly revealed in cases where contraceptives fail.

This is well captured by Judie Brown, the founder, and president of the American Life League, who aptly asserts that;

{ ‘The contraceptive mentality suggests that men and women have absolute and total control over their reproductive lives. Once you have that mindset and the contraceptives fail, then you can eliminate that problem [the pregnancy] as well.’}

{{The authors are Law students at Strathmore University {}}}

Contraception addresses the problems of the poor not by striking at their roots, but by shifting the focus altogether. It reduces poverty by eliminating the poor.

Contraception does not build neonatal care facilities. It does not reduce the distances that girls have to travel to get to distant schools.

It does not assure that the crop will not fail this year, and it does not boost small family businesses. Contraception is a solution, but not the solution to poverty.

{{Social destruction}}

Yet, you may still wonder: ‘Why not adopt hormonal contraception and extend maternal healthcare facilities to reach poorer women when it fails?’

When a girl on contraceptives does a pregnancy test and it comes out positive, the first words the man says are usually something along the lines of: ‘I thought you were using contraceptives.’ Although both of them were engaged in sexual intercourse not too long ago, the outcome is her fault. The blame is on her. It’s her burden to bear.

The next few sentences could take one of two routes. Either the man says, ‘We’re in this together’ – he commits himself to raise the child with her, no matter what – or he says, ‘What are you going to do about the problem?’ Or worse, ‘That’s your problem.’

And let’s face it: for 15-year-old girls whose sexual partners are probably incapable of financially sustaining themselves, let alone a family, the second answer is far more likely, even when it’s the man’s condom that failed.

This second answer reduces the woman, supposedly beloved, to a problem. She was never loved for who she was. If she was, then the natural consequence of who she was – a woman – would not be referred to as a ‘problem’. She was loved only insofar as she made her lover happy. She was used. Objectified. From the start.

The man – the objectifier – doesn’t walk away unscathed either. The objectification and the intensity of the sexual experience leave him wanting more. It’s part of male physiology

He becomes less able to have meaningful relationships. He falls into a void of loneliness that many have described, including celebrities like Terry Crews and Russell Brand.

When he marries (if he does marry), the marriage is more unstable. Again, this can devastate him and his partner, not to mention their children, who will be more susceptible to depression, anxiety and alcohol and drug abuse.

Their sons are more likely to become delinquent and to have trouble forming bonds with others (see ‘Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles’ by the Witherspoon Institute, freely available online). And this is what happens when the contraceptives work, which isn’t as often as you might think.

Multiplied on a societal scale, these effects manifest themselves as a dramatic increase in single, unsupported motherhood; a dramatic increase in crime rates and the occurrence of mental health disorders; and an increase in rape and sexual harassment.

The real cause of the crisis that Rwanda’s 15-year-old girls will face is sexual intimacy unaccompanied by the mutual commitment that marriage and offspring tend to come with. The directive that our government proposes is detrimental to both.

The effects this will have on Rwandan society will be enormous. You don’t have to trust us. Just look at the Western world yourself.

THE AUTHOR IS A LAW STUDENT AT STRATHMORE UNIVERSITY

Now, I suppose that legislators are acting in good faith and are zealously striving to solve the problem. However, seldom do they pose to ponder the sequels of their solutions.
It is settled practice that more often than not, legislators deal with specific situations and pressing issues, and hence fail to oversee the long awaiting scheme of consequences.

I envisage that this bill, if passed, will amount perfectly to the above described situation. My argument stems from an ethical point of view of contraception rather than a legal one.

{{Disease or symptom?}}

The salient questions that should be thrown into perspective are: Is the increase in the number of teenage pregnancies a problem? What’s the cause? What drives the cause? And how do we address ourselves to stemming out the ‘causes’?

It is beyond a shadow of doubt that teenage pregnancies are an outcome of sexual activity. It is equally true that adolescent pregnancies are linked to things such as lack of education, lack of adequate information about reproduction, peer pressure and early engagement in sexual activity. Without delving into the nitty-gritties of this causality of events, it is rather convenient to just address the issue as the crow flies.

Providing contraceptives to a person as young as the age of 15 does not, even in the least, solve the predicament. The hitch is deep rooted in cultural evolution and dynamism that normalizes immorality and subjects the judgment of what is wrong or right to insensitive hearts.

Allowing 15-year olds to access contraceptives, in other words, would match an instructor who encourages his subject to engage in a risky and dreadful task citing a rich compensating insurance plan. And the words perhaps would flow like ‘great, do it, you are covered’.

It is of a short time until we realize that indeed such laws (the Bill) are propagative in nature and only encourage irresponsible sexual behaviour in all circumstances, which is destructive to individuals, families and ultimately the society as a whole.

I don’t think allowing 15-year olds access to contraceptives is a long-term solution to early pregnancy; I think it does not even stand a short time tenure. It only postpones the harm which is sharply and accumulatively waiting to strike where it hurts most and with massive destruction.

Why are young women and men engaging in sexual activities as early as at the age of 15? This should be the debate in parliament rather than ‘how should we deal with these unwanted pregnancies?’.

Although ‘Unwanted Pregnancies’ have invited legislators to think about how to prevent them, it should be equally noted that they are only a result of careless engagement, loose manners, lack of self-restraint and purpose among youths.

Thus, legislators should prudently find a solution not in the (result) pregnancies, but in the (cause): behaviours, attitudes, upbringing, exposure, lack of training in ethics in schools from an early age, detachment from culture and neglect of customs.

This raises serious questions and calls for a deep understanding of how traditional Rwanda is raising her young ones. It is true that this is a trend, which means that it was not the same in previous decades.

We are evolving and we are changing. To some point, we should reflect on this trajectory and be able to track what went wrong along the way. This is even so when referring to Rwanda, a well narrated culture.

A contraceptive culture is dangerous; it basically ‘frees’ young men and women, releasing, nay, confining them into sexual bondage. Their ‘free-world’ becomes their destruction. Their prison.

Thinking that the veil of consequences is lifted, a contraceptive culture drives teenager into widespread sexual immorality, they objectify and reduce sex to a ‘commodity’ of pleasure and enjoyment. And the consequences? [To be continued].

{This is a three-part series article where the author gives tickling insights into why the debate on access to condoms among teenagers in Rwanda should be revisited, attend to the causes other than the symptoms. In the second part to be published Monday 18th November, the author explains “Why the Condom Culture is a Prosperity Fallacy”.}

{{THE AUTHOR IS A LAW STUDENT AT STRATHMORE UNIVERSITY}}