It's been lately asserted that:
- 1. Teenagers have a very short time horizon. For them, the discounted-present-value of a risk that won't manifest until several years in the future is zero. This means that they are, in fact, not "capable of acting in their own best interest" beyond the short term, perhaps the next school year or sports season.
- 2. Humans do not develop their fully adult sense of judgment, including morality, until about age 30. So for a teenager, the risk of transmitting a disease they don't even have yet to someone else whom they haven't even met yet is not very important. And as far as teenage boys are concerned, pregnancy is not really their problem so they don't have to worry about it at all.
In the USA parents have considerable rights over the choices they make for their children. The government can only take away those rights one at a time, through a legislative or judicial process.
For example, when people have children they are not required to reallocate their family budget so they can live in a safer neighborhood where random bullets do not come through the wall. Or to buy new tires for their car or have the brakes relined when they need it, to reduce the possibility of a fatal crash.
On the other hand, just to illustrate why legislating these things is almost always a
bad idea, at least in the USA, it's been recently legislated that when you take a young child for a ride in your car, you are
required to place him in a rear-facing child-seat
in the back seat. This runs counter to the reality that about twice as many children die from being forgotten and left in the back seat of a hot car than were killed in the front seat by airbags deploying in a collision in the old days.
If I were a parent I would be picketing my state legislature every day to overturn this
idiotic, dangerous law.