Should 13 year old girls be able to get the pill?

Women moan loudly during sex to attract other males in the vicinity to have sex with her straight afterwards

Yes, of course they should.

People seem to be living in a dream world where thirteen year olds play with Barbies. No. They don't.

Whether or not it is wrong in your opinion, they should be able to be on the pill if they are having sex to prevent pregnancy. (As well as being educated about the spread of STIs). I'd rather see a thirteen year old on the pill enjoying her life as she has chosen it than a thirteen year old trapped with an accidental child and shunned by the ignorant side of society.

And just as an extra note, the pill can be prescribed for bad period pains aswell; not just for sex.

I personally think that its ridiculous! I think it's giving teens the option to have sex early thinking that its all fine because they're on the pill! With it, I think its giving them another excuse to do things which may and will affect other areas of their life, their education, social life and future. Understandably, people will argue that everyone has free will and should be able to do what they please and yes, some girls take the pill at a younger age to cope with issues such as bad acne or especially bad period pains, but 13 is young, too young in my opinion.

Yes, of course they should.

People seem to be living in a dream world where thirteen year olds play with Barbies. No. They don't.

Whether or not it is wrong in your opinion, they should be able to be on the pill if they are having sex to prevent pregnancy. (As well as being educated about the spread of STIs). I'd rather see a thirteen year old on the pill enjoying her life as she has chosen it than a thirteen year old trapped with an accidental child and shunned by the ignorant side of society.

And just as an extra note, the pill can be prescribed for bad period pains aswell; not just for sex.

It's probably already been said, but I don't think i'll be trawling through 11 pages to find out..

The pill isn't just for contraception - it is for skin problems, intense period pains, hormonal problems or the heaviness of periods. I started on the pill when I was 13, and i'm still on it now, 9 years later. I see no problem with it, and even if it IS for contraceptive purposes, surely this is better than having thousands of underage mothers. This is 2012, we need to address issues rather than hide from them.

Of course I would rather they weren't having sex in the first place, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening. Preventing this first and foremost should be more sexual education, but contraceptives should be given to girls that have made the decision to have sex. It IS a shame that children so young are getting involved with this, but I'm struggling to find any other way to change this so we might as well help them as best we can.

No pill available is meant to scare the crap out of them because they don't want to get pregnant. You just have to read the stories about teenagers using crisp packets instead of condoms, or closing their eyes during sex to avoid getting pregnant to realise that the risk of getting pregnant would deter a heck of a lot of youngsters from having sex. Heck, it's the same for adults too, how many sexual encounters only occur because the people involved had some form contraception?

People using a crisp packet for a condom have not been sexually educated. More sex education is the solution there, not getting RID of the contraception. People like that without any contraception will just have sex without it, which would spread STIs and pregnancy. That would be terrible.

I'm going by your logic with that one. You say people with access to condoms think using crisp packets are acceptable. Therefore, if there was no contraception available they wouldn't use any because that would be acceptable to them. Of course I wouldn't; I have had sexual education and am very happy on the pill and using condoms.

So if we give kids sexual education, and don't give them access to contraception, they won't have sex (using yourself as an example).

Yeah, telling kids in America to practice abstinence is 100% effective!

To even think that depriving a 13 year old of the opportunity to have safe sex is going to deter them from sex altogether is a ridiculous suggestion in my opinion.

Why wouldn't you give them contraception? Seems a bit foolish to say, "Here are a wide range of contraceptives you COULD use, but we're not giving them to you because you're evil for wanting sex at your age." As someone below said, that doesn't work well in America. :P

I wasn't arguing in favour of it, just pointing out why some people might.

And I notice both of you only claim that it isn't 100% effective, rather than it being ineffective, so I think that shows the debate is still open - is it better to have a lot of children having sex but not getting pregnant, or fewer children having sex but probably getting pregnant? Unless underage sex is harmless, you've still got to consider those children as in trouble, though of course not as much as children having children.