The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 400
Original post by intermediary
I doubt that allowing 13 year old's access to the pill will increase the number having sex at that age. Having access to contraception, in my opinion, isn't going to make you suddenly decide it's time to have sex. You either want to have sex at 13 or you don't.
As long as the necessary checks are carried out beforehand- blood pressure etc, I see no reason as to why they shouldn't be able to get the pill. I also find it quite ironic that society is up in arms when a girl of that age falls pregnant...yet at the same time wants to withhold contraception...
If we're against them getting pregnant AND we're against them using contraception, then I see only one way to solve this. The only option available now is to invest in millions of steel, barb-wired chastity belts and forcibly attach them to every under 16 year old vagina and penis in the country.


"We're" only against contraception because we're against underage sex :wink: And the solution to pregnancy being available does increase underage sex (and sex overall). If you don't believe me, look at yourself - have you ever had sex with someone you didn't want to fall pregant by? Would you have done so if there was no contraception available? Same thing would apply to a child, provided they were educated properly in school.
Original post by Hopple
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.


Original post by Hopple
"We're" only against contraception because we're against underage sex :wink: And the solution to pregnancy being available does increase underage sex (and sex overall). If you don't believe me, look at yourself - have you ever had sex with someone you didn't want to fall pregant by? Would you have done so if there was no contraception available? Same thing would apply to a child, provided they were educated properly in school.


I think we shouldn't be encouraging 13 year olds to have sex, and probably think any doctor prescribing the pill to someone who is underage for contraceptive reasons should also offer them a referral to a counsellor if they'd like as some of them will have problems that need to be dealt with.
Removing their access to contraception probably won't make a difference, they'll probably just try something else like only having sex right after their period when they shouldn't be ovulating or having the guy pull out or something (I even knew someone who had the same sex education as me, which was actually pretty informative, who still thought that you couldn't get pregnant if you were standing up), which risks pregnancy because they're very ineffective.
I went on the pill at 15 for reasons related to my periods. Being provided with a contraceptive (even though that wasn't it's intended purpose) did not make me think 'Oooh, I can go out and have sex now' so I don't see why so many people think that 13 year olds being able to go get the pill think that it will mean more 13 year olds having sex. There aren't going to be doctors and pharmacists standing in the street going '13 year olds, have this and go have lots of sex!', they're just going to make the ones that are having sex safe.
Reply 402
Original post by minimarshmallow
I think we shouldn't be encouraging 13 year olds to have sex, and probably think any doctor prescribing the pill to someone who is underage for contraceptive reasons should also offer them a referral to a counsellor if they'd like as some of them will have problems that need to be dealt with.
Removing their access to contraception probably won't make a difference, they'll probably just try something else like only having sex right after their period when they shouldn't be ovulating or having the guy pull out or something (I even knew someone who had the same sex education as me, which was actually pretty informative, who still thought that you couldn't get pregnant if you were standing up), which risks pregnancy because they're very ineffective.
I went on the pill at 15 for reasons related to my periods. Being provided with a contraceptive (even though that wasn't it's intended purpose) did not make me think 'Oooh, I can go out and have sex now' so I don't see why so many people think that 13 year olds being able to go get the pill think that it will mean more 13 year olds having sex. There aren't going to be doctors and pharmacists standing in the street going '13 year olds, have this and go have lots of sex!', they're just going to make the ones that are having sex safe.


It isn't access to the pill that makes them want to have sex, it's if they want to have sex they are more likely to do so if they know they have access to the pill. I don't think I've asked you this directly, but have you ever had sex with someone that you didn't want to get pregnant by, and would you still have done so if you didn't have contraception available?
Original post by Hopple
It isn't access to the pill that makes them want to have sex, it's if they want to have sex they are more likely to do so if they know they have access to the pill. I don't think I've asked you this directly, but have you ever had sex with someone that you didn't want to get pregnant by, and would you still have done so if you didn't have contraception available?


I don't want to get pregnant at all. But if there was no contraception available at all, there are other forms of sex than vaginal intercourse that I could have should I want to have sex (assuming here of course that I know my partner is free from STDs, but that's a whole other thread).
Your idea might stop someone from having vaginal intercourse, but it won't stop oral and anal sex or anything involving fingers or toys (or anything else for that matter). Or, as I mentioned earlier, someone who is not as conscious as I am about avoiding pregnancy might try getting the guy to pull out or having sex at times of the month they think they can't get pregnant.
As I said before, any underage individual who goes to a doctor/family planning clinic to get contraception should also be offered counselling in case there is a problem at home or whatever that is the reason they're doing it. But protecting those who are having sex is a good thing.
Reply 404
Original post by minimarshmallow
I don't want to get pregnant at all. But if there was no contraception available at all, there are other forms of sex than vaginal intercourse that I could have should I want to have sex (assuming here of course that I know my partner is free from STDs, but that's a whole other thread).
Your idea might stop someone from having vaginal intercourse, but it won't stop oral and anal sex or anything involving fingers or toys (or anything else for that matter). Or, as I mentioned earlier, someone who is not as conscious as I am about avoiding pregnancy might try getting the guy to pull out or having sex at times of the month they think they can't get pregnant.
As I said before, any underage individual who goes to a doctor/family planning clinic to get contraception should also be offered counselling in case there is a problem at home or whatever that is the reason they're doing it. But protecting those who are having sex is a good thing.


It isn't my idea, I'm just pointing out it isn't all bad news. I'm not sure children would try other methods, but even so, that would also cut pregnancy, wouldn't it? If I had my way, I'd give out the pill but also tell their parents. That or lower the age of consent and majority to whatever age you'd give the pill to, but I'd prefer to keep them under the care and responsibility of their parents, and not to provide a channel for children to evade their parents.
No it shouldn't.
Original post by Boy.
I firmly believe they should not have access to the pill it will just aid to create a more sexually active environment over the country also there are side effects.


How exactly will it "create a more sexually active environment"? Do you have any evidence to suggest that increased access to contraceptives causes people who would not previously have had sex to do so? I'm asking this question to anyone else arguing this, not just the user I've quoted.

Yes, there are side effects (do you even know what these are?), but I don't personally think they are as bad for most girls as pregnancy would be. Almost all medicines give some people side effects, is that really a reason to limit access to them to a certain age group? Finally, I'll reiterate something that has been mentioned many times on this thread: the pill is not only prescribed as a contraceptive.
Original post by Philbert
How exactly will it "create a more sexually active environment"? Do you have any evidence to suggest that increased access to contraceptives causes people who would not previously have had sex to do so? I'm asking this question to anyone else arguing this, not just the user I've quoted.

Yes, there are side effects (do you even know what these are?), but I don't personally think they are as bad for most girls as pregnancy would be. Almost all medicines give some people side effects, is that really a reason to limit access to them to a certain age group? Finally, I'll reiterate something that has been mentioned many times on this thread: the pill is not only prescribed as a contraceptive.


I agree with this. I'd rather have a bit of breast tenderness, potential spotting and weight gain than get pregnant.
Also, I just got a repeat of my pill and decided to read the leaflet again (procrastinating) and one of the side effects is decreased sex drive. So that goes against people's ideas that girls on the pill will be more likely to have sex...
Original post by Philbert
How exactly will it "create a more sexually active environment"? Do you have any evidence to suggest that increased access to contraceptives causes people who would not previously have had sex to do so? I'm asking this question to anyone else arguing this, not just the user I've quoted


Considering how condoms are ridiculously easy to access at any age thanks to public toilets having dispensers, I'd say it's very unlikely access to contraceptives = more sex. That and minimarshmallow's actual evidence from the pill suggesting it lowers sex drive is pretty damning evidence.

What this comes down to is people getting morally outraged without really looking into the subject. They react on gut instinct alone and this pretty much reduces their argument to "I don't like it, therefore it's wrong".
Original post by gateshipone
That and minimarshmallow's actual evidence from the pill suggesting it lowers sex drive is pretty damning evidence.


Actually, I remember it being listed as a side-effect on my old pill as well as my current one, and when I pointed it out to my mum she said it was on one of her old ones (different to the two I was on) and my best friend also said it was listed on her old pill as well (she's now on the same one as me). So that's at least 4 different pills that it is listed as a side effect - I think it's pretty common, but I know for certain for at least 4 different types (although I think the one my mum used to be on isn't one of the commonly used ones anymore).
Reply 410
Original post by prema32
"Girls as young as 13 should be able to walk into a high-street chemist and get the contraceptive pill if they want it".

It's a pretty hot topic at the moment, and I was just wondering what everyone's opinions are - will it just make it easier to have sex and therefore encourage sex from such a young age, at an age that for most girls is just after puberty?? Or will it prevent unwanted teen pregnancies??

Lets start the debate :smile:


Yes they should because it will stop them maybe having kids before theyre ready to look after them if theyre sexually active... not getting the pill wont stop them from having sex so theres no point in not giving it really...
No. It would just further erode this country's morals and standards.What would be the pointin having an age of consent?
Original post by shirley7
No. It would just further erode this country's morals and standards.What would be the pointin having an age of consent?


The pill being available won't make them more likely to have sex. It will just stop (well, in a majority of cases) them getting pregnant if they do have sex.
In fact, because decreased sex drive is a side effect on 3 commonly used pills at the moment (and one that used to be common but isn't anymore), it might actually reduce the likelihood they will have sex.
No, it would be encouraging under-age sex and plus having the pill too much too early can lead to medical problems later in life.
Original post by jacqueline789
No, it would be encouraging under-age sex and plus having the pill too much too early can lead to medical problems later in life.


How exactly does it encourage under-age sex? We're not throwing the pill at people and telling them to have sex. Girls who want to have sex will go and get the pill and not get pregnant when they do.
Plus I'd rather have a slightly higher risk of certain kinds of cancers than a baby at age 13.
Original post by shirley7
No. It would just further erode this country's morals and standards.What would be the pointin having an age of consent?


So morally it's better to have 13 year olds giving birth to children they have no hope of being able to raise well?

The age of consent is only really useful for determining whether a person below that age has been taken advantage of by someone older than them. It's not really going to stop 2 13 year olds having sex if they want to is it?
Original post by minimarshmallow
How exactly does it encourage under-age sex? We're not throwing the pill at people and telling them to have sex. Girls who want to have sex will go and get the pill and not get pregnant when they do.
Plus I'd rather have a slightly higher risk of certain kinds of cancers than a baby at age 13.


Uhh because they will be less concerned about becoming pregnant and thus treat sex like a game, hence 13, immature.
Original post by jacqueline789
Uhh because they will be less concerned about becoming pregnant and thus treat sex like a game, hence 13, immature.


That might happen if you stand outside a high school and give girls the pill and tell them to have sex. Or if you advertise, come get the pill so you can have sex, but that isn't what's happening. If a girl has already made the decision to have sex and has made an appointment to see the doctor for contraceptives she's going to do it whether you give her the pill or not, so I see no reason to not give it to her.
Original post by gateshipone
So morally it's better to have 13 year olds giving birth to children they have no hope of being able to raise well?

The age of consent is only really useful for determining whether a person below that age has been taken advantage of by someone older than them. It's not really going to stop 2 13 year olds having sex if they want to is it?


Two 13 year olds having sex is wrong. Rather than encourage it, government and health professionals should be working out ways to prevent 13 year olds from having sex, ie. relationship education rather than sex education. It may prevent pregnancies, but handing out the pill effectively endorses underage sex and that is wrong.
Original post by shirley7
Two 13 year olds having sex is wrong. Rather than encourage it, government and health professionals should be working out ways to prevent 13 year olds from having sex, ie. relationship education rather than sex education. It may prevent pregnancies, but handing out the pill effectively endorses underage sex and that is wrong.


I know this isn't aimed at me but I stated earlier that I think if an underage girl (or boy for that matter if he's going for condoms) sees a doctor or family planning clinic they should be offered counselling in case there is a problem at home or something that is driving them to go out and have sex, but telling them they can't have contraception and should just have sex isn't going to work. I'd like them to be able to figure out a way to do that if they could, but in the meantime isn't limiting the damage the best option?