This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- How likely is it for me to get pregnant?
- Help with choosing contraceptive pills.
- what is the average age of first kiss and losing virginity
- Just some advice
- Is my bad bacne going to affect my relationships with girls?
- LNAT Practice
- Are you still a virgin?
- Blackpill v Bluepill
- The pill Weight gain and slowed metabolism
- Retake gcse maths
- Should a 13 year old date a 16 year old?
- I have a stretch mark ‘down there’
- Hate my sister, she is a deadbeat mother and I’m basically the dad !!!! Help
- Is 17 and 19 a bad age gap in a relationship?
- Pregnant and start year 3 of nursing degree september
- Why is it that girls and boys can reach puberty at such a young age?
- Teenage girls as horny as teenage guys?
- Norethisterone - Do the benefits outweigh the side effects?
- The pill (PERIOD)
- friends in year 13
Should 13 year old girls be able to get the pill?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jimbo1234
Nice strawman. The UK has one of the worst underage sex problems hence why studies like this are being developed.
I think emotional insecurity is 100% the reason why 13 year olds have sex. Why do you think it is after considering the risks and maturity of the child?
Actually at 13 my sex drive was not as high as when I was 16 and that was the same for everyone I knew.
Again, another starwman. Most 16 year olds will make better decisions and be more emotionally ready for sex - though that is not to say that they actually are ready, simply closer to it. But of course you will always have the stupid 16 year olds.
So it is natural for a species to have a very high miscarriage and paternal fatality risk for pregnancy ?
Oh dear.....
Puberty does not happen over night. It takes years. What you are saying is that same as claiming that everyone should sit their final degree exams at the start of the first year.
Or, now brace yourself for this idea, the child respects the parent and listens to them
And again, having sex at 13 is abnormal. That is a fact.
I think emotional insecurity is 100% the reason why 13 year olds have sex. Why do you think it is after considering the risks and maturity of the child?
Actually at 13 my sex drive was not as high as when I was 16 and that was the same for everyone I knew.
Again, another starwman. Most 16 year olds will make better decisions and be more emotionally ready for sex - though that is not to say that they actually are ready, simply closer to it. But of course you will always have the stupid 16 year olds.
So it is natural for a species to have a very high miscarriage and paternal fatality risk for pregnancy ?
Oh dear.....Puberty does not happen over night. It takes years. What you are saying is that same as claiming that everyone should sit their final degree exams at the start of the first year.
Or, now brace yourself for this idea, the child respects the parent and listens to them
And again, having sex at 13 is abnormal. That is a fact.
Stop saying strawman, you need to learn more logical fallacies and you're not always using it correctly. For example, your use of insults is a clear example of ad hominem attacks. The rest is pure anecdotal and not backed up by evidence.
Again, you keep acting like what you're saying is true yet your only basis for it is your own personal experience. Hate to break it to you but you cannot possibly base an argument on your own experiences, they're biased and would not be accepted in any real study.
As for your exam analogy, nice try but that wasn't what I was saying at all. I'm saying that most people choose when to have sex. Some are more sexually mature at an earlier age than others. Some have a higher sex drive than others at a younger age. What I'm saying is that if a 13 year old chooses to have sex at 13, it doesn't automatically mean they're damaged in some way.
I can't be bothered to address some of your other points to be honest. You'll only counter with "straw man" and "I think" sentences and I'm not in the mood for those.
I think young boys need to be told that they cant just stick it in a girl without understanding the consequences, i dont understand why its only girls thats the concern in underage sex.
To answer the question, the child should get the pill if she wants to, but it shouldn't be treated like a quick fix and then they repeat it, they need to be educated and understand how serious it is.
But also i think communication between child and parent is weak these days, and talking to them should be encouraged.
To answer the question, the child should get the pill if she wants to, but it shouldn't be treated like a quick fix and then they repeat it, they need to be educated and understand how serious it is.
But also i think communication between child and parent is weak these days, and talking to them should be encouraged.
Original post by danny111
The better question is, what 13 year old girl walks into a chemist and asks for the pill?
I sure as hell would not have bought condoms when I was 13.
I sure as hell would not have bought condoms when I was 13.
I certainly would have. I was walking into strip clubs (even with my dad on holiday!), porno shops and the like at 15. If you can't buy a few Durex from a chemist at 13 you must be VERY immature...
No I totally disagree with this!
I was able to get the pill when I had just turned 15, and this made me think it was ok to have sex without a condom.
So 13 year old girls will then not only think it's ok to have sex but also that they don't need to use condoms, and then they've got more chance of catching an STI and spreading it.
Think it's completely wrong..
I was able to get the pill when I had just turned 15, and this made me think it was ok to have sex without a condom.
So 13 year old girls will then not only think it's ok to have sex but also that they don't need to use condoms, and then they've got more chance of catching an STI and spreading it.
Think it's completely wrong..
The Pill is used to alleviate whole host of complications that often arise early in female puberty. From blood clotting disorders to severe pain to irregularities. I think all menstruating females should be offered the pill to aid them through this.
Being offered the pill at a young age can be a very empowering and positive thing. Instead of viewing bleeding as the woman's curse/burden she can now view her own anatomy as an entity which is not entirely out of her control.
Allowing her to have more control over her ascent to womanhood may boost her self esteem and help combat negative roles of women portrayed by pop culture that she will inevitably, and tragically be exposed to. I do not think the pill should be looked at as a sex enabling agent at all. Healthy, mature relationships and condoms need to be stressed as sex enablers- not the pill.
To stop a mentally and emotionally un-ready girl from having sex, we as a society need to be more emotionally supportive of pubescent and adolescent girls
'cause this is what's blaring at middle school dances right now
"Rack city bitch, rack, rack city bitch, Ten ten ten twenties on ya titties bitch, Got my other bitch f**king with my other bitch, F**king all night n***a we ain't celibate, Make it sound too dope I ain't selling it" Oh he's selling it alright, while dance halls of 11-13 year olds rub dry hump each other to the beat. This behaviour should not be allowed but it's practically obligatory if you, like all children, just want to belong.
The pill is not the problem.
Being offered the pill at a young age can be a very empowering and positive thing. Instead of viewing bleeding as the woman's curse/burden she can now view her own anatomy as an entity which is not entirely out of her control.
Allowing her to have more control over her ascent to womanhood may boost her self esteem and help combat negative roles of women portrayed by pop culture that she will inevitably, and tragically be exposed to. I do not think the pill should be looked at as a sex enabling agent at all. Healthy, mature relationships and condoms need to be stressed as sex enablers- not the pill.
To stop a mentally and emotionally un-ready girl from having sex, we as a society need to be more emotionally supportive of pubescent and adolescent girls
'cause this is what's blaring at middle school dances right now
"Rack city bitch, rack, rack city bitch, Ten ten ten twenties on ya titties bitch, Got my other bitch f**king with my other bitch, F**king all night n***a we ain't celibate, Make it sound too dope I ain't selling it" Oh he's selling it alright, while dance halls of 11-13 year olds rub dry hump each other to the beat. This behaviour should not be allowed but it's practically obligatory if you, like all children, just want to belong.
The pill is not the problem.
why would a 13 year old be on the pill anyway? 
that's just weird
that's just weird
Original post by LaughingBro
You mean they can get it for free?! It cost like £22!!! 
I believe you're thinking of the morning after pill, but yes, that is also available for free from many chemists, family planning clinics and probably GPs.
Original post by tc92
That's completely darting around the point.
If it's wrong for under-16s to be having sex, should we spend taxpayers' money protecting those who are breaking the law? Yes or no, it should be applied equally to males & females.
If it's wrong for under-16s to be having sex, should we spend taxpayers' money protecting those who are breaking the law? Yes or no, it should be applied equally to males & females.
Yes, we should protect those who break the law, especially if they're children.
Are you saying that since they broke the law they deserve what's coming to them? Do 13 year olds deserve any unwanted pregnancies that happen to them? You do realise the reason the law is there in the first place is to protect them from just that.
(edited 11 years ago)
On one hand, giving them the pill could encourage them to have sex, as it's acting as a 'safety device' in a way, to stop them from getting pregnant...if this wasn't available, then there's a chance that less girls would engage in sex at such a low age, for fear of getting pregnant etc. Handing out pills to these girls is basically just reassuring them that it's okay to have sex at that age.
On the other hand, some girls would still have sex even if they weren't being supplied with the pill.
No matter what you do to stop it, there are always going to be some people who still do it, so I think that refusing to give people as young as 13 the pill would cause more problems than good.
On the other hand, some girls would still have sex even if they weren't being supplied with the pill.
No matter what you do to stop it, there are always going to be some people who still do it, so I think that refusing to give people as young as 13 the pill would cause more problems than good.
Original post by Dragonfly07
Yes, we should protect those who break the law, especially if they're children.
Are you saying that since they broke the law they deserve what's coming to them? Do 13 year olds deserve any unwanted pregnancies that happen to them? You do realise the reason the law is there in the first place is to protect them from just that.
Are you saying that since they broke the law they deserve what's coming to them? Do 13 year olds deserve any unwanted pregnancies that happen to them? You do realise the reason the law is there in the first place is to protect them from just that.
....and they broke the law so they deserve to suffer the consequences of being stupid. This country is turning more and more into a nanny state that will look after everyone no matter how stupid or morally bankrupt they are.
I don't have a problem with it.
Yes, I appreciate that the Law says they must wait until they're 16, but if they're 13 and they think that they're in "love", they're going to do it regardless. It's not up to the government to decide when two people are ready to have sex. Some will be ready before they turn 16; some after.
If two people feel ready to have sex, it's not up to us to tell us that they're wrong. I don't think giving them the pill will change anything.
Yes, I appreciate that the Law says they must wait until they're 16, but if they're 13 and they think that they're in "love", they're going to do it regardless. It's not up to the government to decide when two people are ready to have sex. Some will be ready before they turn 16; some after.
If two people feel ready to have sex, it's not up to us to tell us that they're wrong. I don't think giving them the pill will change anything.
Original post by -Emmz-
I think you mean a pharmacist not a chemist.
Why do you think a pharmacist wouldn't be as thorough? Pharmacists have trained for 5 years to become experts in the safe and effective use of medicines.
I'd more than happily go to a pharmacist to get my pill rather than go through the rigmarole of trying to get an appointment at GP (an appointment where I can tell you exactly what questions I'm going to be asked and the thing that takes the longest is for the prescription to print off and be signed). A pharmacist is more than capable of doing what a GP/practice nurse does when I go for a pill check/new prescription.
Why do you think a pharmacist wouldn't be as thorough? Pharmacists have trained for 5 years to become experts in the safe and effective use of medicines.
I'd more than happily go to a pharmacist to get my pill rather than go through the rigmarole of trying to get an appointment at GP (an appointment where I can tell you exactly what questions I'm going to be asked and the thing that takes the longest is for the prescription to print off and be signed). A pharmacist is more than capable of doing what a GP/practice nurse does when I go for a pill check/new prescription.
I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, what I was trying to say was that during an appointment with your GP they check your family history. For me, since I have a rare genetic disordery family which, if I have it, would cause my blood to clot and I could die/have increased risk of cancer etc. Therefore they had to give me a blood test. I sincerely doubt that they would sit a young girl down in the middle of lloyds pharmacy and check their family history and give them a blood test. That is why I am saying that they wouldn't be as thorough.
I also sincerely apologise for the misuse of the word chemist. Where I'm from we use 'the chemist' instead of a 'pharmacy'.
Original post by InvertedLayman
How disgusting! We are living species, but certainly not "animals". We were designed as human beings, having the same sort of cells as other living beings doesn't make us wild. There's nothing wrong with sex INSIDE marriage. How I long for old Britain, at least they knew where stuff was at.
Someone needs to read Origin of Species.
btw there's nothing wrong with sex OUTSIDE marriage either. Why would you need a piece of paper telling you if you can have sex?
NO. The pill messes with the body, hence why my doc wouldn't let me go on it til I was 16 (not contraception, painful periods)
It changes the menstruantion cycle, to the extent where periods can be skipped by just going onto the next cycle of pills without a break inbetween.
A thirteen year old is still developing, she may not have even had her first period yet, so to put her on the pill would probably **** up her system.
Although I can see the other side of the argument, I think the medical aspect is the big elephant in the room.
It changes the menstruantion cycle, to the extent where periods can be skipped by just going onto the next cycle of pills without a break inbetween.
A thirteen year old is still developing, she may not have even had her first period yet, so to put her on the pill would probably **** up her system.
Although I can see the other side of the argument, I think the medical aspect is the big elephant in the room.
I think that it is a good idea because although I know there are a lot of arguments that suggest it promotes sex, it will have some good effects! If younger girls were allowed to take the pill, not only would they have a better quality of life and be actually able to do something with their lives, but also this stops babies being born to mothers who do not know how to look after their children properly! In the long run, this also benefits the tax payer as less teenage mums will be living off what the Government and the tax payer provides them with!
Original post by DRE_902
I don't have a problem with it.
Yes, I appreciate that the Law says they must wait until they're 16, but if they're 13 and they think that they're in "love", they're going to do it regardless. It's not up to the government to decide when two people are ready to have sex. Some will be ready before they turn 16; some after.
If two people feel ready to have sex, it's not up to us to tell us that they're wrong. I don't think giving them the pill will change anything.
Yes, I appreciate that the Law says they must wait until they're 16, but if they're 13 and they think that they're in "love", they're going to do it regardless. It's not up to the government to decide when two people are ready to have sex. Some will be ready before they turn 16; some after.
If two people feel ready to have sex, it's not up to us to tell us that they're wrong. I don't think giving them the pill will change anything.
I agree with you, at the end of the day you cannot stop someone who is intent on having sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend/whoever, you can only offer them contraception to make sure that they do not damage their future chances in the process!
Original post by Stefan1991
Someone needs to read Origin of Species.
btw there's nothing wrong with sex OUTSIDE marriage either. Why would you need a piece of paper telling you if you can have sex?
Someone needs to read Origin of Species.
btw there's nothing wrong with sex OUTSIDE marriage either. Why would you need a piece of paper telling you if you can have sex?
*Facepalm* someone needs to read the Quran.
Original post by GodfreySaker
I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, what I was trying to say was that during an appointment with your GP they check your family history. For me, since I have a rare genetic disordery family which, if I have it, would cause my blood to clot and I could die/have increased risk of cancer etc. Therefore they had to give me a blood test. I sincerely doubt that they would sit a young girl down in the middle of lloyds pharmacy and check their family history and give them a blood test. That is why I am saying that they wouldn't be as thorough.
I also sincerely apologise for the misuse of the word chemist. Where I'm from we use 'the chemist' instead of a 'pharmacy'.
I also sincerely apologise for the misuse of the word chemist. Where I'm from we use 'the chemist' instead of a 'pharmacy'.
That's okay you don't need to apologise, I think a lot of people called pharmacists, chemists as they did used to be called 'pharmaceutical chemists'.
I didn't misinterpret what you were saying, but maybe I wasn't very clear in my reply so I apologise
. You're right the pharmacist wouldn't sit a young girl down in the middle of the pharmacy - they'd use their private consultation room to go through an assessment, which would include family history amongst other things, in fact much like the one a GP would go through with you. In your case I would hope the pharmacist would be sensible enough to assess they needed to refer you to the GP for further investigations and not supply you with the pill.A lot of people in general don't understand exactly what pharmacists do/have the potential to do. The way I understand this scheme is that 'low risk' patients can be screened and monitored in the pharmacy and anyone else gets referred on to the GP. It's certainly not going to be a case of walking into a pharmacy, asking for the contraceptive pill and it being handed over no questions asked. At the end of the day it will be their neck on the line if they give the pill to someone it's not suitable for so I'm sure pharmacists will be very serious about assessing patients thoroughly.
Original post by Hopple
The 13 year olds should be told that their parents won't be told, but then their parents should be told afterwards.
That or abolish the underage sex law (can replace with the 'half you age plus seven' though).
That or abolish the underage sex law (can replace with the 'half you age plus seven' though).
Why replace it with 'half your age plus seven'? Is there any logical basis for this? It seems to be more arbitrary then the current age of consent.
Related discussions
- How likely is it for me to get pregnant?
- Help with choosing contraceptive pills.
- what is the average age of first kiss and losing virginity
- Just some advice
- Is my bad bacne going to affect my relationships with girls?
- LNAT Practice
- Are you still a virgin?
- Blackpill v Bluepill
- The pill Weight gain and slowed metabolism
- Retake gcse maths
- Should a 13 year old date a 16 year old?
- I have a stretch mark ‘down there’
- Hate my sister, she is a deadbeat mother and I’m basically the dad !!!! Help
- Is 17 and 19 a bad age gap in a relationship?
- Pregnant and start year 3 of nursing degree september
- Why is it that girls and boys can reach puberty at such a young age?
- Teenage girls as horny as teenage guys?
- Norethisterone - Do the benefits outweigh the side effects?
- The pill (PERIOD)
- friends in year 13
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
