[shirley7]

No. It would just further erode this country's morals and standards.What would be the pointin having an age of consent?

[minimarshmallow]

(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.

[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.

[minimarshmallow]

(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.

[gateshipone]

(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?

[jacqueline789]

(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.

[minimarshmallow]

(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.

[shirley7]

(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.

[minimarshmallow]

(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?

[gateshipone]

(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.

Relationship education sounds a lot like abstinence...something that's been proven to be ineffective in preventing young people having sex.

It's not endorsing underage sex, it's a way of making sure that if a teen is going to have sex, that they reduce the risks involved. It's not as if every pill will come with a letter from the PM telling them to go at it like rabbits!

If your argument really is that the easy availability of contraception means that society was endorsing underage sex, then we've been doing it for decades. Condom machines in public toilets are available to anyone at any age and there's no evidence that this has led to an increase in underage sex. Should we ban them too?

[shirley7]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
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?

You're probably right that the damage would be limited if doctors handed out the pill to 13 year old girls (ie fewer underage pregnancies), but the problem is the message it sends out to young people and the wider public. Surely more and more young people who would have thought twice about breaking the law would now think it's perfectly ok to do it. The standards many of our young children have are low enough as it is. The age of consent is simple - under 16s should not have sex either with anyone under or over 16. If it's going to be ignored, what's the point of having laws? Would you like to see the age of consent lowered or abolished? As I said, I think the focus should be on better education, prevention, raising aspirations etc, rather than damage limitation.

[shirley7]

(Original post by gateshipone)
Relationship education sounds a lot like abstinence...something that's been proven to be ineffective in preventing young people having sex.

It's not endorsing underage sex, it's a way of making sure that if a teen is going to have sex, that they reduce the risks involved. It's not as if every pill will come with a letter from the PM telling them to go at it like rabbits!

If your argument really is that the easy availability of contraception means that society was endorsing underage sex, then we've been doing it for decades. Condom machines in public toilets are available to anyone at any age and there's no evidence that this has led to an increase in underage sex. Should we ban them too?

The fact is that the more sex education we've had, underage pregnancies have increased as well as STDs. There needs to be a rethink surely. Many young people who would not have broken the law will be more inclined to do so if the pill is made readily available to them because, understandably, some will view it as endorsement to go ahead and do it. I'm against condom machines, they should only be available in supermarkets, pharmacists etc., but you cannot get the pill in public toilets and that should of course remain the case.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by shirley7)
The fact is that the more sex education we've had, underage pregnancies have increased as well as STDs. There needs to be a rethink surely.

Correlation != causation. I'd love to see some evidence that sex ed has caused an increase in pregnancy and STDs.

Many young people who would not have broken the law will be more inclined to do so if the pill is made readily available to them because, understandably, some will view it as endorsement to go ahead and do it.

You really think horny teenagers think about the law?! How many 13 year olds have faced a court after breaking this law? It's totally unenforceable.

I'm against condom machines, they should only be available in supermarkets, pharmacists etc.,

Why?

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by shirley7)
You're probably right that the damage would be limited if doctors handed out the pill to 13 year old girls (ie fewer underage pregnancies), but the problem is the message it sends out to young people and the wider public. Surely more and more young people who would have thought twice about breaking the law would now think it's perfectly ok to do it. The standards many of our young children have are low enough as it is. The age of consent is simple - under 16s should not have sex either with anyone under or over 16. If it's going to be ignored, what's the point of having laws? Would you like to see the age of consent lowered or abolished? As I said, I think the focus should be on better education, prevention, raising aspirations etc, rather than damage limitation.

What message is it sending out if a girl goes to her doctor and gets the pill? She might tell a few people that she got it, the doctor can't tell anyone because of confidentiality reasons, nobody is advertising the pill for children! There is no 'wider message', there's a confidential appointment resulting in a girl not getting pregnant.
The age of consent may be 'simple' but it's also arbitrary and largely to keep children from making poor decisions due to an underdeveloped frontal lobe. If someone is asking for the pill they've already made the decision, the doctor can just stop it from being a poor one. S/he can't stop her from having sex, s/he can just make sure she is safe when she does it.
I think we should educate people about sex, making sure it is safe and teaching them to avoid peer pressure etc., but short of chastity belts, I don't know how you would go about preventing people from having underage sex! And raising aspirations of what?
Telling people not to have sex before 16 doesn't work, or nobody would have sex before 16!

[*Boofle*]

I'm not reading 22 pages and undoubtedly this has already been said, but I'm totally in favour of it. It's not just for contraception, it totally eradicates period pains in many cases and many friends of mine went on the pill at that age for this reason. If I could, I would have too. Period pains are a bitch, and I don't have to suffer them any more thanks to the pill.

[KimKallstrom]

(Original post by Jeester)
My girlfriend's mum was 16 when pregnant. My girlfriend is now at one of the best universities in the country and looking to go on to do post graduate medicine.
She is a wonderful person and has been brought up by two loving parents who would do anything for her.
There is nothing wrong in having children at 16. Accidents can always lead to better things (like the invention of cornflakes... mmmmm).

Seriously, arguments made up of "you are wrong because [insert personal anecdote of exception to the rule]" are the absolute worst. People using them ought to be banned from TSR for impersonating people capable of getting into university.

[Jeester]

(Original post by KimKallstrom)
Seriously, arguments made up of "you are wrong because [insert personal anecdote of exception to the rule]" are the absolute worst. People using them ought to be banned from TSR for impersonating people capable of getting into university.

So an example used as evidence to back up an argument should not be allowed? Wow. You're so smart. Thanks for that.

[Ashley is a baws]

Porn is taking over the world

[Carecup]

(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 age of consent is to prevent pedophiles not to prevent young people having sex.

[pipistrelle]

I dont see any reason why 13 year olds shouldnt be able to get the pill i've had painful periods and skin issues (hormonal acne) since i was 11 or 12 and the pill is the most common fix for these issues, just because a girl takes the pill doesnt mean shes having sex.
In terms of contraception its more important to promote condom use i think. With pregnancy theres always abortion/adoption but if you catch something like herpes you can never get rid of it. I think its weird that sex advisers always push people to take hormonal contraception when they dont protect you against diseases. I dont think 13 year olds should be having sex, the age of consent is 16 for a reason, but they should have access to contraception.