[TheHistoryStudent]

Personally I don't believe the often repeated conservative (I don't mean the tory party btw) and/or religious argument that XYZ proposal will give a liscence for something bad - in this case underage promiscuity. Said argument has been trotted out over and over again on issues like sex, marriage, motherhood, family and so on over the past 100 or so years, and the end result has never been the so called break down of society or whatever extreme and impossible argument they like to spout.

This proposal, while I must admit I do not necessarily agree with it - since underage girls (and boys) can only engage in sex illegally anyway may well have a positive impact in reducing the number of teenage pregnancies, as provided kids who want to engage in sex know about contraception and know they can get it, it will be available and so can prevent them from becoming pregnant (I assume they'll get advice when they get the contraception on how to use it).

I think the wider issue behind this though is the fact that underage kids are having sex in the first place... as I say I don't think this will promote promiscuity below 16, but I do think kids should be discouraged from having sex before 16, and while this proposal may have benefits in that it may cut teen pregnancy, I think it may also have the effect of possibly legitimising underage sex in the minds of those who are already considering it...

Anyway, thats my 2p.

[New...Romantic]

(Original post by iJess)
Oh well the pharmacy where I live DON'T give you health check ups if you're buying it. You just buy it and that's it.

The pill doesn't suit everyone anyway the first pill I went on (Microgynon 30) was a nightmare. It gave me depression, a lot of weight gain and I was very moody. Loestrin was better and now I'm on Mercilon which is a miracle. Would 13 year olds be happy with side effects such as weight gain in our society? hmm

What are we talking about here, the pill or the MAP? People wouldn't be buying the pill anyway, it would be prescribed. Just by a pharmacist instead of the GP.

I know. If you read my previous post I actually don't think it's a good idea. Not without full access to medical records. Although side effects happen whether you get a prescription from a GP, pharmacist or anywhere else.

(Original post by technocrat)
Saying that, i agree with the trial, most 13 year old girls should go to their parents first, if thats not possible due to parents being ****e or druggies or w/e then go to GP, but if you cant do that then i would rather them have sex without getting pregnant than nothing. Also the pharmacist would be able to give them some limited advice...

i see it as a last ditch safety net.

Why only limited advice? Just curious as to what you think a GP would tell them that a pharmacist wouldn't.

(Original post by canŵio)
but i thought you could get the pill at 13? i know lots of people who got it for their periods etc, and i'm sure you're allowed for contraception too.

You can. It isn't about whether 13 year olds should be having sex or even if they should be allowed the pill, it's about whether they should be able to get it through pharmacies. A lot of people seem to be missing the point.

[Dragonfly07]

(Original post by tc92)
Should we provide burglars with free protective clothing so they don't hurt themselves when breaking in to someone's house? Just because someone's going to break the law anyway, doesn't mean we should spend taxpayers' money protecting them whilst they do so.

Either that or change the law. You simply cannot have a state where the law says the age of consent is 16 and the government permits something completely contradictory.

Burglars don't get pregnant from stealing. I'm sure if they did, the government would try to do something about it.

Also, having sex is completely harmless if you reduce the chances of pregnancy and STDs, regardless of your age. Burgling a house and harming other people's property breaches other people's rights.

It's not the right comparison to make.

[Clare~Bear]

(Original post by Moiraclaire)
YES. They should be allowed the pill. No children unless your over 22, married, or both, would lead to a more stable future generation, a stronger economy and better culture.

Obviously, 13 year old's shouldn't be having sex, but if there are no children, and they're having sex with each other (not adults) then there is more harm then good in not giving them the pill.

What nonsense. You're implying that anyone who got pregnant under 22 would be forced to have an abortion which is traumatising and can lead to all kinds of complications. How old are you?

[Jeester]

No.
Sex is illegal before 16. We should not encourage it and make it seem like there a no concequences.

[barnetlad]

So far there seems to have been little discussion on how it might affect boys attitudes to sex in their teenage years. Will they pressurise girls even more if they think the girl can go to a pharmacist without their mother or their family doctor knowing?

[iJess]

(Original post by New...Romantic)
What are we talking about here, the pill or the MAP? People wouldn't be buying the pill anyway, it would be prescribed. Just by a pharmacist instead of the GP.

I know. If you read my previous post I actually don't think it's a good idea. Not without full access to medical records. Although side effects happen whether you get a prescription from a GP, pharmacist or anywhere else.



Why only limited advice? Just curious as to what you think a GP would tell them that a pharmacist wouldn't.



You can. It isn't about whether 13 year olds should be having sex or even if they should be allowed the pill, it's about whether they should be able to get it through pharmacies. A lot of people seem to be missing the point.

I don't know what MAP means, I'm on about the pill. I get it on prescription since I was 13 because of my periods, but I originally said chemists cannot currently see family records and in my area if you get it from a chemist they don't do all the health checks like they do at GP. There was a story in the news only last week that a girl who was 14 I think? Had a stroke because of the pill, so health checks are important

[Jeester]

(Original post by Moiraclaire)
YES. They should be allowed the pill. No children unless your over 22, married, or both, would lead to a more stable future generation, a stronger economy and better culture.

Obviously, 13 year old's shouldn't be having sex, but if there are no children, and they're having sex with each other (not adults) then there is more harm then good in not giving them the pill.

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).

[GirasoleL]

While I don't think you should encourage people as young as 13 to be having sex, I think it should be available to them. If a 13 year old really wants to or is going to have sex, they will still do it anyway. Although, whats better them being protected against pregnancy or having sex without the pill or the chance of them possibly not using the condom properly and getting pregnant? Some sex education is so bad there are actually some people that age that actually falsley believe things such as not being able to get pregnant the first time etc. So it would be better if they were on the pill and wouldn't make such mistakes (and to improve sex education in schools).

Also, some people medically need the pill, Doctors already sometimes prescribe people as young as 13 the pill if they get really horrible periods (heavy, painful, always sick and faint etc). It helps A LOT with bad periods for some people. While I do use the pill for contraception I also use it for my periods and touch wood, haven't had a bad one since, infact they're very light and almost non existent now. I would therefore say that it being more available to young people would also be good in that if girls are suffering from bad periods they have the option to try it as a way in which to make them better, so the pill can be seen as something that is not just a contraceptive, but as something which can be used to help girls who have really bad periods.

Although yes, like Dragonfly has said they should be educated more on the pill and warned that it won't protect them against STDs.

[New...Romantic]

(Original post by iJess)
I don't know what MAP means, I'm on about the pill. I get it on prescription since I was 13 because of my periods, but I originally said chemists cannot currently see family records and in my area if you get it from a chemist they don't do all the health checks like they do at GP. There was a story in the news only last week that a girl who was 14 I think? Had a stroke because of the pill, so health checks are important

Sorry, morning after pill.

So are the pharmacies in your area prescribing the contraceptive pill? Yeah, health checks are important but I think most peoples' checks are how I described mine. Do you really get your height, weight, breasts etc checked at every appointment? Maybe that's a really thorough GP. Or they might carry out more health checks if your history puts you at higher risk.

[Electronica]

Pretty sure it's possible to get the pill at a clinic in Scotland at that age. No first time users can get it over the counter at the pharmacy, but once they've been on it for three months or so without side effects then they can.

I think it should be right for 13 year olds to be able to get the pill once they have discussed the risks with a health professional. The side effects of the pill are far too risky for just dishing out though, that's what condoms are for. It's not really about age, it's about maturity.

As for the legal age of consent I would keep it where it is, 16 years old. People are always going to break this law but so long as it's kept high then people aren't going to break it more than they are already doing. It is an effective guideline.

[New...Romantic]

(Original post by Electronica)
Pretty sure it's possible to get the pill at a clinic in Scotland at that age. No first time users can get it over the counter at the pharmacy, but once they've been on it for three months or so without side effects then they can.

I think it should be right for 13 year olds to be able to get the pill once they have discussed the risks with a health professional. The side effects of the pill are far too risky for just dishing out though, that's what condoms are for. It's not really about age, it's about maturity.

As for the legal age of consent I would keep it where it is, 16 years old. People are always going to break this law but so long as it's kept high then people aren't going to break it more than they are already doing. It is an effective guideline.

Can they? I've never come across that.

It wouldn't just be dished out though, it would be prescribed following a consultation with a pharmacist (who is a health professional.)

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Jimbo1234)
At that age they still shouldn't be sexually active, hence why some could die if they did become pregnant.
There is a massive difference between minor sexual arousal, and ****ing someone. The problem is that they have no support from their parents and feel neglected, thus try to compensate for it by sleeping about as early as possible. Giving these kids the pill is simply advocating under-age sex and not tackling the real problem.

Why shouldn't they be sexually active, does it go against your religious values?

Teenagers have varying levels of sexual arousal i.e. some will not even masturbate whilst others are so sexually aroused that they chose to have consensual sex with like-minded peers.

I know people in my year group (comprised of 15-16 year olds) who have had sex and have a lot of support from their parents (not about the sex of course, but in other areas).

Giving teenage girls contraceptive pills does not in anyway advocate under-age sex, because if the pill was banned and then reintroduced a girl wouldn't just go "I better have sex then". The real problem here is not teenagers having sex, in fact, if the pill was banned you would see increased levels of teenage pregnancy (considering the UK is the worst in Europe for teenage pregnancy, banning the pill wouldn't be such a good idea) and consequently higher levels of abortion (which has been shown to cause mental health problems in up to 40% of people who have abortions).

[iJess]

(Original post by New...Romantic)
Sorry, morning after pill.

So are the pharmacies in your area prescribing the contraceptive pill? Yeah, health checks are important but I think most peoples' checks are how I described mine. Do you really get your height, weight, breasts etc checked at every appointment? Maybe that's a really thorough GP. Or they might carry out more health checks if your history puts you at higher risk.

Ohh I get it now, and yeah as the pill gives you a higher risk of breast cancer I think it is? & I get blood pressure taken, I don't have family history of strokes or anything but my GP said a while ago she feels it's important because you hear all these stories in the news about GP's misdiagnosing people and people dying from stuff

[Electronica]

(Original post by New...Romantic)
Can they? I've never come across that.

It wouldn't just be dished out though, it would be prescribed following a consultation with a pharmacist (who is a health professional.)

Yes, my girlfriend is on it. I was under the impression that this new pilot scheme would have the boxes thrown out on to the street, and that's why it's so radical.
So long as a health professional is involved I'm ok with it, but they should be very discouraging to women of a younger age: 'Do you REALLY want to do this?' etc.

[hkukbex]

(Original post by New...Romantic)
Sorry, morning after pill.

So are the pharmacies in your area prescribing the contraceptive pill? Yeah, health checks are important but I think most peoples' checks are how I described mine. Do you really get your height, weight, breasts etc checked at every appointment? Maybe that's a really thorough GP. Or they might carry out more health checks if your history puts you at higher risk.

My GP was really thorough when i asked to go on the pill (i was 18 at the time) he also stressed that of all the forms of contraception, condoms were the best to prevent against everything, whereas pill will only prevent pregnancy blah blah... he also talked me through all of the other forms of contraception even though i had already researched everything before i went to him, and he sent me away with alot of leaflets and told me to go back once id made a definite decision. That was before even checking my medical history.

I actually think 13 is way too young for kids to be considering having sex, i definitely wasn't anywhere near ready and or want to have sex at that age. I think if its available for girls at pharmacies, then boys are going to pressurise girls more to 'do it' and girls are already pressurised as it is.

Also, im not sure how responsible a 13-year old would be to take their pill at the right time everyday- i know at 13 i probably wouldnt have remembered. If you dont take it right, you might as well not be taking it at all.

[AliceStrawbs]

(Original post by LaughingBro)
You mean they can get it for free?! It cost like £22!!!

Everyone can get it for free...

[Jimbo1234]

(Original post by Tahooper)
Why shouldn't they be sexually active, does it go against your religious values?

Teenagers have varying levels of sexual arousal i.e. some will not even masturbate whilst others are so sexually aroused that they chose to have consensual sex with like-minded peers.

I know people in my year group (comprised of 15-16 year olds) who have had sex and have a lot of support from their parents (not about the sex of course, but in other areas).

Giving teenage girls contraceptive pills does not in anyway advocate under-age sex, because if the pill was banned and then reintroduced a girl wouldn't just go "I better have sex then". The real problem here is not teenagers having sex, in fact, if the pill was banned you would see increased levels of teenage pregnancy (considering the UK is the worst in Europe for teenage pregnancy, banning the pill wouldn't be such a good idea) and consequently higher levels of abortion (which has been shown to cause mental health problems in up to 40% of people who have abortions).

...maybe because they are children ?
The fact that many kids would die from simply being pregnant at that age shows that it is unnatural.
Teenagers or not, they are still children and doing something that most kids their age do not feel the need to, and it is not coincidence that these kids always come from broken homes or bad family lives.

Well the kids you know are going to end up screwballs and their parents are ****ing stupid to think that what they are doing is normal and healthy.

No - giving the pill to 13 year olds is advocating sex for that age group as you are telling them that it if you do happen to have sex, you can buy this, thus we think that you might have sex. Not giving them the pill is a clear sign that the law and state does not want them, or plans on them having sex at that age.

The problem is why are children wanting to have sex when they are clearly not physically or emotionally ready for it.

[New...Romantic]

(Original post by iJess)
Ohh I get it now, and yeah as the pill gives you a higher risk of breast cancer I think it is? & I get blood pressure taken, I don't have family history of strokes or anything but my GP said a while ago she feels it's important because you hear all these stories in the news about GP's misdiagnosing people and people dying from stuff

(Original post by hkukbex)
My GP was really thorough when i asked to go on the pill (i was 18 at the time) he also stressed that of all the forms of contraception, condoms were the best to prevent against everything, whereas pill will only prevent pregnancy blah blah... he also talked me through all of the other forms of contraception even though i had already researched everything before i went to him, and he sent me away with alot of leaflets and told me to go back once id made a definite decision. That was before even checking my medical history.

Sounds like you're both really lucky with your GPs. Maybe the ones at my surgery aren't thorough enough. I asked to go on it for irregular periods and the GP took my blood pressure, filled out a wee checklist and gave me a prescription. And that's how all my repeat appointments have gone. But the point is, all these checks could be done in a pharmacy. Except the breast exam but I think it's unusual for a GP to do that at all.

(Original post by Electronica)
Yes, my girlfriend is on it. I was under the impression that this new pilot scheme would have the boxes thrown out on to the street, and that's why it's so radical.
So long as a health professional is involved I'm ok with it, but they should be very discouraging to women of a younger age: 'Do you REALLY want to do this?' etc.

Interesting. I've worked in pharmacies round Glasgow for the past 4 years and never heard of that. Yeah I think there has been a bit of an overreaction to these proposals, the fact that girls of 13 can access the service doesn't mean it'd be offered to everyone coming in the door. Girls of 13 have been able to get the MAP from pharmacies for years (where I am at least), it doesn't mean they all use it.

[Forget that]

(Original post by TheHansa)
I thought you might

It's usually girls who through no fault of their own have had less than happy home environments. So a lot of it is preventable with the right measures.

Of course it is not their fault at all, that's what i meant by 'society' - sex is actually plastered everywhere, radio (especially pop), films, and don't even get me started on twilight
I find it sad that a girl thinks she's a failure at life because she hasn't had a boyfriend aged 10.