The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Jimbo1234
Ha, if only the world was as you say it is.
Trust me, many of these skanks don't give a **** about their child. I have seen these slags neglect their children because they honestly don't care.

And what the **** do you mean it is not harming anyone?!
The girl suffers a massive concoction of chemicals she is in no way emotionally ready for and becomes a train wreck, and being preganat at that age could kill her.
But of course the real solution to this problem lies within the girls home and what the hell her parents, or most likely, parent is doing to force a child to go out and have sex.


In my perfect world, you could only have children if you have a license and anyone breaking this law would be made sterile.


My mother is a leading TIMS nurse and has worked in the teenage community - I do actually know what I am talking about. Not every teenager does, but it is an instinct.

The government can't stop a girl ruining her own body. I meant in the sense that the gov't can regulate murder and theft because it harms someone else.

But yep, it should be the parents' responsibility.
Reply 141
although i agree that 13 year olds shouldn't be having sex, its not something that anyone can control, alongside the risks.

stds and pregnancy are a big problem amongst young people and if people are having sex at a young age they have the right to protection though i don't think it should be taken lightly.

for example, if a 13 year old was to ask for the pill, their parents should be informed, even if they don't actually go ahead and get it. another thing is the pill can have benefits on things such as periods and acne so that must be taken into consideration too.

its a shame that these things are issues, i remember when i was 13 i didn't have a care in the world *uff* :frown:
I think girls should be able to get the pill through their GP rather than a chemist. There are many genetic problems that when girls take the pill, for example, which effects their blood clotting. I don't think a chemist would be that thorough when checking their history, and many girls don't even know they have it. Also, if you're mature enough to have sex, surely you're mature enough to go down to your GP and ask for contraception. And if you're not, then you probably weren't going to have safe sex anyway.
Yes, they should.
I'm in two minds about it - yes, it will possibly prevent unwanted pregnancy, but then saying that, what 13 year old is going to go into a store and actually buy the pill? Many would probably need to get the money off their parents, and I can't imagine they'd want to have that conversation with their parents, so in a way, although in theory it would prevent pregnancy, what is the likelihood that a significant number of underage girls will actually get the pill? Also, if the girls do get the pill, they might either not know about STD's, or they might feel pressured from the guy to have sex without a condom and so there's a risk of STD's spreading more.
Reply 145
y would a 13 yr old be thinking about the pill????? it's madness but then again I know a 2yr old with an Ipad.......
I think it's disguisting that a 13 year old girl would have sex.. but if she was going to she may as well have the choice to be sensible about it so I think they should be allowed it
Personally, i dont think they should be allowed because firstly there's a law that states that you have to be 16 to have sex, so whats the point of having that law if your saying its okay to have sex at 13?
And i think having sex at 13 is too young anyway. I think children should be educated on the fact that they cant have sex before 16 -.-
Original post by Jimbo1234
No, some people have always broken the law and clearly our current system does not work. Minimising the impact is removing all responsibility from the persons actions. Why not be an utter whore and ignore all responsibilities if the State will solve all your problems?

What the hell does gillick competence have to do with this? We are talking about 13 year old children and you claiming that 13 years olds have the experience and wisdom to make rational decisions :giggle:



The fact you don't see what gillick competence has to do with a teenagers choice of medical treatment means you clearly do not understand the concept. I know you're a troll but now you're just coming off as a mindless one.

Minimising the impact is not removing all responsibility from the persons actions. You're essentially saying abstinence is the best policy and there is sufficient evidence in the US to show that this is absurd and broken logic. Why bother telling somebody to hide their belongings from theives? Surely we should just be able to prevent anybody from stealing? This is another case that your logic can be applied to and I hope you can see the stupidity.

The fact you're not addressing any of my points directly has already highlighted that you don't actually have an argument. I won't be replying again, instead I'm going to go smash my head into my keyboard as I figure I'll have just as much success as debating intelligently with you.

The fact you refer to anybody who wants to have early protected sex as an "utter whore" means you should probably shut the **** up as your sexist/bigoted opinions do not belong in modern society. The fact that you advocate forced abortions and sterelisations could almost lead me to break Godwins law.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by GodfreySaker
I think girls should be able to get the pill through their GP rather than a chemist. There are many genetic problems that when girls take the pill, for example, which effects their blood clotting. I don't think a chemist would be that thorough when checking their history, and many girls don't even know they have it. Also, if you're mature enough to have sex, surely you're mature enough to go down to your GP and ask for contraception. And if you're not, then you probably weren't going to have safe sex anyway.


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.
Reply 150
No. My reason for my opinion will be repeating many posts ;however, I think that giving out the pill will be encouraging many 13 year olds to have sex, there will little fear of consequences of having sex, so I just think it is wrong.

Those of you who are saying 'Oh if it's gonna happen it will happen' are wrong. The message needs to get out of pregnancy, STIs, and on top of that, it can affect someone emotionally having sex so young. Handing out contraceptive pills is doing everything but sending out that message!
I don't think they should be allowed the pill... the risk of getting pregnant, and STD's are the main factors discouraging teens to have sex, and allowing the risk of becoming pregnant to be eliminated will only encourage teens to be more promiscuous, and not to use protection.

Therefore STD's will be more prominent in teens, and allowing more 13/14 year-old's to have sex will only encourage even younger children to take part in it.
Reply 152
I think it would be a good idea in theory, but the reality is that many 13 year olds probably aren't really responsible/concerned enough to make sure they remember to take the pill properly.

They might do at first but then it'll get to be like 'Oh, I'm staying at my friends but I've forgotten to bring my pills... ah well it'll be okay'
So the problem of pregnant 13 year olds isn't really diminished that much.

Also there could be an increase in STIs - if more girls are relying on the pill, then they probably won't be using condoms.
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.


Completely agree. I've said similar things a few times in this thread and been ignored. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about pharmacists, people seem to think they'd just be handing prescription medication out with no concerns.

Original post by sarahthegemini
I'm in two minds about it - yes, it will possibly prevent unwanted pregnancy, but then saying that, what 13 year old is going to go into a store and actually buy the pill? Many would probably need to get the money off their parents, and I can't imagine they'd want to have that conversation with their parents, so in a way, although in theory it would prevent pregnancy, what is the likelihood that a significant number of underage girls will actually get the pill? Also, if the girls do get the pill, they might either not know about STD's, or they might feel pressured from the guy to have sex without a condom and so there's a risk of STD's spreading more.


They wouldn't be paying for it though :confused: It would just be prescribed by the pharmacist rather than the GP.
Although 13 is far too young to be having sex, I don't think it's something that's going to change. Teenagers can still get hold of condoms, so I don't think providing them with a different method of birth control is going to change the rate of teenage sex. I do think the birth control pill should be available to all teenagers from a GP though, along with free condoms. If it stops girls getting pregnant at a young age, then it's worth it.
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.


How are you buying the contraceptive pill from your pharmacy?
Original post by geditor
The government should be doing more to enforce the law (no under-age sex) rather than trying to prevent the consequences of it.


And how do you suggest they do that? A policeman in every teenagers bedroom? CCTV being manned 24 hours a day? Honestly the law is worthless when it comes to stopping 2 underage people having sex. The best you can do is try to educate them and make available things that'll help them be safe.


What a stupid idea, the pill for 13-year olds??? You can see why society has become so corrupt.


Yeah because before the pill no one got pregnant at that age and everyone had sex at an acceptable age. Come on you can't be that naive.

Basically it comes down to this. Teenagers are going to have sex regardless of what the law says. With this in mind we should make contraception available to them. I do think that if they are 13 they should be required to get it from a Doctor but I think this shouldn't require parents permission.
Original post by New...Romantic
Completely agree. I've said similar things a few times in this thread and been ignored. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about pharmacists, people seem to think they'd just be handing prescription medication out with no concerns.



Exactly! A lot the arguments I've seen (not on here, on other places) for pharmacists being able to supply the contraceptive pill to (to anyone not just the young ones) are that the pharmacist wouldn't know about the side effects, interactions with other medication, about contraindications etc ... a lot of people just don't realise what pharmacists do or how they've been trained ...

I think definitely for 16+ this is a really good idea. The idea of 13-15 is obviously more controversial but I know there would be strict guidelines for pharmacists on these issues so there wouldn't be inappropriate supplies.
Original post by RollerBall
The fact you don't see what gillick competence has to do with a teenagers choice of medical treatment means you clearly do not understand the concept. I know you're a troll but now you're just coming off as a mindless one.

Minimising the impact is not removing all responsibility from the persons actions. You're essentially saying abstinence is the best policy and there is sufficient evidence in the US to show that this is absurd and broken logic. Why bother telling somebody to hide their belongings from theives? Surely we should just be able to prevent anybody from stealing? This is another case that your logic can be applied to and I hope you can see the stupidity.

The fact you're not addressing any of my points directly has already highlighted that you don't actually have an argument. I won't be replying again, instead I'm going to go smash my head into my keyboard as I figure I'll have just as much success as debating intelligently with you.

The fact you refer to anybody who wants to have early protected sex as an "utter whore" means you should probably shut the **** up as your sexist/bigoted opinions do not belong in modern society. The fact that you advocate forced abortions and sterelisations could almost lead me to break Godwins law.


Or I am stunned and amazed that you think that a 13 year old will have more wisdom and insight than their elders so should be able to make their own choice.

Removing the impact is removing all responsibility from the persons actions as they can not learn from their mistakes as there is no "mistake".
Who talked about abstinence? Oh, you did :rolleyes: For 13 years old, yes, this should be the case, but when they are 18+ then they should be able to make their own choice.
Your analogy is stupid as the equivalent of a thief would actually be a rapist :giggle:

Anyone who wants to have sex at that age has serious issues and I shall stand by this comment as they are the minority and you can not argue a reason for why 13 year olds should sleep about. You are simply a new age spineless liberal who has no morals and will people act in the most deprived way "because it is their right".
Reply 159
13 year olds are generally too stupid to understand the odds of becoming pregnant; they'll have sex whether they're on the pill or not. It might increase the odds of intelligent 13 year olds having sex, but that will be offset by the reduction in the number of pregnant, stupid people.

Latest