Pills are to be handed out at school gates to prevent teenage pregnancies

Scroll to see replies

supercat

Howard, I thought the age of consent was in place to stop children being abused, rather than to stop them from having consensual sex? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think the law makes provision for any sexual activity under the age of 16, whether consensual or otherwise.

Reply 41

yawn

ForeverIsMyName

So is the idea of a teenager getting pregnant because they were to embarassed to buy contraceptives.

If they are that embarrassed and that stupid, they shouldn't be taking the risk in having sex in the first place. :rolleyes:

Reply 42

ForeverIsMyName

yawn

If they are that embarrassed and that stupid, they shouldn't be taking the risk in having sex in the first place. :rolleyes:

Yet they will; So the solution is obvious.

Reply 43

Mercer

yawn

Parents have no problems with their kids having sex provided they are old enough to do so, to accept the consequences of doing so and to ensure they are being responsible and not having unprotected sex when they are in the throes of a drunken binge. This is a major cause of the increase in teen pregnancies and STD's.

I don't think you can generalise that all parents are OK with it then.

But for those who are: fine. This is helping it not to be unprotected, and working against pregnancy.

yawn

A few can, but only a few and to be meaningful, does it have to include genital sex?

It doesn't have to. Nor does an adult one. But why not?

yawn

Yes...and a prime example of someone who was most definitely not mature enough to cope with such a relationship.!

I might have to give you that. But the point is that 16 is a fairly arbitary age.

yawn

Oh dear...a kneejerk reaction to treat the symptoms without treating the cause.

Kneejerk? Considering the effects of different policies, taking a practical decision based on the fallibility of more idea methods. Yes, that would be kneejerk.

And if the 'symptoms' are pregnancies and STDs, I consider them more damaging than the 'cause' which is underage sex. I would MUCH rather several 14 year olds had sex than one got pregnant.

yawn

That's not a reasonable response to a reasonable observation. You know as well as everyone else with a modicum of intelligence that as a society, we allow our children to be sexually exploited. Thong knickers for 6 year olds, padded bras for 8 year olds, provocative clothing for little girls, comics for pre-teens that encourage flirtatious behaviour that is inappropriate for children and the use of the word 'sexy' by little kids!!

We are robbing them of their childhood and their parents of their parental rights.

That's not sexual exploitation. It's sexual exposure, perhaps. Though I don't particularly mind 'sexy' being used: it's taken on fairly harmless implications. And I don't know what comics you're referring to.

And I don't see how a 6 year old is going to get a thong or an 8 year old a padded bra unless the parents pay. So their rights aren't really the issue

yawn

...such is the power of 'democratic' government.

Are you saying it isn't democratic, or that on such issues we should replace democracy with something with more family values, like Shariah law?

Reply 44

Howard

ForeverIsMyName

Yet they will; So the solution is obvious.

Quite. Install iron bars at your daughter's windows. :smile:

Reply 45

Socrates

Howard

[QUOTE-ForeverIsMyName]Yet they will; So the solution is obvious.[-QUOTE]

Quite. Install iron bars at your daughter's windows. :smile:

Wouldn't the world be so much better if we had people like you running the place? :biggrin:

Reply 46

Renal

yawn

Girls are giving birth or becoming pregnant before they reach their teens. Many girls start menstruating at the age of 9 and are soon biologically capable of pregnancy. Do you not think that the pill will be supplied to girls at primary schools?

I wouldn't bother, a pregnancy is extremely unlikely to come to term in a mother that young. :evil:

Reply 47

yawn

Renal

I wouldn't bother, a pregnancy is extremely unlikely to come to term in a mother that young. :evil:

That's irrelevant. A child of 9 can become pregnant, although they have no business being so.

The youngest child to give birth to a healthy, full term baby was 5 years of age, incidentally.

Reply 48

Renal

"Extremely unlikey"

As I recall, the uterus isn't developed enough to support the growth of a foetus. There are other things to do with endocrine development as well.

Most early pubescent pregnancies are going to end up as a red stain in the knickers.

[QUOTE="Socrates"]

Howard

Wouldn't the world be so much better if we had people like you running the place? :biggrin:

Of course it would. It'd be heaven on earth with me in charge.

Renal

Once a female has ovulated, the uterus is developed enough to sustain a pregancy to full term.

The risk of spontaneous abortion that is age-related is to women over 35 years of age.

Unless you are an obstetrician (which is highly unlikely) I have no cause to take your word over what I know - unless of course, you can provide a source which corroborates what you say. In which case I shall defer. :smile:

Reply 53

Renal

It's in the OHObs&Gobs somewhere I think.

I'll try to dig it out.

Reply 54

LpLex

OP: I do not think it would make much difference. Because, frankly, it is useless, and also it seems to backfire. (but then it is not in my position to say)

BUT if we ask what the pills is implying, it will change the scenario a bit. Are the pills to prevent pregnancy, to encourage teenagers 'to be more prepared'? In this case, it would be for the doing of good, at least morally. Whether the act of bestowing free pills would result in higher sexual activity, or not, should be the responsibility of the local government to look into and investigate. (Personally, I do not have a problem with underage sex in the sense that I believe people of any age can experience love and the act of it. However, everyone should be aware of STD's and the resposibility of parenting a child. - edit)

In any sense, I guess we should stop thinking of teenagers as brainless dumb heads (although A FEW undoubtly are) as of their sterotypical image.

The simple answer to our present "teenage scenario" is simply education. Edcate them, teach them about resposibility and how to accept it. When we stop treating people like irresponsible, immature people, and instead, actually helping them and make them understand consequences, that is when they stop being irresponsible, immature people.

Reply 55

Random.Girl

Socrates

The former I believe.

Well they can't just give out the contraceptive pill (well they can't just give out the morning after pill either, but since the contraceptive pill is long term and has more risks ...). Each girl would need so to see a healthcare professional, do a family history, BP check, get weighed etc. To be fair they can go to the doctors or the family planning clinic so maybe making it more accessible in this way is a good thing on one hand if they're going to be having sex anyways. On the other hand some teenagers aren't the smartest ever and with a little pressure from a guy they'll end up using the pill and not condoms as well leading to STI infections.

Reply 56

Renal

In medicine prevention is always better (and cheaper) than cure.

If children are performing sexual acts (of any variety) at a younger age then sex and relationship education is going to have to take place at a younger age.

The argument that earlier teaching encourages earlier sex is null and void given that this is happening.

Reply 57

yawn

Renal

The argument that earlier teaching encourages earlier sex is null and void given that this is happening.

If we look to Holland for a model of early sex education we see that the age of consensual sex with peers has been reduced to 12 because younger and younger kids were indulging in sexual activity, which is most probably as as result of the 'early age sex' teaching.

It appears that the argument is very much justified.

Reply 58

Renal

yawn

That sounds like flawed reasoning to me.

Is sex actually occuring as a result of sex education?

In this country, the age of consent is 16 - is that when children start having sex?

In this country sex education starts really around the age of 11 or 12. Yet we know that children are having sex below this age.

Reply 59

yawn

Renal

I think it all depends on the context of the sex education.

If it is restricted to the mechanics of contraception and biological processes of sexual development and pregnancy without the guidance of the emotions and levels of maturity required to contemplate a sexual relationship, then yes, I do think that it can encourage sexual activity where it hadn't been considered before.

There is a lot to be said for the expectations of sexual education. If it is delivered in an impassionate factual manner, it can foster a belief that it is acceptable to indulge in sex before one is mature enough.

It might sound like 'flawed reasoning' to you but the evidence is self-evident to many researchers who presumably have far more information at their finger-tips than you or I.

btw - do you have that info. about 'precocious' pregnancy and development of uterus enabling full-term growth of baby?