More from the what-do-we-do-about-teenagers file:
“A CONTROVERSIAL program that allows girls as young as 13 to get the contraceptive pill without parental consent was launched in the UK today.
The pilot scheme on the Isle of Wight – an island county five kilometres off the southern England coast – will allow girls who ask for the morning-after pill to also get a month’s supply of the contraceptive pill.
So, young women who are by definition sexually active (since they’ve asked for the morning-after pill) are to have the option of taking proper, much-less damaging medication in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy for which they’re not ready.
Naturally that has sparked outrage:
Parish priest Father Anthony Glaysher described the program as “depraved,” adding it would encourage promiscuity.
No, it’ll encourage sexually-active young people to get the necessary help.
Some girls do start menstruating at 13. They can become pregnant from that point on, and some do. What principle is achieved by denying them the options that other women have to avoid conceiving? What is the point of making them more likely to have babies at a time when they’re unprepared and unwilling to take care of them?
Obviously these church groups are determined to see more abortions, and ruined young lives. Young people having sex deserve to be PUNISHED! God said so!
The unintended consequence could be a rise in STDs as there would be no perceived need for condoms.
However, the fewer teenagers having babies, the fewer welfare recipients (present and future), the fewer criminals and general wastrels the better. Frankly, as this would shut down a major source of “clients”, I’m surprised the welfare/legal aid industry isn’t howling!
Yes, I suppose on your understanding of that “industry”, that would be surprising.
It couldn’t be that you utterly fail to understand what the “welfare/legal aid industry” aims to achieve, could it?
From where I sit, the primary aims are creating and perpetuating an underclass of “clients” that requires the intervention and assistance of the government-funded “helping classes”, and which will reliably vote Labor lest anyone suggest that benefits be pared back as in the long run they represent a hindrance, rather than a help, to leading a successful life.
And yet they are not behaving as you’d expect if that were the case.
Perhaps you’re completely wrong. Maybe you should reconsider your fatuous misrepresentations of them.
Certainly. But then why all the hoo-hah about a charity’s efforts to provide birth control to drug addicts?
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
If they’re asking for the morning after pill they aren’t using condoms now.
I certainly would not want my child to become a parent in their teenage years however more than a morning after pill prescription is needed here if we want to curve the teenage pregnancy rates. Education I think is the key in regards to this issue … not just from school but also from family.
A key message ought to be that safe sex is absolutely necessary not just to prevent pregnancy but also to prevent STD’s. Young men should be targeted and encouraged to wear condoms. It is after all not just young women’s responsibilities to ensure that they are protected. The use of condoms in young people has actually fallen and young women are often under undue pressure to participate in unprotected sex because their partners claim that sex is not enjoyable with a condom. This really needs to be addressed at an educational and family level. Sex education leaves much to be desired in Western countries as it does indeed across the world. This is why parents must ensure that their children are educated correctly. There is plenty of useful information out there for parents on how to go about this and parents ought to take it up.
The reality is that young teenagers are having sex (sure I’m not a great fan of it) however the reality is that they are having sex and as it would seem mostly unprotected sex. Having used the morning after pill I can say that it is not necessarily a walk in the park. It can have serious health consequences and can make some women feel quite unwell. I would want safeguards in place to ensure that young teenage girls are well aware of the potential health risks and that they are given information on where to seek assistance should they feel unwell.
An open and honest relationship with their parent/care giver/close adult friend would also assist in this regard as the young person would be able to go to them for assistance should it be necessary. Having said that I have no problem with the morning after pill being dispensed to young women who are in need of it. In the long term however we would want to educate young people on the merits of using a condom and educate them in being aware of the consequences of unprotected sex.
“But then why all the hoo-hah about a charity’s efforts to provide birth control to drug addicts?”
“I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Jeremy, Shabadoo is talking about Project Prevention a US “charity” who are paying drug addicts $400 each to be sterilised.
They just set up shop in the UK, and have plans regarding Oz too.
I think he has confused social engineering with social services (btw shabs im not sure paying poorly educated, desperate and drug addled young women to be sterilised is the same as “providing birth control”)
That is disgraceful … honestly to pay a young person to be sterilised.
Geez – the quality of Shab’s commentary has gone downhill hasn’t it?
If I understand the above correctly, his argument rests on the premise that there is some sort of reaonable equivalence between programs to provide birth control to teenage mothers and programs to sterilise drug addicts.
The nicest thing I can say is that it must be interesting to have a mind that works that way.
The equivalence is merely that we’re talking about not raising more children in poverty stricken/dysfunctional family environments.
But enough carping and fighting about social policy: Jeremy, sincerest congratulations!
I’d say if it helps prevent something like this, it can only be a good thing
I know that quite a few people are genuinely sexually active at that age (I remember a friend in year 7 telling me he wasn’t a virgin, and he must have been about 12 or 13), but the fact is that anyone under the age of consent who’s become pregnant is quite possibly being raped, and the father is quite possibly the rapist. I know doctors have duty of care in cases where they suspect child abuse, but given how difficult it must be for the girl even when raped by a non-relative to deal with it I think it’s reasonable for a girl to take contraceptives to ensure her rapist won’t get her pregnant between now and the time she hopefully turns him in.
In cases where it’s actually consensual (such as two teenagers being sexually active together) I can also see the point of this. I know I don’t like talking to my parents about my sexual activities, and while if it was a choice between risking getting a girl pregnant (let alone spreading disease) and not having sex I’d probably choose not to have sex but others might not be so risk averse (especially being teenagers)