NationStates Jolt Archive

Saturdaynight - somewhere north of the Humber.

A couple of friends and me, all of us old ( or older ) enough to have teenage daughters, were discussing what to do about the much-vaunted problem of teenage pregnancies ( if you wish to think of 11 year old as being a teen ).

We could arguably discuss pro's and con's till the next FA cup final, but most of us there present favour the 'preserve the Peace and worry about rootcauses afterwards' approach.

We considered the following an effective remedy for the problem:

ANY parent who fails to give his/her teenager access to the Pill on demand ought by law be forced to sign an affidavit in which he or she assumes FULL legal and social responsibility for any pregnancy by their offspring occuring while she is of minor years.


Just a thought...

What an awful idea. Giving the pill encourages an immortal attitude, and condones the action. Why not extend it? Any parent who fails to supply their child with condoms as well is liable for any STDs the child then catches.

Teach them, yes; tell them if they're going to do it be safe; but don't encourage it. Let's let kids be kids, for crying out loud. This 'sexulisation' of society is doing more harm then good.

What an awful idea. Giving the pill encourages an immortal attitude, and condones the action. Why not extend it? Any parent who fails to supply their child with condoms as well is liable for any STDs the child then catches.

Teach them, yes; tell them if they're going to do it be safe; but don't encourage it. Let's let kids be kids, for crying out loud. This 'sexulisation' of society is doing more harm then good.

I fail to see how giving 'em a sermon on the perils of sex is going to stop any more 12 year old girls from becoming moms.

Results, not ideals.

I fail to see how giving 'em a sermon on the perils of sex is going to stop any more 12 year old girls from becoming moms.

Results, not ideals.
But you think having them going out thinking they're immortal, that sex has no consequences and that anyone they sleep with is going to be a fine gentleman is going to reduce STDs and sexual abuse? You think that piling on the pressure for them to have sex is what a nervous 12 year old wants?

How about we try and end the sex culture that makes these 12 year old think they have to act like adults? Because I fail to see how encouraging 12 year olds to be promiscuous will reduce teenage pregnancy. The pill isn't perfect, you know.

Actually, as a teenager, although male, I can tell that you sexual education, at least in the horrid United States, isn't great at all. Especially in the state of Texas. However, that goes without saying. Anyway, I believe the pill is a very good thing for young women and older women as well. Just because it is immoral to you does not mean it is immoral to everyone. Sex is very healthy and fun, as long as you are being safe. Take it from me, I've had a few scares with my ex-girlfriend. After that she got on the pill and I started wrapping it up everytime. Teens need to be taught about safe sex and what could happen if they do not partake in it (but not the scary shit that the far right wants everyone to think happens), and they need to be provided with condoms and pills and such to help them have safe sex. A lot of places in Texas, although it is not illegal to buy condoms at a young age, won't let people under 18 buy them. Bullshit, I know, but it's the truth. Trust me. I've had to have my mom buy them for me a few times, and that's just yeah. Plus, for a girl under 18 to get on the pill she must tell her parents and go to the doctor and so on. I'm sure they don't want their parents to know about their sex life, be they sluts or in love with their boyfriend. I'm just saying it helps the problem a bit, and we need all the help we can get.

The pill isn't always the answer. I can't take it due to other health conditions, and all three of my sisters were taken to the doctor to get pills by 14 or 15. Two of the three of them were pregnant before they graduated high school. One of them twice. They just refused to take them.

So should my mom, having the talk about pills and condemns AND making them available, be held responsible for that outcome or should may dumbass siblings for not listening? Or should parents be forced to make their kids take them too? And should the parents of all teenage boys be forced to buy them condoms?

Sometimes it really is just stupidity that causes pregnancy, not ignorance.

So, if you were a parent, what would be more shocking to you:

1. Learning that your daughter is on the pill.

2. Learning that your daughter is pregnant.

Personally I think a good start is would be to teach children where babies actually come from and also that sex can be an enjoyable part of life but you need to take precautions. If you look at the Netherlands you will see a country where teenagers enjoy a lot of sex but have a very low pregnancy rate compared to the U.S. Now you might not want you children to play with guns, but the way to protect them is not to never teach them about gun safety. Remember, every teenager has a loaded gun in their pants and they're not likely to be shooting blanks.

I hate these threads because they're breeding grounds for preachy religious wankers who like to tell us that it's 'immoral' to have sex at a young age, it's 'immoral' to use contraception. Well before people start wasting their time lecturing us about morality, perhaps they should be reminded that their warped ethical views have no weight in this debate because:

a) Nobody cares. Even if things are immoral people will continue to do them anyway because they want to

and

b) Morality has no place in the decision of political issues because the government is concerned with not what is good and moral, but what is in the best interest of society as a whole.

So before everyone gets all high and mighty, morality is irrelevant.

...snip...
This isn't about 'learning' they're on the pill, or 'not educating them'. It's about whether parents should be obliged to force their children to take the pill. Big difference.

But you think having them going out thinking they're immortal, that sex has no consequences and that anyone they sleep with is going to be a fine gentleman is going to reduce STDs and sexual abuse? You think that piling on the pressure for them to have sex is what a nervous 12 year old wants?

How about we try and end the sex culture that makes these 12 year old think they have to act like adults? Because I fail to see how encouraging 12 year olds to be promiscuous will reduce teenage pregnancy. The pill isn't perfect, you know.

It's about consequences, alright. No doubt about it.

And if YOU - as a parent or as anyone else - take actions, you ought to be accountable, without flipfloppy attempts to load your burdens onto society.

Teaching your kids about sex is YOUR responsibility - as long as you claim parental rights.

Solving the problems that derive from not getting the mix right is YOUR responsibility!

If YOU stop someone from getting birthcontrol devices offered by the NHS - YOU are responsible.

Please, don't give me arguments about changing culture. It aint culture, it is YOUR actions and YOUR accountability.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining!

Why does it so often seem to be the same sort of person that thinks guns don't make people violent, yet contraception makes people promiscuous.

Obviously you shouldn't stop sexual education at telling teens about, and providing them with, contraception, and explaining the risk of STDs. But not doing at least this is irresponsible.
You can still preach to them about celibacy and how important steady relationships are even if they are on the pill. Except when they don't listen to you anyways, this time they won't get pregnant.

I hate these threads because they're breeding grounds for preachy religious wankers who like to tell us that it's 'immoral' to have sex at a young age, it's 'immoral' to use contraception. Well before people start wasting their time lecturing us about morality, perhaps they should be reminded that their warped ethical views have no weight in this debate because:

a) Nobody cares. Even if things are immoral people will continue to do them anyway because they want to

and

b) Morality has no place in the decision of political issues because the government is concerned with not what is good and moral, but what is in the best interest of society as a whole.

So before everyone gets all high and mighty, morality is irrelevant.
:rolleyes:

And I hate the way that people to get all high and mighty about their 'enlightened moral views' when actually they're nothing of the sort. Any culture that thinks that sex is something that can be had freely without consequences is heading down a bad path. It's nothing to do with 'religious wanker morality'; it is common sense.

It's fashionable at the moment to be 'anti-morality' and pro-promiscuous sex. And then we get lots of threads on teenage pregnancy and a massive boom in sexually transmitted diseases.

But any link would just be 'moral wankerness', I suppose. :rolleyes:

Why does it so often seem to be the same sort of person that thinks guns don't make people violent, yet contraception makes people promiscuous.

Obviously you shouldn't stop sexual education at telling teens about, and providing them with, contraception, and explaining the risk of STDs. But not doing at least this is irresponsible.
You can still preach to them about celibacy and how important steady relationships are even if they are on the pill. Except when they don't listen to you anyways, this time they won't get pregnant.
I am in no way in favour of guns. And, again, this thread isn't 'anti-contraception'; it is whether parents should be forced to provide children with the pill.

I am in no way in favour of guns. And, again, this thread isn't 'anti-contraception'; it is whether parents should be forced to provide children with the pill.

No, it isn't!

This thread is about being responsible for your actions!

As a parent, this proposal gives you FULL freedom to do nothing at all, and wash your hands off the problem.
However, if you do something as a parent, you WILL be held accountable!

It's about consequences, alright. No doubt about it.

And if YOU - as a parent or as anyone else - take actions, you ought to be accountable, without flipfloppy attempts to load your burdens onto society.

Teaching your kids about sex is YOUR responsibility - as long as you claim parental rights.
Yep.

Solving the problems that derive from not getting the mix right is YOUR responsibility!
Yep.

If YOU stop someone from getting birthcontrol devices offered by the NHS - YOU are responsible.
Yep.

Alas, everything you've said above is against your OP, so I'm not sure why you expect me to argue. I have said teenagers should be educated. I have said they should have access to contraception. I disagreed that parents should be forced to provide birth control. You have changed your argument from a proactivism (must provide) to a preventative one (stopped from getting).

Please, don't give me arguments about changing culture. It aint culture, it is YOUR actions and YOUR accountability.
Ah, of course, becuase I am writing the teenage mags pressuring kids into having sex; I am encouraging the sale of alcohol to teenagers; I am putting sex everywhere, posters, tv, radio, so there is no escape from it; but hey, it's not society's problem.

No, it isn't!

This thread is about being responsible for your actions!

As a parent, this proposal gives you FULL freedom to do nothing at all, and wash your hands off the problem.
However, if you do something as a parent, you WILL be held accountable!
This is contradictory.
ANY parent who fails to give his/her teenager access to the Pill on demand ought by law be forced to sign an affidavit in which he or she assumes FULL legal and social responsibility for any pregnancy by their offspring occuring while she is of minor years.

:rolleyes:

And I hate the way that people to get all high and mighty about their 'enlightened moral views' when actually they're nothing of the sort. Any culture that thinks that sex is something that can be had freely without consequences is heading down a bad path. It's nothing to do with 'religious wanker morality'; it is common sense.

It's fashionable at the moment to be 'anti-morality' and pro-promiscuous sex. And then we get lots of threads on teenage pregnancy and a massive boom in sexually transmitted diseases.

But any link would just be 'moral wankerness', I suppose. :rolleyes:

I agree completely. Promiscuity is not something to be encouraged. But on threads like these you invariably get the religious types who like to preach morality. It doesn't help. I was making the point that if you are going to argue the point, at least do it with some common sense and facts as opposed to idiotic moral concepts which change from person to person.

It's not parents, but the society, which should provide free and anonymous contraception (including the pill and condoms) to anyone, and especilly to teens.

Not providing them with contracpetion will not prevent them from having sex - it'll only make them more likely to have STDs or be pregnant.

Edit: and of course, we should provide them sex education, especially about safe sex.

I do so because omission and commission are really the same thing.

Except for sophistry and sophists, which I deride and hate as pointless at best and evil at worst, since your average decision-maker has an IQ of 100. Sophistry therefore confuses the issue.

What kind of RESULTS can you guarantee if you were to attempt to change culture?
Unless you can guarantee results as good as the pill does ( which isn't perfect either ), an appeal to changing culture is friviolous.

Results - and results alone.

I am in no way in favour of guns. And, again, this thread isn't 'anti-contraception'; it is whether parents should be forced to provide children with the pill.They should provide their child access to it, a slight difference.
And they should provide their children with the proper knowledge about them, and other issues surrounding sex. Preferably before it's too late and the teens stop listening.

This is contradictory.

No. It is called a negative feedback system, and it works excellent.

I do so because omission and commission are really the same thing.

Except for sophistry and sophists, which I deride and hate as pointless at best and evil at worst, since your average decision-maker has an IQ of 100. Sophistry therefore confuses the issue.

What kind of RESULTS can you guarantee if you were to attempt to change culture?
Unless you can guarantee results as good as the pill does ( which isn't perfect either ), an appeal to changing culture is friviolous.

Results - and results alone.
Banning sex mags for teenagers would be one thing. 'How to get a threesome with your boyfriend and bestmate' are not topics I generally consider suitable for 14 year olds.

The watershed should be more vigorously enforced, and 'sex sells' adverts should be prohibited from being anywhere children can see them. Seriously, what has sex got to do with the latest perfume/leg shaving equipment/car?

All of these things just scream at kids 'if you're not having sex NOW you're not normal!' Helping them see this is not the case would be a much better thing to do than reinforcing the attitude with 'here's some pills so when you do the normal thing you're going to do you'll be ok'.

Banning sex mags for teenagers would be one thing. 'How to get a threesome with your boyfriend and bestmate' are not topics I generally consider suitable for 14 year olds.

The watershed should be more vigorously enforced, and 'sex sells' adverts should be prohibited from being anywhere children can see them. Seriously, what has sex got to do with the latest perfume/leg shaving equipment/car?

All of these things just scream at kids 'if you're not having sex NOW you're not normal!' Helping them see this is not the case would be a much better thing to do than reinforcing the attitude with 'here's some pills so when you do the normal thing you're going to do you'll be ok'.


I am not asking you as if you were society.
You are one single person, I assume.

Your daughter is having sex.
Your attempts to stop that are now too late.
Now, you have a choice between stopping the pregnancy - or assuming full responsibility for it.
Loco parentis ain't latin for 'a parent has the right to be crazy'!

I am not asking you as if you were society.
You are one single person, I assume.

Your daughter is having sex.
Your attempts to stop that are now too late.
Now, you have a choice between stopping the pregnancy - or assuming full responsibility for it.
Loco parentis ain't latin for 'a parent has the right to be crazy'!
Well, what I would do here depends entirely on her age. If she's, say, 16 and above, and I've done everything I can to make her sexually responsible, then I don't think I am liable for anything that happens. If kids must be allowed to be kids, this also means they have to be allowed to grow up at some point.

If we're talking 13-14, then I would be doing everything possible to stop her having sex again. And I would be seriously questioning what on earth I did wrong. I would certainly not condone the action. My desire to see my young daughter raped/abused/becoming infertile due to an STD etc are, as you can imagine, somewhat limited.

But choosing to have sex as a teenager IS a moral decision. I chose not to when I babysat my older sister's baby the night of her prom. By watching the mistakes my sisters and their friends made, I abstained. Sex is a priviledge, and with privledge comes responsibility.

How old should we start giving sex ed classes while we're at it? I got mine at school in sixth grade (11 or 12). Should we drop it to 10? What about eight? When do we as a SOCIETY step up and say enough is enough? Should girls instead have to register at their first period and be given their government forced pill until they decide that they want a child? Or better yet until their 18, then let them decide if they want to take it? What if a girl CAN'T take it due to health conditions? Should her parents lock her away until she's 18, or have a written contract from every boyfriend's parents she has that they will be resposible for her if their son doesn't wrap it up?

WHERE DOES THE WHOLE THING END, PEOPLE?

It all comes down to personal resposiblity. Most teens aren't mature enough to do the risk analysis involved, and certainly not 11 year olds. So teach your kids that the best thing to do is abstain, BUT also teach them proper safe sex ideas, and help them obtain them. The reason I say abstain, is because birth control pills can be interfered with (especially if you take an antibiotic) and condoms can break.

Personal reponsibility. What a concept.

Well, what I would do here depends entirely on her age. If she's, say, 16 and above, and I've done everything I can to make her sexually responsible, then I don't think I am liable for anything that comes an adult. If kids must be allowed to be kids, this also means they have to be allowed to grow up at some point.

If we're talking 13-14, then I would be doing everything possible to stop her having sex again. And I would be seriously questioning what on earth I did wrong. I would certainly not condone the action. My desire to see my young daughter raped/abused/becoming infertile due to an STD etc are, as you can imagine, somewhat limited.

Until her 18th birthday, YOU are the one who is legally responsible.

My desire to see my hypothetical daughter getting a STD or worse are the same as yours, I suppose. ( Not that I have a daughter - which I regret )

Meanwhile, one still must achieve the best results possible from cards dealt out of a possibly stacked deck.

Sex is like baseball.

It's enjoyable, it has its ups and downs, only one person can win or else you go into extra innings, and if you're not careful someone'll get hurt.

Sex shouldn't be treated as any more sacred than baseball - though playing the national anthem before it would be pretty fascinating.

Why does it so often seem to be the same sort of person that thinks guns don't make people violent, yet contraception makes people promiscuous.

.

Probably why the same sort of people who think that contraception does not make people promiscuous do think guns make people violent.

The cause might be genetics but more likely environment

Seriously, what has sex got to do with the latest perfume/leg shaving equipment/car?Do you really need an answer to that?
What practical use do perfume and leg shaving have, if not to be more (sexually) attractive. And cars give status, again, attracting possible partners. Sex has a lot to do with just about anything, which is why it sells in the first place.
This however does not mean I think it should be on TV. There are other marketing ploys they could use just as well.

All of these things just scream at kids 'if you're not having sex NOW you're not normal!' Helping them see this is not the case would be a much better thing to do than reinforcing the attitude with 'here's some pills so when you do the normal thing you're going to do you'll be ok'.I disagree that giving them contraceptives reinforces the view they ought to have sex. But it's not one or the other anyway. Can you ban sexual advertisement by tomorrow? Next week? Next year? No. By all means try, eventually it may pay off. In the meanwhile, providing them with the knowledge and means to protect themselves (rather than just either) would be a big help.

...So teach your kids that the best thing to do is abstain, BUT also teach them proper safe sex ideas, and help them obtain them...

Probably the most sensible thing I've heard all day. When I was 14 or 15, my school brought in an external teacher to talk to us all about Safe Sex. Basically, she taught us how to put on a condom and ran through STDs in very limited detail [the PE staff showed us some slides a few weeks before. Why the PE staff? Ask my headmaster]. I waited patiently for her to get to abstinence, but in the end I stuck my hand up and asked her if abstaining wasn't even safer. She just looked at me. She hadn't been planning to get to it at all.

And we wonder why teenage pregnancy is up?

Do you really need an answer to that?
What practical use do perfume and leg shaving have, if not to be more (sexually) attractive.
Alas, they were the first things that came to mind.
And cars give status, again, attracting possible partners. Sex has a lot to do with just about anything, which is why it sells in the first place.
Yep, and like I say, this is all very well for adults, but I don't think it should be used when children can see it.
In the meanwhile, providing them with the knowledge and means to protect themselves (rather than just either) would be a big help.
Again, it comes down to age. If they were older, then contraception is going to be required. You can't tell a 16 year old what to do in the same way you can a 12 year old.

But saying that giving a 12 year old contraception doesn't encourage them to have sex (or, at least, say that you're not going to punish them for doing so) is wrong. If you give a child a chocolate bar they're not going to think about health consequences or spoiling their dinner; they just eat it. You give a child a pill, with everything around them screaming 'have sex! Have it now!' then, surprise surprise, they have sex and we have a huge STD crisis.

And we wonder why teenage pregnancy is up?It's those darn music videos on MTV, I bet
It all started with Elvis shaking his hips in a provocative manner, and went downhill from there ;)

Sex is like baseball.

It's enjoyable, it has its ups and downs, only one person can win or else you go into extra innings, and if you're not careful someone'll get hurt.
If only one person is 'winning', then you're not really doing it properly. :p

That's what they tell you, but sex is a life or death struggle every single time in which you are in a constant race with your partner.

Sex can be summed up in just about every sport actually, it's a frightening thing I tell ya.

When I was 8 and had my first menstral cycle, my mom took me to get birth control pills and extended our talk on the human body. She told me that she hoped I would not lose my virginity until I was with the person I was going to marry but she knew that things happen. She taught me the important of the pill and of condoms. Do you think I was promiscuous? No, I lost my virginity before marriage though, when I was 23 to an 18 year old man that I ended up marrying.

Long story short; Education and proper tools does not make for the youth of today to be over-sexed. It's the LACK of education and LACK of tools that does.

If a young person goes to buy condoms, they are either turned away or they get too embarassed. Why? Because people think if they deny that young person condoms, they will abstain. WRONG. Parents think skimping out on details will make their kid not interested in sex. WRONG. Be open, be honest. Any parent in their right mind would rather Jennie-sue or little Joey to be practicing safe sex than attend their funeral for AIDS or have them ask if you can watch the baby so they don't miss class.

EDUCATE AND ARM YOUR CHILDREN.

That's what they tell you, but sex is a life or death struggle every single time in which you are in a constant race with your partner.

Sex can be summed up in just about every sport actually, it's a frightening thing I tell ya.

Er, I'm getting the feeling that you are quite new at it...

And we wonder why teenage pregnancy is up?

No it's down. Of course I don't know where you are. I suppose it could be up in your local area.

Part of the problem derives from villainizing sex.

It isn't this evil nasty thing that needs to be avoided, and abstainance, while it prevents STDs, isn't necessarily the answer to everything. I mean, it's like many activities adults partake in, it's not really healthy for kids, on a variety of emotional and physical levels, but there's no reason to make it out to seem as though you are 'wrong' for having sex.

It's enjoyable, it's natural, and it's healthy.

People who abstain make me sad.

Er, I'm getting the feeling that you are quite new at it...

Nae, I am quite proficient at it, it's a matter of spotting when people are faking it and when they aren't.

AOL Chat rooms and WinAmp Streaming Media Porn totally belies the truth that is sexual intercourse.

I'm just wondering, are all of you guys? Because (I don't know if this will get me in trouble for saying) guys think about sex completely differently than girls do the majority of the time. And are usually more protective of their daughters than their sons.

I keep bringing up the issue "should boys then be forced to wrap it up and their parents buy or obtain the condoms for them?" but I think it has been ignored. Why should the responsibility of pregnancy fall on the girl if the guy is there too? Shouldn't his parents be held equally responsible for not giving him a condom?

MountDraconia, I didn't see your thread, and assume since you have a period, you're female. So please ignore that first part.

I'm just wondering, are all of you guys? Because (I don't know if this will get me in trouble for saying) guys think about sex completely differently than girls do the majority of the time. And are usually more protective of their daughters than their sons.

I keep bringing up the issue "should boys then be forced to wrap it up and their parents buy or obtain the condoms for them?" but I think it has been ignored. Why should the responsibility of pregnancy fall on the girl if the guy is there too? Shouldn't his parents be held equally responsible for not giving him a condom?
I think the question of giving kids the pill raises issues to do with boys as well; it encourages them not to bother with condoms, as they're 'safe'. And then they get the STDs, and so on...

I keep bringing up the issue "should boys then be forced to wrap it up and their parents buy or obtain the condoms for them?" but I think it has been ignored. Why should the responsibility of pregnancy fall on the girl if the guy is there too? Shouldn't his parents be held equally responsible for not giving him a condom?

Boys should be just as responsible as the girl, after all, it takes two. If it's only taking one then we wouldn't be having a problem, would we?:D (BTW: I am female.)

I'm just wondering, are all of you guys? Because (I don't know if this will get me in trouble for saying) guys think about sex completely differently than girls do the majority of the time. And are usually more protective of their daughters than their sons.

I keep bringing up the issue "should boys then be forced to wrap it up and their parents buy or obtain the condoms for them?" but I think it has been ignored. Why should the responsibility of pregnancy fall on the girl if the guy is there too? Shouldn't his parents be held equally responsible for not giving him a condom?

MountDraconia, I didn't see your thread, and assume since you have a period, you're female. So please ignore that first part.


What you have there is an isssue based on 'should'
And not an issue based on 'results'

Results - and nothing else.

You know it's funny. All kids in Japan seem sex obsessed. They seem to have no problems asking complete strangers about the size of their sexual aparatus. Also kids comic books seem to be full of sex and violence, with super heros who's powers only work when they are naked and people who use their penises as weapons. However Japan is well ordered, polite society and I believe it still has the lowest crime rates in the developed world. And they have a declining population too. Funny that. You would think that some terrible disaster would have occured from kids knowing all about sex from a young age, wouldn't you? I guess white people just can't control themselves. No wait, white people in Europe seem to be able to control themselves okay. Gee, maybe knowledge of sex isn't so dangerous after all?

Yeah, sorry about that, MountDraconia. Didn't see your post until it was too late, and wasn't quick enough on the edit. I hope every surmised that I'm female as well.

But saying that giving a 12 year old contraception doesn't encourage them to have sex (or, at least, say that you're not going to punish them for doing so) is wrong.I think any random 12 year old would be surprised at what it is above anything else.
But the point isn't giving them contraception. The point is making sure they know where to get it if they do get sexually active (despite further efforts). Making it a natural thought that there is no sex without protection.

You give a child a pill, with everything around them screaming 'have sex! Have it now!' then, surprise surprise, they have sex and we have a huge STD crisis.I don't think they're all quite so simpleminded. Unless they've been raised very, very poorly, if at all. Even though the age for 'the first time' has dropped a lot, they're hardly having sex like bunnies.

Further there is the issue of the double standard. We're all talking about giving girls access to the pill, but nobody says anything about providing the guys with condoms. There's some responsibility to be taken there as well.

Yeah, sorry about that, MountDraconia. Didn't see your post until it was too late, and wasn't quick enough on the edit. I hope every surmised that I'm female as well.
Hey, no problem. I wasn't offended in the least.

What, BogMarsh, you don't think that if parents forced their sons to wrap it up, teen pregnancy wouldn't be effected? The results would be the same as forcing your daughter to take the pill. Both are just as effective, and the pill doesn't protect you from STDs. Condoms do. So the results would be less pregnancy AND less STDs if the boys were the responsible ones and brought a condom.

I know the issue isn't "forced", but just giving your kid the pil and saying "take this" won't get them to take it and saying "use this" and giving them a condom doesn't mean they'll use it.

It once again comes down to the responsibility of the individual. The parents can provide it, but the kids have to be responsible enough to use it.

I think any random 12 year old would be surprised at what it is above anything else.
But the point isn't giving them contraception. The point is making sure they know where to get it if they do get sexually active (despite further efforts). Making it a natural thought that there is no sex without protection.
But the natural thought that there is no sex without protection should be the thing they think as a last resort; making them realise that there is no need to have sex until they're ready, and that they shouldn't really be doing it until they're old enough to take responsibility should be the 'default position'. Sex is something for adults, and as I've said before, we should let kids be kids rather than encouraging them to be old before their time.

I don't think they're all quite so simpleminded. Unless they've been raised very, very poorly, if at all. Even though the age for 'the first time' has dropped a lot, they're hardly having sex like bunnies.
Perhaps. I am playing devil's advocate a little here; however, I do think that the figures showing a rise in teenage pregnancy and STDs speak for themselves when people claim to be more enlightened by encouraging 'free love'.

Further there is the issue of the double standard. We're all talking about giving girls access to the pill, but nobody says anything about providing the guys with condoms. There's some responsibility to be taken there as well.
The same standard should be applied to the guys; that sex can have massive consequences, and they shouldn't be taking on such consequences until they are at an age that they can properly deal with them.

The only way that men and women see sex differently is that there are many women who see sex as a tool to manipulate men, but otherwise there is no "gender barrier" that changes how one views sex compared to another.

Some have higher labidos than others, but most "objections" to sex are cultural things.

Alright, to those of you that don't think that preparing them in education young is going to help, saying 12 year olds can't deal with it, I have a question.

How old do you think they are when they start THINKING about it? When are you going to tell them? When my brother was in middle school, 12 year olds were becoming mothers. Their parents never educated them because they "were too young".

My brother got the same talk and education as I did and he is still holding out until he finds the right person.

Alright, to those of you that don't think that preparing them in education young is going to help, saying 12 year olds can't deal with it, I have a question.

How old do you think they are when they start THINKING about it? When are you going to tell them? When my brother was in middle school, 12 year olds were becoming mothers. Their parents never educated them because they "were too young".

My brother got the same talk and education as I did and he is still holding out until he finds the right person.
I'm not sure anyone has said we shouldn't be educating them. It has been said it shouldn't be encouraged, but that is really very different.

I'm not sure anyone has said we shouldn't be educating them. It has been said it shouldn't be encouraged, but that is really very different.
How old should they be was the question. How long should they wait until teaching... no parent is going to encourage their child to have sex, giving the kid the pill or rubber is not telling them to have sex if you educate them.

I remember we were watching a porn flick in sex ed!

It wasnt throat gaggers or anything like it - i think it was for educational purposes but very explicit.

I think giving a "sermon on the perils of sex" and handing out condoms at the same time is the only thing that could help children from having children.

Scaring teens is unhealthy and ruling it out as well (makes it more intersting,double standards, etc).

Now to something completely different...

How old should they be was the question. How long should they wait until teaching... no parent is going to encourage their child to have sex, giving the kid the pill or rubber is not telling them to have sex if you educate them.
lol, we're going in circles.

To put it bluntly; giving children the pill, coupled with a sexulised culture, is hardly discouraging them to have sex now, is it?

I think giving a "sermon on the perils of sex" and handing out condoms at the same time is the only thing that could help children from having children.


Thank you, finally some one who understands what I was getting at.

As a women, I do not see it as a way to manipulate men.

What I meant was that especially emotionally women view sex differently. Ususally (notice I say ususally and not not always) women have sex out of a feeling of love for the other person (sometimes a misguided feeling). Most guys I knew in high school saw it more as a macho "notch in the belt" sort of thing, and manipulated the girl involved into beleive that his love was mutual or threw in the classy "But i thought you loved me" when the girl says no.

Both men and women can manipulate. I know some girls have sex without emotional attatchment, but that's not the norm or the point really.

This is off topic anyway.

I'll say it again, just to make sure my real point is clear. Personal responsibility, and both involved responsible. There you go.

lol, we're going in circles.

To put it bluntly; giving children the pill, coupled with a sexulised culture, is hardly discouraging them to have sex now, is it?

Let me break down EXACTLY what I said.

EDUCATION+PROPER TOOLS= Less pregnancy, Less STD's, happier future.
I can not make it more simple than that.

You need both, not just one or the other.

To put it bluntly; giving children the pill, coupled with a sexulised culture, is hardly discouraging them to have sex now, is it?Not giving them the pill, coupled with a sexualized culture, is hardly discouraging them either though.
At least if you give them contraceptives, they will think about the issue for that moment. And you can jump in at that moment to provide some education and guidance to their (sexual) devellopment. (Although it makes more sense to talk first, then point out where the contraceptives are at the appropriate time)

During the Victorian era, just saying "don't have sex" may have worked. And I say may, because you just didn't even talk about sex then without someone fainting. But this isn't the Victorian era, are kids are exposed to sex, and education is the key. I knew what sex was by the time I was 6, even if I didn't understand it. I agree with Mount Draconia. Education, available tools.

But I live in the US, where we have freedom of religion. You cannot force parents to sign anything that would interfer with their religious beliefs. If the parents are good people, they'll help raise their grandchild or help their daughter put the child up for adoption. If they're not good people, then do you really want them to be responsible for yet another child? I know that won't lower teen prenancy, but you can't force them to go against their religion anymore than they can force you to stop having sex.

For anyone where religion is not an issue, it goes back to proper education on safe sex, helping provide the tools, and teaching your kids responsibility.

The answer is to start putting bromide in Sunny Delight.

Saturdaynight - somewhere north of the Humber.

A couple of friends and me, all of us old ( or older ) enough to have teenage daughters, were discussing what to do about the much-vaunted problem of teenage pregnancies ( if you wish to think of 11 year old as being a teen ).

We could arguably discuss pro's and con's till the next FA cup final, but most of us there present favour the 'preserve the Peace and worry about rootcauses afterwards' approach.

We considered the following an effective remedy for the problem:

ANY parent who fails to give his/her teenager access to the Pill on demand ought by law be forced to sign an affidavit in which he or she assumes FULL legal and social responsibility for any pregnancy by their offspring occuring while she is of minor years.


Just a thought...
I don't think they should have to sign an affidavit, I think it should simply be assumed under the law.

Of course, I think any parent who doesn't fully educate their child about contraception, and make EVERY contraceptive option available to their kid, is clearly somebody who shouldn't have had kids in the first place. A parent who refuses to protect their children is either selfish, lazy, or abusive, and possibly all three.

What, BogMarsh, you don't think that if parents forced their sons to wrap it up, teen pregnancy wouldn't be effected? The results would be the same as forcing your daughter to take the pill. Both are just as effective, and the pill doesn't protect you from STDs. Condoms do. So the results would be less pregnancy AND less STDs if the boys were the responsible ones and brought a condom.

Why is it either-or? Both women and men need to have access to contraception and the means to use it. Both boys and girls should be taught to use condoms.


I know the issue isn't "forced", but just giving your kid the pil and saying "take this" won't get them to take it and saying "use this" and giving them a condom doesn't mean they'll use it.

Well, see, that's why being a good parent kind of requires that you not be a dumbass. You shouldn't medicate your puberty-aged kids in that way, no matter what medication you're giving them. You should explain to them what the medication does, why it is important for their health, and why you want them to make the responsible choice to take the medication.


It once again comes down to the responsibility of the individual. The parents can provide it, but the kids have to be responsible enough to use it.
You're leaving out the primary function of a good parent: to help teach their children how to make responsible decisions for themselves. Kids don't become responsible in a vaccuum.

I'm just wondering, are all of you guys? Because (I don't know if this will get me in trouble for saying) guys think about sex completely differently than girls do the majority of the time. And are usually more protective of their daughters than their sons.

I keep bringing up the issue "should boys then be forced to wrap it up and their parents buy or obtain the condoms for them?" but I think it has been ignored. Why should the responsibility of pregnancy fall on the girl if the guy is there too? Shouldn't his parents be held equally responsible for not giving him a condom?

Well, see, this is the thing. It's not really about protecting their daughters in terms of making sure their daughters are safe, healthy, and happy. It's about keeping Daddy's Little Hymen safe and pure.

Boys are supposed to be sexual. Boys are supposed to be irresponsible. Boys are allowed to be sex-crazed and wild.

Girls, on the other hand, can't possibly be trusted to even KNOW about sex, because they're so sweet and pure. If girls are allowed to make choices, or if they are allowed a way to have sex without being punished by pregnancy, then girls might *GASP* decide to have sex. At which point she is a ho.

What I meant by the post you quote, Bottle, is that both parties should be resposible and that the pill doesn't protect against STDs. It shouldn't be one of the other. But don't just say "put the girl on the pill", which was the original idea.

I had to have mentioned at least two or three times in my other posts that I beleive education about safe sex and responsibity as well as helping provide contraception is the key.

And know that I think about it, we could just as easily give our daughters the condoms. If they both have one, maybe that would help convince them to actually use it.

What, BogMarsh, you don't think that if parents forced their sons to wrap it up, teen pregnancy wouldn't be effected? The results would be the same as forcing your daughter to take the pill. Both are just as effective, and the pill doesn't protect you from STDs. Condoms do. So the results would be less pregnancy AND less STDs if the boys were the responsible ones and brought a condom.

I know the issue isn't "forced", but just giving your kid the pil and saying "take this" won't get them to take it and saying "use this" and giving them a condom doesn't mean they'll use it.

It once again comes down to the responsibility of the individual. The parents can provide it, but the kids have to be responsible enough to use it.


The short version of it is that you are thinking 'rootcause'
I think 'preserve the peace' - for recent history shows pretty much that any attempt to get into rootcauses ends in procrastination as opposed to getting results on the double.

Fact: Teens will have sex
Fact: Teens will have sex with or without protection
Fact: Teens will have sex even if you tell them not to.
Fact: Teens will have sex even if you do not give them the proper protection

In the end, teens will have sex. Not all teens but there are teens that will have sex.

Personally, I do not believe in denying teens access to the proper protection.

I also don't like how teen mothers are treated in the society I see.

This world makes me do this: :headbang:

See, Bottle, you make it sound like I'm trying to trash guys. I'm not. What I'm saying is that BOTH the girl and the boy should be responsible if they have sex. Don't just pin it on the girl and her parents because she actually has the baby. It takes two, so both are equally responsible for whatever happens. There's that word "responsible" again.

I already mentioned that I am a girl and that I knew about sex at age six. I also said that I abstained from sex seeing the consequences sex had on the people around me even though they were educated about contraception and provided it my their parents. I made the choice to not even risk it while they made the choice to ignore the birth control offered and had babies in high school. Had they not taken their pills but their boyfriends still used a condom, they wouldn't have had those kids. Instead, both ignored their education on the subject and the available contraception, and ended up with unplanned teenage pregnancy.

EDUCATION.
AVAILABLE TOOLS.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

How better could I explain this?

Fact: Teens will have sex
Fact: Teens will have sex with or without protection
Fact: Teens will have sex even if you tell them not to.
Fact: Teens will have sex even if you do not give them the proper protection

In the end, teens will have sex. Not all teens but there are teens that will have sex.

Personally, I do not believe in denying teens access to the proper protection.

I also don't like how teen mothers are treated in the society I see.

This world makes me do this: :headbang:
I'm sorry, that wasn't very clear. Do you think teens will have sex then? :p

And how would you rather society treated teen mothers? Give them a pat on the back and say well done?

I'm sorry, that wasn't very clear. Do you think teens will have sex then? :p

And how would you rather society treated teen mothers? Give them a pat on the back and say well done?

Perhaps a: You screwed up, but we're not going to crucify you for it because you're already being punished enough by having to be a mother at such a young age.

Perhaps a: You screwed up, but we're not going to crucify you for it because you're already being punished enough by having to be a mother at such a young age.
Perhaps in some cases. Where I am, however, babies as a result of teenage pregnancy are almost a fashion statement; and all to the detriment of the new child.

It always makes me laugh when the Council boasts we're one of only a few areas in the country that has a higher birth rate than death rate. I'm not sure that's something to be shouting about, really.

Perhaps in some cases. Where I am, however, babies as a result of teenage pregnancy are almost a fashion statement; and all to the detriment of the new child.

It always makes me laugh when the Council boasts we're one of only a few areas in the country that has a higher birth rate than death rate. I'm not sure that's something to be shouting about, really.

I still think it beats the alternative.

The short version of it is that you are thinking 'rootcause'
I think 'preserve the peace' - for recent history shows pretty much that any attempt to get into rootcauses ends in procrastination as opposed to getting results on the double.

The quickest way to get results is actually to give girls the contraceptive injection (I can't remember the name) as soon as they hit puberty, and make sure they get it every three months. That way they can't just choose not take it or forget to take it. On top of that, start handing out condoms to all children at about 10 or 11, and show them how to use them and tell them when to use them. That would get the quick if not immediate results you crave.

Perhaps in some cases. Where I am, however, babies as a result of teenage pregnancy are almost a fashion statement; and all to the detriment of the new child.

It always makes me laugh when the Council boasts we're one of only a few areas in the country that has a higher birth rate than death rate. I'm not sure that's something to be shouting about, really.

A fashion statement? I've never come across anything like that before.

1. The quickest way to get results is actually to give girls the contraceptive injection (I can't remember the name) as soon as they hit puberty, and make sure they get it every three months. That way they can't just choose not take it or forget to take it. 2. On top of that, start handing out condoms to all children at about 10 or 11, and show them how to use them and tell them when to use them. That would get the quick if not immediate results you crave.

1. We can't overturn parental rights - but we CAN link 'em with accountability.

2. Used in ( I think ) Holland and Belgium. PROVEN to be effective!

A fashion statement? I've never come across anything like that before.Yeah, they wear 'm as hats.

I still think it beats the alternative.

You think it beats prolonging human existence?:confused:

A fashion statement? I've never come across anything like that before.
Walk around my town and you'll know what I mean.

An anecdotal story: I remember someone coming up to a friend who'd just had a baby (in their thirties) and trying to show off about the fact they had a kid as well. They were no older than 13.

"Your mother must be so proud," my friend replied.

Yeah, they wear 'm as hats.
:D

You think it beats prolonging human existence?:confused:

Yeah. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the Nation is better served by having kids than by stockpiling old codgers in care-homes.

Walk around my town and you'll know what I mean.

An anecdotal story: I remember someone coming up to a friend who'd just had a baby (in their thirties) and trying to show off about the fact they had a kid as well. They were no older than 13.

"Your mother must be so proud," my friend replied.

Well that's just not on. People below the age of 18 are just not fit to raise a child.

I dont think putting young girls on teh pill is a great idea, because children are irresponsible and aside from forgetting to take it, they might think they are safe and not use condoms, putting them at greater risk of disease, and pregnancy if they havent taken the pill properly. A lot of kids see the pill as a licence to have unprotected sex whenever they want. Educating teens about contraception, and letting them go on the pill if they decide, rather than putting them on it, would be better. And make condoms easily available and free. They may be horrible to use but they are really the best way to go.

Well that's just not on. People below the age of 18 are just not fit to raise a child.
So you think 13 is a great age to become a mother?

I dont think putting young girls on teh pill is a great idea, because children are irresponsible and aside from forgetting to take it, they might think they are safe and not use condoms, putting them at greater risk of disease, and pregnancy if they havent taken the pill properly. A lot of kids see the pill as a licence to have unprotected sex whenever they want. Educating teens about contraception, and letting them go on the pill if they decide, rather than putting them on it, would be better. And make condoms easily available and free. They may be horrible to use but they are really the best way to go.

Fine. Parents are entirely free to decide. And they'll be held accountable for their decision.

Yeah. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the Nation is better served by having kids than by stockpiling old codgers in care-homes.

Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. The population growth rate is so incredibly low that we better start popping out more babies before we die out. [/SARCASM] :rolleyes:

So you think 13 is a great age to become a mother?

Ahh...No. What gave you that impression?:confused:

Ahh...No. What gave you that impression?:confused:
Sorry...I thought you were being sarcastic above. :confused:

A lot of kids see the pill as a licence to have unprotected sex whenever they want.I suppose it would be worth a survey to find out if that's actually true.
I mean, talking about what ought to be done to prevent teen pregnancy, without actually involving teens and finding out their opinions, is a bit odd..

Oh yeah, you're absolutely right. The population growth rate is so incredibly low that we better start popping out more babies before we die out. [/SARCASM] :rolleyes:

*loud laugh*

Once again, I am persuaded that there is absolutely no risk of your policy becoming popular.

Your problem is that you are decadent.
You value values more than life itself.
A most self-defeating attitude...

( or, why the Red States outbreed the Blue States )

Sorry...I thought you were being sarcastic above. :confused:

Nope. If I were I'd make it clear. ie through an [/SARCASM] thingy.

*loud laugh*

Once again, I am persuaded that there is absolutely no risk of your policy becoming popular.

Your problem is that you are decadent.
You value values more than life itself.
A most self-defeating attitude...

( or, why the Red States outbreed the Blue States )

I value life. I value it so much that I think it's best to optimize the use of our natural resources so that the human race can live for the longest time with the largest amount of people practicable. Having an exponential growth rate will only force us to consume all of our resources and destroy us all. Population needs to be controlled fool!

Hang on, are you that kid who thinks that abolishing money will do humanity a great deal of good?:confused:

Last post, as I've been up for about 24 hours.

The shot is in the US as well, and it is quite effective. It has "dev" at the beginning of it, but I still don't remember the name.

No, we can't override parental rights or the rights of the kids to be medicated against their will or the religious rights of anyone involved. So the law would never be held up by the Supreme Court anyway.

The quick results would infringe on civil rights, and treating the "root problem" will apparently take too long.

So I repeat a last time, encourage abstinance (especially if the child is under 16 because they're too young to fully understand the issue), BUT teach them about safe sex practices AND help them get the proper protection. Also teach them that their choices have consequences, and they will have to live with the outcome if they choose to ignore you about contraception.

It was fun, but my bed is calling.

I value life. I value it so much that I think it's best to optimize the use of our natural resources so that the human race can live for the longest time with the largest amount of people practicable. Having an exponential growth rate will only force us to consume all of our resources and destroy us all. Population needs to be controlled fool!

Hang on, are you that kid who thinks that abolishing money will do humanity a great deal of good?:confused:

Most definetely not!

Control your own population if you wish. I wont control mine.
But that is another story.

( And don't think Elephant! )

Most definetely not!

Control your own population if you wish. I wont control mine.
But that is another story.

( And don't think Elephant! )

Oh, sorry. I have a terrible memory for names.

Oh, sorry. I have a terrible memory for names.

No worries, cobber.

Anyway, I did not start this thread to discuss birth-control.
I started it to link teenage pregnancy to parental choices, and to toss up some balls on how to get the adults to act like... responsible adults.

Well shit parenting causes shit behavior in teens. I say blame the parents, not anyone else.

I think I'll make my fortune by writing the "End to Teenage Pregnancy Diet Book." A couple of hundred years ago the average age when a girl had her first period was 17. I'll write a book so that parents who think that sex is teh evil will be able to starve their children on a bowl of thin gruel and a crust of bread a day, combined with hard labour, that will not only make them too weak to be interested in sex, but their bodies will be underdeveloped and unattractive too!

Then to capture the other end of a market I'll write a book called "Pregnant at Thirteen - Getting it Out of the Way!" which will demonstrate the advantages of having a child while still a child.

1. By the time you reach drinking age the child will be old enough to feed itself while you lay in a drunken stupour.

2. Since you're a lot more closer in age you'll have a lot more in common than you did with your mum.

3. If you're single your kid's friends will be old enough for you to date.

Last post, as I've been up for about 24 hours.

The shot is in the US as well, and it is quite effective. It has "dev" at the beginning of it, but I still don't remember the name.

No, we can't override parental rights or the rights of the kids to be medicated against their will or the religious rights of anyone involved. So the law would never be held up by the Supreme Court anyway.

The quick results would infringe on civil rights, and treating the "root problem" will apparently take too long.

So I repeat a last time, encourage abstinance (especially if the child is under 16 because they're too young to fully understand the issue), BUT teach them about safe sex practices AND help them get the proper protection. Also teach them that their choices have consequences, and they will have to live with the outcome if they choose to ignore you about contraception.

It was fun, but my bed is calling.



It's called Depo-Provera. Nobody seems the least bit concerned that all the chemical contraceptives are just that, chemicals. They have side effects, the side effects are worse the longer you use them. Depo, for on thing, encourages weight gain - that'll make the teenage girls happy. There are other, much worse side effects. Also, these are all abortifacients.

Besides, handing them contraceptives - great way to teach personal responsibility. "Oh, darling, we've told you why abstinence is best, but have these just in case since we don't trust you to make the right decision."

Yes, children should be fully educated about sex. No, parents should not be obligated to offer them contraceptives. Teens will have to live with the consequences if their decisions, therefore, they should be taught to make wise decisions. No, I would not expect society to take on the care of my illegitimate grandchild, that is what family is for - to support each other in times of crisis. Yes, parents are responsible for the welfare of their children until they leave home. We should therefore be encouraging children, including teens, to be obedient to their parents instead of encouraging parents to cater to selfish teens. By telling them that sex is for adults and then handing them condoms, you are undermining your own authority and hampering your childs ability to make wise decisions.

If we are concerned about society having to pick up the tab for all these out of wedlock babies, then we should do something about that. If we take away the safety nets then fewer teens will take the risks.

ANY parent who fails to give his/her teenager access to the Pill on demand ought by law be forced to sign an affidavit in which he or she assumes FULL legal and social responsibility for any pregnancy by their offspring occuring while she is of minor years.
I believe there is a double standard involved in granting children or teenagers the freedom to act in what would be considered an "adult" manner while at the same time stating that it is the legal responsibility of their parents to facilitate such behaviour.

What's next? If my daughter decides to eat whatever and as much as she likes, can she bring me to court to force me to fit the liposuction bill on the grounds of her violation of my restrictions on her diet? When my son contracts a lung disease from excess smoking, am I obligated to bear the costs by virtue of not giving him an open-air conservatory to do it in? If my ten year old emo contracts tetanus when he cuts himself with a knife, am I prohibited from charging him the medical bills by my refusal to provide him with a clean blade to do it with? After all, they were going to do it anyway.

There is something seriously wrong with the line of reasoning displayed here. Parents have every right to prohibit kinds of self-damaging behaviour and to enforce this prohibition through punishment or deferrence of legal responsibility to them. To remove this right is to give children dominion over society and that, sir, will destroy us all.

I believe there is a double standard involved in granting children or teenagers the freedom to act in what would be considered an "adult" manner while at the same time stating that it is the legal responsibility of their parents to facilitate such behaviour.

What's next? If my daughter decides to eat whatever and as much as she likes, can she bring me to court to force me to fit the liposuction bill on the grounds of her violation of my restrictions on her diet? When my son contracts a lung disease from excess smoking, am I obligated to bear the costs by virtue of not giving him an open-air conservatory to do it in? If my ten year old emo contracts tetanus when he cuts himself with a knife, am I prohibited from charging him the medical bills by my refusal to provide him with a clean blade to do it with? After all, they were going to do it anyway.

There is something seriously wrong with the line of reasoning displayed here. Parents have every right to prohibit kinds of self-damaging behaviour and to enforce this prohibition through punishment or deferrence of legal responsibility to them. To remove this right is to give children dominion over society and that, sir, will destroy us all.


Very well said.

If we take away the safety nets then fewer teens will take the risks.And yet when there isn't a safety net, all the problems are amplified.

Let's also remove airbags from cars, that'll deter people crashing into each other for sure..

I believe there is a double standard involved in granting children or teenagers the freedom to act in what would be considered an "adult" manner while at the same time stating that it is the legal responsibility of their parents to facilitate such behaviour.

What's next? If my daughter decides to eat whatever and as much as she likes, can she bring me to court to force me to fit the liposuction bill on the grounds of her violation of my restrictions on her diet? When my son contracts a lung disease from excess smoking, am I obligated to bear the costs by virtue of not giving him an open-air conservatory to do it in? If my ten year old emo contracts tetanus when he cuts himself with a knife, am I prohibited from charging him the medical bills by my refusal to provide him with a clean blade to do it with? After all, they were going to do it anyway.

There is something seriously wrong with the line of reasoning displayed here. Parents have every right to prohibit kinds of self-damaging behaviour and to enforce this prohibition through punishment or deferrence of legal responsibility to them. To remove this right is to give children dominion over society and that, sir, will destroy us all.

Sir, you as a parent are indeed responsible for the actions of your minor children. By Law.

What we have is an abortion of a system in which parents can shrug off their responsibilities on a whim. Now, may people try that - every day.
What makes the problem in question so onerous, is that certain parents offload their responsibilities on society at large: the taxpayers.

My kid just had a baby - and YOU pick up the tab!

Double standards go hang!
If you think your children should have unprotected sex, you are held accountable.
If you think your children should refrain from it till they are 18 or married, then do your duty, and make sure that is exactly what happens.
If you think your children should have protected sex, then we - as the British people - will be quite happy to provide them with protection.

The only choice we're sick of giving you is the choice to dump the problem on our taxpaying laps!

Parents have every right to prohibit kinds of self-damaging behaviourSure, but likely none of it'll stick if you have to do that after they hit their teens.
They need to be weened onto responsibility, and they'll need the options to be responsible in their choices, even if those are the wrong choices.

It is not a question of whether it is moral or not to have sex before marraige. It is simply a way of protecting daughters and their parents from an early parent and grandparent hood. Teens are going to have sex anyway (and they will) then why not give them access to the pill. If you are worried about morality here is an original idea TALK TO YOUR DAUGHTER ABOUT IT!! If you have a good relationship and you frame the conversation in an adult manner then you won't have any problems.

What we need is a government advertising campaign telling young girls that no boy will want them if they get stretch marks and saggy boobs. Thatl make them use protection, and its a useful lesson generally.

Why do people keep talking as if the opinion first posed was that parents were to force contraceptives upon their children?

This is not so.

Please re-read (yes, go back and do it yourselves, as I am too lazy). It states clearly that parents would have to let their children use contraceptives if they want, or pay the penalties. This does not mean that a parent is forcing their daughter to take the Pill; it is mearly that parents should not stand in the way of the aforementioned daughter in her decision to go on the Pill and have sexual intercourse. Some parents do not let their children go onto the Pill, and teens still have sexual desires and act upon them, becoming pregnant, or worse.

I think it is reasonable that parents should not be allowed to stop their daughters from going onto the Pill, or from sons going out and buying condoms.

Ignorance is bliss? I think not.

the best "cure" for teenaged pregnancy is parental involvement in their children's lives. especially a father's approval of his teenaged daughter.

I hate these threads because they're breeding grounds for preachy religious wankers who like to tell us that it's 'immoral' to have sex at a young age, it's 'immoral' to use contraception. Well before people start wasting their time lecturing us about morality, perhaps they should be reminded that their warped ethical views have no weight in this debate because:

a) Nobody cares. Even if things are immoral people will continue to do them anyway because they want to

and

b) Morality has no place in the decision of political issues because the government is concerned with not what is good and moral, but what is in the best interest of society as a whole.

So before everyone gets all high and mighty, morality is irrelevant.
Wankers....haha.. i assume that's some british term for the word "fuckers" or something.
ANYWAY, i don't think they should buy the pills for their daughters because then that would be teaching them that they can have sex all they want and not feel like anything bad can happen.
I would encourage more that parents give their kids (boy and girl) condoms instead, not the pill.

Maybe we should get some condom vending machines.
There aren't any in the US besides in those sex hotels and crap.

Besides, handing them contraceptives - great way to teach personal responsibility. "Oh, darling, we've told you why abstinence is best, but have these just in case since we don't trust you to make the right decision."

Yes, children should be fully educated about sex. No, parents should not be obligated to offer them contraceptives. Teens will have to live with the consequences if their decisions, therefore, they should be taught to make wise decisions. No, I would not expect society to take on the care of my illegitimate grandchild, that is what family is for - to support each other in times of crisis. Yes, parents are responsible for the welfare of their children until they leave home. We should therefore be encouraging children, including teens, to be obedient to their parents instead of encouraging parents to cater to selfish teens. By telling them that sex is for adults and then handing them condoms, you are undermining your own authority and hampering your childs ability to make wise decisions.

If we are concerned about society having to pick up the tab for all these out of wedlock babies, then we should do something about that. If we take away the safety nets then fewer teens will take the risks.
You say the teen has to live with the consequences? Well, maybe the parents don't want to have to live with them also. They are taking affirmative action and are making sure that it doesn't happen. It's better than getting pregnant in the first place.
I would prefer parents giving condoms instead though, but if the parents know the daughter is sexually active, then they should give her pills also.

Maybe we should get some condom vending machines.
There aren't any in the US besides in those sex hotels and crap.
thats a lie. im not sure if they're available everywhere, but we do have them in the US

correct me if im wrong but when it comes down to it, is this thread really just asking if a teen should be responsible for his/her own actions or if his/her parents should be?

if this is the case, where is the line drawn (when do teens' actions stop being their parents' responsibilities)?

First off, no matter how much you say it, you cannot stop teenagers from having sex. Sex shouldn't be regarded as something completely unsafe, and "immortality" is a bad thing, because there is always a risk of unwanted pregnancies/STD's. Alternatives to these include abstinence, and protection. Whether or not to abstain from sex should be a personal choice, but until a person is ready for children, or fully willing to take the risks, protection should be highly encouraged.

On the idea of mandatory pills, I think it is a terrible idea. Better Sex ED courses in high school could be equally effective, less controversial, and much less expensive. Teenagers shouldn't be taught that abstinence is the only safe alternative to sex. While it techincally is the safest, these classes bloat the failure rates of protection, and fail to even teach students how to use condoms, and like I said earlier, you CANNOT stop teenagers from having sex.

Hmm...

Ok, let's take a person but them in a highly sexual atmosphere (school being worce than real life)

Let's make it where the human body is dirty and sinful, therefore making it where the person trips all over themselves if they see any uncovered flesh.

Now, let's not teach them about sex, provide them with protection because it's morally wrong and they should have no knowledge of such things.

So, add this together...

We now have a teen who's parents will not talk to them because they are "thier little baby" so, they learn about it from friends school. Friends who claim they have done it but are by a good bet lying. Of cource these friends are hot crap because they have done it. So, the kid goes find a willing friend, bangs, then gets into issues when one turns up pregnant. Does this seem like a pretty accurate discription of how things happen? Break one or two of those chains and those pregnancy rates will drop.

The cure for teenage pregnany is abstinence. Worked for me, although I never did beleive it until almost too late.

The cure for teenage pregnany is abstinence. Worked for me, although I never did beleive it until almost too late.

Got it. If a teenager gets pregnant they just have to abstain from sex and it will go away.

What an awful idea. Giving the pill encourages an immortal attitude, and condones the action.

I agree that we certainly don't need our children running around swordfighting in the streets, yelling "There Can Be Only One!" and cutting each other's heads off, but I don't think that it's the Pill that's really responsible for that.