Contraceptive Implants for 13 year olds is working

[arista]

This was debated on Ch5 Wright Stuff.


22% of Pregnanicies have dropped.

So these Contraceptive Implants arte working Good.


13 is a bit young
but it better she does not have one in the oven.


(The girl said: 'The implant works really well
and I think it is a good service.
'I think it has really helped me because if I
am with my boyfriend and we feel like having sex, I have the peace of mind knowing that I am OK.)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2098349/I-felt-like-having-sex-Girl-13-reveals-contraceptive-implant-school-WITHOUT-telling-mother.html#ixzz1loTQNiSY

[Kazanne]

I'de be mortified if my daughter had sex at 13 it is too young,but kids today will do it, so I guess it's better than kids having kids,I have a few years yet to worry about such things,but it's scarey stuff.

[Marc]

13 is really young, especially for an implant!

But the underage sex and pregnancies is a worrying issue and it can potentially ruin the lives of those who have children at a young age (compared to what they could have achieved if they weren't a young mum. I have no statistics to back that up, that's just my opinion).

If they are given the implant at 13 would this encourage more underage sex?

[arista]

I'de be mortified if my daughter had sex at 13 it is too young,but kids today will do it, so I guess it's better than kids having kids,I have a few years yet to worry about such things,but it's scarey stuff.


Yes One caller said 13 is to young.


But due to Internet Inspired and other things Young Girl's
are having sex with boys the same age.


Kids today are not like before Facebook.

[Marc]

I wouldn't blame facebook for underaged sex..? I'd say the internet is to blame though

[arista]

13 is really young, especially for an implant!

But the underage sex and pregnancies is a worrying issue and it can potentially ruin the lives of those who have children at a young age (compared to what they could have achieved if they weren't a young mum. I have no statistics to back that up, that's just my opinion).

If they are given the implant at 13 would this encourage more underage sex?


No.

As those Girls that start Early
would still start Early without the implants.

[arista]

I wouldn't blame facebook for underaged sex..? I'd say the internet is to blame though


No
I am not blaming Facebook alone.
It was just used as a Example.

[Marc]

But the fear of pregancy wouldn't stop them...

I blame Bebo.. that's where all the scummy kids hung out :hmph:

[arista]

But the fear of pregancy wouldn't stop them...

I blame Bebo.. that's where all the scummy kids hung out :hmph:


Yes Bebo was for that age, so valid point

[Jack_]

Can't stand the parents that are complaining about this. It's a child's choice as to when to have sex, as long as they consent to it and understand the potential consequences of it (which there needs to be a lot of education about), then it's no business of anyone else when, where or who they have sex with...same as it applies to adults.

It might seem too young...but it happens, and let's be honest, there are far worse things in the world than underage sex.

[lostalex]

I don't know what to think about this. Of course it's good that the pregnancy rate has gone down, but i wonder about the STD rate. If they know they are immune from pregnancy, maybe they will be less likely to use condoms, and it could lead to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

'I think it has really helped me because if I am with my boyfriend and we feel like having sex, I have the peace of mind knowing that I am OK."

No tou are NOt okay just because you can't get preggers. The implants don't prevent STD's. Maybe you don't get preggers, but you can still get AIDS.

[Niamh.]

Can't stand the parents that are complaining about this. It's a child's choice as to when to have sex, as long as they consent to it and understand the potential consequences of it (which there needs to be a lot of education about), then it's no business of anyone else when, where or who they have sex with...same as it applies to adults.

It might seem too young...but it happens, and let's be honest, there are far worse things in the world than underage sex.

Are you kidding me??? If I thought my daughter was having sex at 13, she'd never see the light of day till she was about 18.

[Jack_]

Are you kidding me??? If I thought my daughter was having sex at 13, she'd never see the light of day till she was about 18.

But why? I don't understand this notion other than the fact that it's been frowned upon for generations. Don't forget childhood in itself is a socially constructed idea...when you take away all of the laws and beliefs that most people have been brought up with...you're just left with people. No children, no adults. It's difficult to comprehend I know because we're so used to it as it is now, but don't forget all around the world different cultures identify 'childhood' with different meanings.

The way I see it...as long as children are educated about sexual activity and behaviour from an early but reasonably mature age, and they are made to understand the potential consequences, not to give into peer pressure, all of the usual things...then the decision should lie with them. Of course there's ages where children aren't physically mature enough to engage in sexual activity, and so evidently there's a problem there...but the idea of education regarding the subject seems a lot more important to me than people being concerned about when it takes place. As the old saying goes...it's better to be safe than sorry, I think that applies here.

At the end of the day an individuals choice when to have sex, so long as they understand the potential repercussions of their actions and have been properly educated, are physically able to cope with it and consent to it...then I don't think that's the business of anyone else. I understand the issues but it is an age-old concept that whether parents like or not, isn't always obeyed. Knowledge overrides protection (unless it's illegal) for me.

[Doogle]

Are you kidding me??? If I thought my daughter was having sex at 13, she'd never see the light of day till she was about 18.

My Mum would be the same with me, I know it's a bit different as I'm male but even so she'd be furious at the thought.

[Niamh.]

But why? I don't understand this notion other than the fact that it's been frowned upon for generations. Don't forget childhood in itself is a socially constructed idea...when you take away all of the laws and beliefs that most people have been brought up with...you're just left with people. No children, no adults. It's difficult to comprehend I know because we're so used to it as it is now, but don't forget all around the world different cultures identify 'childhood' with different meanings.

The way I see it...as long as children are educated about sexual activity and behaviour from an early but reasonably mature age, and they are made to understand the potential consequences, not to give into peer pressure, all of the usual things...then the decision should lie with them. Of course there's ages where children aren't physically mature enough to engage in sexual activity, and so evidently there's a problem there...but the idea of education regarding the subject seems a lot more important to me than people being concerned about when it takes place. As the old saying goes...it's better to be safe than sorry, I think that applies here.

At the end of the day an individuals choice when to have sex, so long as they understand the potential repercussions of their actions and have been properly educated, are physically able to cope with it and consent to it...then I don't think that's the business of anyone else. I understand the issues but it is an age-old concept that whether parents like or not, isn't always obeyed. Knowledge overrides protection (unless it's illegal) for me.

It is Illegal to have sex at 13, by consent or not. Also, I couldn't give too ****s what other cultures find acceptable or not, I've been a 13 year old girl and I know I wouldn't have been mature enough or emotionally ready for a sex life at that age. And I can tell you, as a mother to a daughter who is almost 12, and is no where near physically or emotionally ready for sexual relationships, that If I thought she was, she would be going no where other than school for a very long time.

[Pyramid*]

But why? I don't understand this notion other than the fact that it's been frowned upon for generations. Don't forget childhood in itself is a socially constructed idea...when you take away all of the laws and beliefs that most people have been brought up with...you're just left with people. No children, no adults. It's difficult to comprehend I know because we're so used to it as it is now, but don't forget all around the world different cultures identify 'childhood' with different meanings.

The way I see it...as long as children are educated about sexual activity and behaviour from an early but reasonably mature age, and they are made to understand the potential consequences, not to give into peer pressure, all of the usual things...then the decision should lie with them. Of course there's ages where children aren't physically mature enough to engage in sexual activity, and so evidently there's a problem there...but the idea of education regarding the subject seems a lot more important to me than people being concerned about when it takes place. As the old saying goes...it's better to be safe than sorry, I think that applies here.

At the end of the day an individuals choice when to have sex, so long as they understand the potential repercussions of their actions and have been properly educated, are physically able to cope with it and consent to it...then I don't think that's the business of anyone else. I understand the issues but it is an age-old concept that whether parents like or not, isn't always obeyed. Knowledge overrides protection (unless it's illegal) for me.

apart from the very obvious fact that it is illegal to have sex under the age of 16 in this country.

Let's see how you feel when you are out working, are a tax payer and your hard earned taxes are going towards feeding, housing, clothing, educating bastard children of very young teen mothers.

That aside: many are NOT physically mature enough: biologically or mentally to cope - that isn't determined until baby arrives.

Who looks after the baby due a schoolgirl mother then? Dumped on the parents, who will pay for food, clothing, etc? The mother? after all Jack, according to you, it's her choice. How does she pay for the upkeep of said child if she falls pregnant - which many often do.

[Jack_]

It is Illegal to have sex at 13, by consent or not. Also, I couldn't give too ****s what other cultures find acceptable or not, I've been a 13 year old girl and I know I wouldn't have been mature enough or emotionally ready for a sex life at that age. And I can tell you, as a mother to a daughter who is almost 12, and is no where near physically or emotionally ready for sexual relationships, that If I thought she was, she would be going no where other than school for a very long time.

Sorry...but this is quite an extreme reaction to what is supposed to be a civilised debate. I understand it's a sensitive issue as you're a mother, but please, how am I supposed to discuss an issue with someone who refuses to comprehend opposing ideas? I don't mean that in a bad way Niamh, but it's difficult if I make a point and someone responds with 'I couldn't give a ****'.

Anyway, you see the problem is everyone matures at different ages, whilst you and others may not have been physically or mentally mature at the age of 13, many others are. It's an individual thing, not a collective. And that's where the problem lies, because why should someone who is physically mature enough and has well-rounded knowledge of the subject, has put thought into it, and has waited until they themselves are ready, be denied the choice to have sex purely on the basis that society deems them 'too young', when of course as with everything, those beliefs are instilled in everybody's mind. You aren't born that way.

What if she was physically and mentally mature enough for it though? What if she had been educated about the potential consequences of her actions, how she should wait for the right moment, use protection...you know, all of the usual stuff and more, then what would your belief be? If she lost it to someone she had known for many years and perhaps been in a relationship for some length of time? There's varying degrees of possibilities, everyone is different and every situation is different.

Don't forget as well, one of the biggest problems with denying people the choice to do things is that it consequently makes them want to do it more. It's a bit like when you see a 'do not touch - wet paint' sign, you want to touch it, it's because you've been told you can't. Such restrictions can have negative effects on some people. Prevention, protection and exclusion can often make people more interested, curious and susceptible to things.

apart from the very obvious fact that it is illegal to have sex under the age of 16 in this country.

But that doesn't mean it should be, not everybody agrees...some think it should be older, some think it should be lower. And the age of consent varies across the world. It's not set in stone, it's open to discussion. As I said the whole concept of 'childhood' is something that's socially constructed. Various laws and rules give off certain ideas as to what a 'child' actually is, but that varies from country to country.

Let's see how you feel when you are out working, are a tax payer and your hard earned taxes are going towards feeding, housing, clothing, educating bastard children of very young teen mothers.

But again you've missed the point that I made - I quite clearly stated that I believe the sex education is something that is needed more in schools, regardless of my whole stance on this particular subject actually. It's needed regardless, because whether parents like it or not...underage sex happens. And it could happen to anyone.

That aside: many are NOT physically mature enough: biologically or mentally to cope - that isn't determined until baby arrives.

Who looks after the baby due a schoolgirl mother then? Dumped on the parents, who will pay for food, clothing, etc? The mother? after all Jack, according to you, it's her choice. How does she pay for the upkeep of said child if she falls pregnant - which many often do.

This is a fair point, but I'm of the opinion that if you have a child (especially underage), you provide for it. In cases like these whilst the teen mother might not be able to financially provide at the time, when they start receiving an income a system could be implemented whereby they are required to pay back any money that was provided to them by their parents, unless of course their parents agree to financially provide anyway. Again, it's another choice that should be made by the individual. If you wish to bring a child into the world at such a young age, you are responsible for it, as of course you were responsible for getting pregnant in the first place.

[Niamh.]

Because Jack, they are children. At 13 you are a child, it's not legal and if it all goes wrong and you end up with a disease or an unwanted pregnancy or some sort of therapy because actually maybe you weren't as ready as you thought you were, who has to deal with that and pick up the pieces? The adults do or parents as I like to call them.

[Pyramid*]

Sorry...but this is quite an extreme reaction to what is supposed to be a civilised debate. I understand it's a sensitive issue as you're a mother, but please, how am I supposed to discuss an issue with someone who refuses to comprehend opposing ideas? I don't mean that in a bad way Niamh, but it's difficult if I make a point and someone responds with 'I couldn't give a ****'.

Anyway, you see the problem is everyone matures at different ages, whilst you and others may not have been physically or mentally mature at the age of 13, many others are. It's an individual thing, not a collective. And that's where the problem lies, because why should someone who is physically mature enough and has well-rounded knowledge of the subject, has put thought into it, and has waited until they themselves are ready, be denied the choice to have sex purely on the basis that society deems them 'too young', when of course as with everything, those beliefs are instilled in everybody's mind. You aren't born that way.

What if she was physically and mentally mature enough for it though? What if she had been educated about the potential consequences of her actions, how she should wait for the right moment, use protection...you know, all of the usual stuff and more, then what would your belief be? If she lost it to someone she had known for many years and perhaps been in a relationship for some length of time? There's varying degrees of possibilities, everyone is different and every situation is different.

Don't forget as well, one of the biggest problems with denying people the choice to do things is that it consequently makes them want to do it more. It's a bit like when you see a 'do not touch - wet paint' sign, you want to touch it, it's because you've been told you can't. Such restrictions can have negative effects on some people. Prevention, protection and exclusion can often make people more interested, curious and susceptible to things.



But that doesn't mean it should be, not everybody agrees...some think it should be older, some think it should be lower. And the age of consent varies across the world. It's not set in stone, it's open to discussion. As I said the whole concept of 'childhood' is something that's socially constructed. Various laws and rules give off certain ideas as to what a 'child' actually is, but that varies from country to country.



But again you've missed the point that I made - I quite clearly stated that I believe the sex education is something that is needed more in schools, regardless of my whole stance on this particular subject actually. It's needed regardless, because whether parents like it or not...underage sex happens. And it could happen to anyone.



This is a fair point, but I'm of the opinion that if you have a child (especially underage), you provide for it. In cases like these whilst the teen mother might not be able to financially provide at the time, when they start receiving an income a system could be implemented whereby they are required to pay back any money that was provided to them by their parents, unless of course their parents agree to financially provide anyway. Again, it's another choice that should be made by the individual. If you wish to bring a child into the world at such a young age, you are responsible for it, as of course you were responsible for getting pregnant in the first place.


Not quite addressing what I asked. How do you suggest in this 'do what they want world' of yours: how does a schoolchild manage to feed and clothe their new born baby, and look after it? Where do they get the money from? where do they stay? (bearing in mind here, according to you, it is upto the parent of said child).

Underage pregnancies are most commonly unwanted....

How do you propose they pay for this NOW, when they need it. In the current - not some flight of fancy idea - the real world NOW...as it is NOW. When the child appears... NOW.

[Jack_]

Because Jack, they are children. At 13 you are a child, it's not legal and if it all goes wrong and you end up with a disease or an unwanted pregnancy or some sort of therapy because actually maybe you weren't as ready as you thought you were, who has to deal with that and pick up the pieces? The adults do or parents as I like to call them.

You're still not considering the arguments I've proposed. It's all very well saying that, but it's not always the case. Many young people engage in sexual activity and never get pregnant or contract STI's, and if they do, they get rid of them, or at least attempt to. Not everyone is as poorly educated on the subject as others.

But because this is obviously a sensitive subject considering you're a mother yourself...perhaps it's best if we didn't discuss it.

Not quite addressing what I asked. How do you suggest in this 'do what they want world' of yours: how does a schoolchild manage to feed and clothe their new born baby, and look after it? Where do they get the money from? where do they stay? (bearing in mind here, according to you, it is upto the parent of said child).

Underage pregnancies are most commonly unwanted....

How do you propose they pay for this NOW, when they need it. In the current - not some flight of fancy idea - the real world NOW...as it is NOW. When the child appears... NOW.

Their parents, and they return the expenses when they begin earning an income, unless as I said the parents permit them not to.

[Sam:)]

can they not just wank/poke themselves?

[Niamh.]

You're still not considering the arguments I've proposed. It's all very well saying that, but it's not always the case. Many young people engage in sexual activity and never get pregnant or contract STI's, and if they do, they get rid of them, or at least attempt to. Not everyone is as poorly educated on the subject as others.

But because this is obviously a sensitive subject considering you're a mother yourself...perhaps it's best if we didn't discuss it.



Their parents, and they return the expenses when they begin earning an income, unless as I said the parents permit them not to.

to be quite honest with you Jack, I don't think at 16 (I think you are around this age) you have a clue whether or not 13 year olds are capable of deciding that they are old enough to have sex or not. Not to mention the fact that it is illegal. I have no doubt that most 13 year olds think they can do and are ready for anything. They're not.

[Pyramid*]

You're still not considering the arguments I've proposed. It's all very well saying that, but it's not always the case. Many young people engage in sexual activity and never get pregnant or contract STI's, and if they do, they get rid of them, or at least attempt to. Not everyone is as poorly educated on the subject as others.

But because this is obviously a sensitive subject considering you're a mother yourself...perhaps it's best if we didn't discuss it.



Their parents, and they return the expenses when they begin earning an income, unless as I said the parents permit them not to.

No, you said quite specifically:



but I'm of the opinion that if you have a child (especially underage), you provide for it.



How do they provide for said child as you are of the opinion of - without the aid of expecting their parents to provide for it.

Oh ...they can't.

[Pyramid*]

to be quite honest with you Jack, I don't think at 16 (I think you are around this age) you have a clue whether or not 13 year olds are capable of deciding that they are old enough to have sex or not. Not to mention the fact that it is illegal. I have no doubt that most 13 year olds think they can do and are ready for anything. They're not.

I am in total agreeance with you on this one. 100% .

[Kizzy]

It is illegal, and im lucky i have never been in the position as a mother to have to face this. I oppose it on grounds that once a girl is 'active' and has the implant it only protects from unwanted pregnancy...and the use of condoms is no longer required. I disagree with this.

[Pyramid*]

It is illegal, and im lucky i have never been in the position as a mother to have to face this. I oppose it on grounds that once a girl is 'active' and has the implant it only protects from unwanted pregnancy...and the use of condoms is no longer required. I disagree with this.

Precise at very much to the point.

It's allowing underagers to go around having sex - and avoiding pregnancy. The point isn't to avoid pregnancy: the point is for them not to be having sex at such a vulnerable age. Christ, at 13, their still in puberty - their bodies are still maturing as well as their emotions, their psyche.

[Niamh.]

Precise at very much to the point.

It's allowing underagers to go around having sex - and avoiding pregnancy. The point isn't to avoid pregnancy: the point is for them not to be having sex at such a vulnerable age. Christ, at 13, their still in puberty - their bodies are still maturing as well as their emotions, their psyche.

Exactly, to suggest that they're capable of deciding to start sexual relations at this age and to predict what effect it will have on them is quite frankly ludicrous.

[Pyramid*]

Exactly, to suggest that they're capable of deciding to start sexual relations at this age and to predict what effect it will have on them is quite frankly ludicrous.

It is beyond any sensible comprehension to equate that because they may understand the biological 'theory' that they are ready for physical and emotional reparcussions. Ludicrious is precisely the correct term I'd say;.

[Marc]

Can't stand the parents that are complaining about this. It's a child's choice as to when to have sex, as long as they consent to it and understand the potential consequences of it (which there needs to be a lot of education about), then it's no business of anyone else when, where or who they have sex with...same as it applies to adults.

It might seem too young...but it happens, and let's be honest, there are far worse things in the world than underage sex.

Not at 13 no.. :bored:

[Jack_]

to be quite honest with you Jack, I don't think at 16 (I think you are around this age) you have a clue whether or not 13 year olds are capable of deciding that they are old enough to have sex or not. Not to mention the fact that it is illegal. I have no doubt that most 13 year olds think they can do and are ready for anything. They're not.

Again...you completely missed one of the points I made. Yes, it might be illegal. But that's open to discussion and varies around the world. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it's a matter of opinion.

As for your last point...I'm actually in agreement with you. I have to surround myself with many 12/13 year olds every single day, and I often discuss and joke with both friends and teachers about how irritating they are, and how a fair few of them believe that they know everything.

But this is the problem and the massive stereotype young people face - that they are incapable of understanding and are simply just awful members of society. But that's not right at all. I know many 13 year olds that are very intelligent, know right from wrong, and are far, far, far more mature than say some 17 year olds...who can be the complete opposite. That includes physical maturity as well. It's simply not a case of 'all under 13's are ignorant, immature, poorly educated morons', as with people of all ages and from all walks of life...those types of people appear everywhere, it's not something that applies to everyone. Again, it's an individual thing, not a collective thing, no matter how much we all assume and perhaps joke about it.

There's no need to be rude and quite patronising because I've made some points that you disagree with...

No, you said quite specifically:



How do they provide for said child as you are of the opinion of - without the aid of expecting their parents to provide for it.

Oh ...they can't.

I am in total agreeance with you on this one. 100% .

Fair enough then, if you're going to be pedantic - I cannot have meant 'you', and so I apologise (see...like I said in the other thread, this is something I'm capable of doing).

Let me rephrase it. If you have a child, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is provided for in some way, an example being whether or not you pass the 'burden' onto your parents.

[Shasown]

Can't stand the parents that are complaining about this. It's a child's choice as to when to have sex, as long as they consent to it and understand the potential consequences of it (which there needs to be a lot of education about), then it's no business of anyone else when, where or who they have sex with...same as it applies to adults.

It might seem too young...but it happens, and let's be honest, there are far worse things in the world than underage sex.

And that is probably the biggest flaw in your argument, at 13-16 you may feel mature, legally you cant work to support your offspring, you have to rely on others. your body be be capable of having young, its not recommended, one of the biggest causes of cervical cancer is overdoing sex at too early an age. As for being emotionally capable of having sex and coping with the result of that decision,

While sex is fun at any age (after puberty of course) there are a lot of potential repercussions even adults dont understand till later life.

While it may be true people are maturing earlier in life physically and mentally they are also supposedly under more pressure at school etc. Do they also need the added stress o being responsible for another life.

Another point to consider is that this kind of implant indirectly helps contribute to rising STD rates. With people deciding not to use a parallel barrier form of contraceptive to prevent spread of sexually transmissable diseases.

[Pyramid*]

Again...you completely missed one of the points I made. Yes, it might be illegal. But that's open to discussion and varies around the world. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it's a matter of opinion.

As for your last point...I'm actually in agreement with you. I have to surround myself with many 12/13 year olds every single day, and I often discuss and joke with both friends and teachers about how irritating they are, and how a fair few of them believe that they know everything.

But this is the problem and the massive stereotype young people face - that they are incapable of understanding and are simply just awful members of society. But that's not right at all. I know many 13 year olds that are very intelligent, know right from wrong, and are far, far, far more mature than say some 17 year olds...who can be the complete opposite. That includes physical maturity as well. It's simply not a case of 'all under 13's are ignorant, immature, poorly educated morons', as with people of all ages and from all walks of life...those types of people appear everywhere, it's not something that applies to everyone. Again, it's an individual thing, not a collective thing, no matter how much we all assume and perhaps joke about it.

There's no need to be rude and quite patronising because I've made some points that you disagree with...





Fair enough then, if you're going to be pedantic - I cannot have meant 'you', and so I apologise (see...like I said in the other thread, this is something I'm capable of doing).

Let me rephrase it. If you have a child, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is provided for in some way, an example being whether or not you pass the 'burden' onto your parents.

Parts in bold above...What was that you just accused Niamh of....and then displayed your very own version of being precisely what you accused her of doing!! LOL.

No need to rephrase Jack. You tripped yourself up, now you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. It's not up to the 'grandparents' .... you were very clear in what you said: it is the responsibility of the teen parent.

Why should anyone else be burdened with a child that is not their own - they shouldn't be - which is the whole basis of the discussion.

[Jack_]

And that is probably the biggest flaw in your argument, at 13-16 you may feel mature, legally you cant work to support your offspring, you have to rely on others. your body be be capable of having young, its not recommended, one of the biggest causes of cervical cancer is overdoing sex at too early an age. As for being emotionally capable of having sex and coping with the result of that decision,

While sex is fun at any age (after puberty of course) there are a lot of potential repercussions even adults dont understand till later life.

While it may be true people are maturing earlier in life physically and mentally they are also supposedly under more pressure at school etc. Do they also need the added stress o being responsible for another life.

Another point to consider is that this kind of implant indirectly helps contribute to rising STD rates. With people deciding not to use a parallel barrier form of contraceptive to prevent spread of sexually transmissable diseases.

Interesting, fair points. Thank you for at least being able to counter argue unlike some other members who abstain and simply bypass points...

Regarding the potential causes of cervical cancers - well that's an interesting one. Because as detrimental as that obviously is, I also believe it's an individuals choice as to how much they protect themselves from illness, disease and death. For example...if someone wishes to refrain from going on diets, and doesn't mind if they get fat, accepts the consequences and doesn't mind if perhaps they die young...that's their choice. Whilst other people may not act in the same way, that person is still entitled to value their life in their own particular way. So as such I believe the same applies here - and maybe then this sort of information should also be added to sex education so that it's another consequence children and young adults could take on board.

Not quite sure where I stand on your second point. It's a stress, yes, but again the potential stresses is something that should also be added to sex education lessons - and then as such people can decide whether or not they wish to take on those potential stresses. Of course that doesn't mean they'll understand how stressful it may be, so actually, that's quite a valid point you've made there.

Parts in bold above...What was that you just accused Niamh of....and then displayed your very own version of being precisely what you accused her of doing!! LOL.

Not really, considering you did a lot of patronising towards me in the other thread anyway, so I guess I could bring up the same point?

I was just pointing out that I'm perfectly capable of counter arguing properly, and if someone makes reasoned, valid points I'm also perfectly capable of stepping back and realising that perhaps my points have some flaws in them, instead of just bypassing points and attempting to quit the argument...some don't have those capabilities.

No need to rephrase Jack. You tripped yourself up, now you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug yourself into. It's not up to the 'grandparents' .... you were very clear in what you said: it is the responsibility of the teen parent.

:crazy:

Or perhaps, just perhaps...you were being your usual pedantic self? As for 'digging myself out of a hole' - well, no, considering I've taken some of Shasown's let's say...more reasoned, coherent points on board and accepted that they do in some ways undermine my points. So once again, you're wrong.

Why should anyone else be burdened with a child that is not their own - they shouldn't be - which is the whole basis of the discussion.

If the parents are willing to take on the child - then that is their decision.

[Shasown]

If the parents are willing to take on the child - then that is their decision.

Dont know about your use of the word willing, I dont think many parents of teenage parents willingly look after the infant, they do it out a sense of moral and family responsibility. and also out of love and concern for their own child.


After all if the infant isnt cared for properly, social services may become involved even removing the child from the extended family unit bringing stigma and shame to them.

[lostalex]

so many words, so little meaning...

[Pyramid*]

Interesting, fair points. Thank you for at least being able to counter argue unlike some other members who abstain and simply bypass points...

Regarding the potential causes of cervical cancers - well that's an interesting one. Because as detrimental as that obviously is, I also believe it's an individuals choice as to how much they protect themselves from illness, disease and death. For example...if someone wishes to refrain from going on diets, and doesn't mind if they get fat, accepts the consequences and doesn't mind if perhaps they die young...that's their choice. Whilst other people may not act in the same way, that person is still entitled to value their life in their own particular way. So as such I believe the same applies here - and maybe then this sort of information should also be added to sex education so that it's another consequence children and young adults could take on board.

Not quite sure where I stand on your second point. It's a stress, yes, but again the potential stresses is something that should also be added to sex education lessons - and then as such people can decide whether or not they wish to take on those potential stresses. Of course that doesn't mean they'll understand how stressful it may be, so actually, that's quite a valid point you've made there.



Not really, considering you did a lot of patronising towards me in the other thread anyway, so I guess I could bring up the same point?

I was just pointing out that I'm perfectly capable of counter arguing properly, and if someone makes reasoned, valid points I'm also perfectly capable of stepping back and realising that perhaps my points have some flaws in them, instead of just bypassing points and attempting to quit the argument...some don't have those capabilities.



:crazy:

Or perhaps, just perhaps...you were being your usual pedantic self? As for 'digging myself out of a hole' - well, no, considering I've taken some of Shasown's let's say...more reasoned, coherent points on board and accepted that they do in some ways undermine my points. So once again, you're wrong.



If the parents are willing to take on the child - then that is their decision.

Once again: you move the goalposts: you take one strong stance and when met with valid counter points, as I made to you very early on, you then build in safety nets all over the place.

If the parents are not willing to take on the grandchild..... what then? What if the do not want a pregnant teenager in their house. You know, that same teenager that you said at the start, it was their decision - and that it was their choice. What then.....how do you propose that small matter is dealt with?

BTW: if you are going to attempt to have a mature & serious discussion: you really should reconsdder your use of the crazy smiley ..... all it's doing is highlighting a lack of maturity on your part, in my opinion.

[Niamh.]

Again...you completely missed one of the points I made. Yes, it might be illegal. But that's open to discussion and varies around the world. That doesn't necessarily make it right, it's a matter of opinion.

As for your last point...I'm actually in agreement with you. I have to surround myself with many 12/13 year olds every single day, and I often discuss and joke with both friends and teachers about how irritating they are, and how a fair few of them believe that they know everything.

But this is the problem and the massive stereotype young people face - that they are incapable of understanding and are simply just awful members of society. But that's not right at all. I know many 13 year olds that are very intelligent, know right from wrong, and are far, far, far more mature than say some 17 year olds...who can be the complete opposite. That includes physical maturity as well. It's simply not a case of 'all under 13's are ignorant, immature, poorly educated morons', as with people of all ages and from all walks of life...those types of people appear everywhere, it's not something that applies to everyone. Again, it's an individual thing, not a collective thing, no matter how much we all assume and perhaps joke about it.

There's no need to be rude and quite patronising because I've made some points that you disagree with...





Fair enough then, if you're going to be pedantic - I cannot have meant 'you', and so I apologise (see...like I said in the other thread, this is something I'm capable of doing).

Let me rephrase it. If you have a child, it is your responsibility to ensure that it is provided for in some way, an example being whether or not you pass the 'burden' onto your parents.

I certainly don't think 13 year olds are morons, but I do think that they are children. I also think that until you're an adult you don't fully realise that. I wasn't saying that to be patronizing and I apologise if you think that, I just think it's a fact of life.

[Jack_]

Once again: you move the goalposts: you take one strong stance and when met with valid counter points, as I made to you very early on, you then build in safety nets all over the place.

If the parents are not willing to take on the grandchild..... what then? What if the do not want a pregnant teenager in their house. You know, that same teenager that you said at the start, it was their decision - and that it was their choice. What then.....how do you propose that small matter is dealt with?

BTW: if you are going to attempt to have a mature & serious discussion: you really should reconsdder your use of the crazy smiley ..... all it's doing is highlighting a lack of maturity on your part, in my opinion.

Of course I do...it's outstanding that you can sit there and criticise the way I conduct myself in arguments, when you're the worst at it anyway...

If the parents aren't willing to take on the child, and the child themselves can't provide for their child (that's a bit confusing), then social services would have to step in and have it put up for adoption, as if not the newborn could face being neglected - and in any case that's a situation where someone should step in. Might be sad, but again - maybe that's something else that should be drilled into the mind's of children during their education.

And I'm sorry but if you really think you're mature when you constantly ignore points and then attempt to bait the person you're arguing with, as well as falsely claiming you're 'bored' amongst other fantastic lines, then well...no words.

I certainly don't think 13 year olds are morons, but I do think that they are children. I also think that until you're an adult you don't fully realise that. I wasn't saying that to be patronizing and I apologise if you think that, I just think it's a fact of life.

But that's precisely the point I brought up at the start of the thread. You think they are children, as do many other people. But in other nations they aren't considered children. Childhood isn't a concept that is set in stone - it's conjured up and varies in different parts of the world. I'm not saying our concept of childhood is 'wrong' as such...it's just an interesting thing to point out.

And well I don't really believe I'll change my mind on this issue. If and when I have children, I'll ensure that they receive all the necessary education regarding sex, and are told about possible consequences and to avoid them at all costs. So long as they are safe, happy and ready, and physically and mentally mature enough to cope - I believe it will be their decision.

Perhaps I've taken the point of this thread a bit too far on reflection. But my original point which I still stand by is that I don't believe it's the business of any parent to know whether or not their child is having certain check-ups and things like this article in question, if I've understood the story right. As with all things surrounding medical advice and help - a lot of it, if not all of it is confidential, and so long as the child is receiving any required treatment or advice, then I don't feel that the parent needs to know.

[Ninastar]

I can't believe what I have read in this thread

[Niamh.]

Of course I do...it's outstanding that you can sit there and criticise the way I conduct myself in arguments, when you're the worst at it anyway...

If the parents aren't willing to take on the child, and the child themselves can't provide for their child (that's a bit confusing), then social services would have to step in and have it put up for adoption, as if not the newborn could face being neglected - and in any case that's a situation where someone should step in. Might be sad, but again - maybe that's something else that should be drilled into the mind's of children during their education.

And I'm sorry but if you really think you're mature when you constantly ignore points and then attempt to bait the person you're arguing with, as well as falsely claiming you're 'bored' amongst other fantastic lines, then well...no words.



But that's precisely the point I brought up at the start of the thread. You think they are children, as do many other people. But in other nations they aren't considered children. Childhood isn't a concept that is set in stone - it's conjured up and varies in different parts of the world. I'm not saying our concept of childhood is 'wrong' as such...it's just an interesting thing to point out.

And well I don't really believe I'll change my mind on this issue. If and when I have children, I'll ensure that they receive all the necessary education regarding sex, and are told about possible consequences and to avoid them at all costs. So long as they are safe, happy and ready, and physically and mentally mature enough to cope - I believe it will be their decision.

Perhaps I've taken the point of this thread a bit too far on reflection. But my original point which I still stand by is that I don't believe it's the business of any parent to know whether or not their child is having certain check-ups and things like this article in question, if I've understood the story right. As with all things surrounding medical advice and help - a lot of it, if not all of it is confidential, and so long as the child is receiving any required treatment or advice, then I don't feel that the parent needs to know.

I do happen to agree that our society have it right about which ages are considered children. I'm basing that on both my own experience of being that age and seeing the differences in my friends now and then and also from my own children/step children.

The point I'm making is, parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their children till they're 16/18 which makes it (imo and in how I personally practise my parental duties) our business because in most cases, we'll be the ones left picking up the pieces if it all goes pear shaped.

Again, I do want to stress, I really don't mean to sound patronising when I say I think it's hard for you to be objective about it when you are still a teenager but it is true that peoples opinions on this do change drastically in later years and when they look back.

[Ninastar]

I do happen to agree that our society have it right about which ages are considered children. I'm basing that on both my own experience of being that age and seeing the differences in my friends now and then and also from my own children/step children.

The point I'm making is, parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their children till they're 16/18 which makes it (imo and in how I personally practise my parental duties) our business because in most cases, we'll be the ones left picking up the pieces if it all goes pear shaped.

Again, I do want to stress, I really don't mean to sound patronising when I say I think it's hard for you to be objective about it when you are still teenager but it is true that peoples opinions on this do change drastically in later years and they look back.

:worship:

[arista]

I can't believe what I have read in this thread


Not every Young Girl wants a baby.

[Kizzy]

I also feel jack you are on very shaky ground, as you say the age of consent in other countries may be lower this does not make it right and can lead to the exploitation of children. Laws are in place to protect children from themselves as well as others, if children had free reign to do as they wished you my find 15yr olds getting boob jobs...or 11yr olds getting tattoos...
I do mot feel that whilst yes they at 13 have all the bits in the right place and in full working order, they are not mature enough to deal with the responsibility that comes with it.

[Beastie]

It's sign of the times. Yes 13 is a young age. Bet they have barely started their period then. They are still growing and having this contraceptive injected inside of you is kind of stopping you naturally going through all the hormones of what a teenager goes through to develop into a woman.

Anyway this is the last solution. If 13 year olds are having sex they best take this contraception. Better than getting pregnant!

Still need to educate girls to not have sex before they are 16 first. But year after year girls are doing it at an earlier age as well as boys.

[Jack_]

I do happen to agree that our society have it right about which ages are considered children.

Really though? I don't think everything about our idea of childhood is right...

For example, you can join the army at 16, but can't play violent video games until you're 18. You can have sex at 16, but not watch porn until you're 18. You can get married (with your parents consent) at 16, but you can't have a drink to celebrate it until you're 18...not everything's perfect, some of the laws designed to supposedly 'protect' children pretty much contradict each other, it's quite stupid.

The point I'm making is, parents are legally and morally responsible for the welfare of their children till they're 16/18 which makes it (imo and in how I personally practise my parental duties) our business because in most cases, we'll be the ones left picking up the pieces if it all goes pear shaped.

Again, I do want to stress, I really don't mean to sound patronising when I say I think it's hard for you to be objective about it when you are still a teenager but it is true that peoples opinions on this do change drastically in later years and when they look back.

But the point is - when it comes to medical advice and help, it should all be confidential. So long as you are of an age where you are able to comprehend what you are being told, then I don't see why anyone else should be able to pry into your personal business unless you wish them to. For example, six year olds wouldn't be able to understand things that their GP was telling them, and so they would need their parent or guardian present, but at age 13 I think most people are capable of understanding and seeking medical advice or help. You might not think they're ready for sex, or work, but I'm sure most have the ability to understand things that they're being told.

Don't forget, it can be quite embarrassing for some young people to discuss such personal issues with their parents. And so that is why all information shared with those who give them advice is strictly confidential - so that they feel safe and are able to open up more, they wouldn't do that if they thought their parents may find out...and that could have some very dangerous consequences. Surely that's better than children suppressing their feelings and concerns about their health?

Whilst you or others may not like it, or want it to happen, the fact of the matter is underage sex happens. And realistically it can't be prevented. If they want to do it, the chances are they're going to...at such young ages when their hormones are all over the place it's not as simple as just restraining from doing it. It might be for some, but not all. And it does happen...whether or not that's a good thing is of course a completely separate debate. It's about dealing with the issues at hand though; surely, if it happens (as it does), then it's better for those people to able to get help and advice, rather than be ignorant to it all and potentially cause them or others some serious harm?

I also feel jack you are on very shaky ground, as you say the age of consent in other countries may be lower this does not make it right and can lead to the exploitation of children. Laws are in place to protect children from themselves as well as others, if children had free reign to do as they wished you my find 15yr olds getting boob jobs...or 11yr olds getting tattoos...
I do mot feel that whilst yes they at 13 have all the bits in the right place and in full working order, they are not mature enough to deal with the responsibility that comes with it.

Of course it can, I'm not denying that, but there is of course the argument that children are overly protected in some instances in this country. For example...if a student falsely accuses a teacher of sexually assaulting them, the teacher is suspended with immediate effect, and when it's found out that the student was lying...the teacher's reinstated (with their reputation tarnished of course) and the student will most likely be given a warning...or at best excluded. How is that fair?

Underage people get tattoos now anyway, it's not a rare thing. And I'm not completely against that either...as for the boob jobs...well...again, that's another debate and my opinions on that would properly start this entire argument off again.

You are of course assuming that all children need overly protecting, and whilst they do, some things are taken too far. Every child is different, they're individuals...not a collective. There are varying degrees of maturity and intelligence, and so that's why it's difficult when it comes to setting rules, laws and boundaries to 'protect' children.

[Livia]

Really though? I don't think everything about our idea of childhood is right...

For example, you can join the army at 16, but can't play violent video games until you're 18. You can have sex at 16, but not watch porn until you're 18. You can get married (with your parents consent) at 16, but you can't have a drink to celebrate it until you're 18...not everything's perfect, some of the laws designed to supposedly 'protect' children pretty much contradict each other, it's quite stupid.



You can join the army as an apprentice at 16 (with the consent of your parents), but you will not be deployed on any kind of active service until you're 18.

If you think sex in a relationship and watching porn are the same thing, then I suspect you're watching too much porn.

You can get married at 18 without your parents' consent, and then have a drink to celebrate.

18 is the age of majority. One day, you will understand the sense in that. There is no rush... you only think there is.

[Jack_]

You can join the army as an apprentice at 16 (with the consent of your parents), but you will not be deployed on any kind of active service until you're 18.

Fair point.

If you think sex in a relationship and watching porn are the same thing, then I suspect you're watching too much porn

I never said they are, in fact I argue against those who suggest they are the same. But regardless of how much porn may be exaggerated, the point is that it still depicts sexual acts. What difference is it going to make if someone watches porn at 18, compared to 16? The answer - no difference at all.

Not only that...but it'd mean you can't make a sex tape until you're 18. Or rather you can, but you can't watch it until you're that age. That seems pretty stupid to me.

You can get married at 18 without your parents' consent, and then have a drink to celebrate.

That's not really answered my point to be honest. It doesn't matter if you can get married at 18 without your parents consent, what matters is you can get married at 16 (albeit with parents consent), yet you can't have a drink to celebrate it. Either don't allow people to get married at 16, or reduce the drinking age.

18 is the age of majority. One day, you will understand the sense in that. There is no rush... you only think there is.

I've never said there's any rush at all. All I'm saying is that there are people who are younger than 18 that are much more physically and mentally mature, and more intelligent than some of those that are over 18. Sadly, people don't seem to consider this and just assume that until you have reached 18, you are incapable of doing certain things and must be protected from every sin the world has on offer.

[MTVN]

So by your logic Jack, 13/14 year olds should be allowed to participate in porn?

[Jack_]

So by your logic Jack, 13/14 year olds should be allowed to participate in porn?

Obviously not...let's not over exaggerate the situation here. That'd clearly leave the door wide open for child pornography offences.

But by some people's definition in this thread, children shouldn't be having sex and 16 is an acceptable age. Therefore, if 16 year olds can have sex, and were allowed to record it, surely it couldn't be considered 'child porn'...as...well, children aren't allowed to have sex, no? That's how I've understood it.

I don't think people have fully understood what I've said in this thread. I admit I've stretched my point a bit too far on some of the issues on reflection, and for that I apologise, but my original point still stands - underage sex does happen, and will happen for years to come. The real issue is with dealing with the consequences, or preventing the potential consequences. By offering advice and medical treatment like reported in the original article - that's dealing with the issue. That seems far more important to me than trying to condemn those who engage in underage sex, as if you ask me, practically it's unpreventable.

[MTVN]

Obviously not...let's not over exaggerate the situation here. That'd clearly leave the door wide open for child pornography offences.

But by some people's definition in this thread, children shouldn't be having sex and 16 is an acceptable age. Therefore, if 16 year olds can have sex, and were allowed to record it, surely it couldn't be considered 'child porn'...as...well, children aren't allowed to have sex, no? That's how I've understood it.

I don't think people have fully understood what I've said in this thread. I admit I've stretched my point a bit too far on some of the issues on reflection, and for that I apologise, but my original point still stands - underage sex does happen, and will happen for years to come. The real issue is with dealing with the consequences, or preventing the potential consequences. By offering advice and medical treatment like reported in the original article - that's dealing with the issue. That seems far more important to me than trying to condemn those who engage in underage sex, as if you ask me, practically it's unpreventable.

Well you seemed to be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent while also saying the legal age for porn should match it :shrug:

Anyway yes, you can't completely eradicate underage sex and measures should be taken to deal with it's consequences but there should also be a focus on trying to prevent such a situation occurring in the first place, or at least reducing it in any case.

[Jack_]

Well you seemed to be arguing in favour of lowering the age of consent while also saying the legal age for porn should match it :shrug:

Not entirely, the age of consent is fine as it is, I'd say it should perhaps be slightly more lenient on those who break it (only in cases where both members are under 16), but then again...I don't believe it's that strict, and I hardly know of any cases where it's enforced. Not that it could really be anyway. But lowering it...no, but probably just for the simple reason that it's not really stuck to anyway, so there'd not be any point.

My problem is with those who are more concerned with those who disobey the age of consent law, rather than the educational programmes that should be implemented in order for all children to learn the ins, outs (no pun intended) and potential consequences of such actions, and of course how any problems are dealt with afterwards. My original point being that regardless of whether or not underage sex has occurred, if that person seeks medical help or advice, so long as they are of an age where they are able to comprehend what's happening, as they would be at 13, it is to be confidential information, and whether parents like it or not, it's none of their business unless the child chooses to involve them. I think indulging that sort of information to parents would put off children seeking such help - and of course that'd be detrimental to the problem.

Oh, and as for the porn thing...I still do think it's pretty stupid that 16 year olds can engage in sexual activity but not watch porn. While we all know how exaggerated it is, it still depicts sexual acts, and I don't see how a two year difference in the age that you are allowed to watch it is going to have any effect on those that do watch it. There's a small difference between 16 and 18, compared to the difference between 13 and 18.

[Shasown]

Not entirely, the age of consent is fine as it is, I'd say it should perhaps be slightly more lenient on those who break it (only in cases where both members are under 16), but then again...I don't believe it's that strict, and I hardly know of any cases where it's enforced. Not that it could really be anyway. But lowering it...no, but probably just for the simple reason that it's not really stuck to anyway, so there'd not be any point.

My problem is with those who are more concerned with those who disobey the age of consent law, rather than the educational programmes that should be implemented in order for all children to learn the ins, outs (no pun intended) and potential consequences of such actions, and of course how any problems are dealt with afterwards. My original point being that regardless of whether or not underage sex has occurred, if that person seeks medical help or advice, so long as they are of an age where they are able to comprehend what's happening, as they would be at 13, it is to be confidential information, and whether parents like it or not, it's none of their business unless the child chooses to involve them. I think indulging that sort of information to parents would put off children seeking such help - and of course that'd be detrimental to the problem.

Oh, and as for the porn thing...I still do think it's pretty stupid that 16 year olds can engage in sexual activity but not watch porn. While we all know how exaggerated it is, it still depicts sexual acts, and I don't see how a two year difference in the age that you are allowed to watch it is going to have any effect on those that do watch it. There's a small difference between 16 and 18, compared to the difference between 13 and 18.

So basically what you are saying is parents support children until the children are of an age and have a job, but parents arent to be responsible for children should the child decide to have sex under the legal age of consent?

How about we also lower the age that children can start work and force them back up chimneys and into mills etc.

I would stick the present protections you currently have, rather than ask for more freedoms, when most children (and lets face it thats what 13 and 14 year olds really are) at the moment arent really mature enough emotionally or in some cases physically to rear children and have to rely on parents etc to support them. God forbid anything happen to the parents that do all the nannying for the teenage parents.

[Jack_]

So basically what you are saying is parents support children until the children are of an age and have a job, but parents arent to be responsible for children should the child decide to have sex under the legal age of consent?

Well personally, I don't see how a parent could be responsible for their child having underage sex. Unless you render them completely housebound, then they will find a way in which to have sex if they want to. And how could that possibly be prevented, or your responsibility? You can't follow them around 24/7.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't support children if they do have underage sex, but the choice of 'support' should really be down to the child in question. If they believe they're receiving sufficient support from a separate entity, why would there be any need to tell or involve their parents? As I said earlier, enabling parents access to confidential information that their children might not want them to know is quite a dangerous game, and could worsen problems, not make them better.

Of course parents are going to be concerned, I understand that...but surely you'd rather them receive necessary advice/help than hide it all?

[Shasown]

Well personally, I don't see how a parent could be responsible for their child having underage sex. Unless you render them completely housebound, then they will find a way in which to have sex if they want to. And how could that possibly be prevented, or your responsibility? You can't follow them around 24/7.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't support children if they do have underage sex, but the choice of 'support' should really be down to the child in question. If they believe they're receiving sufficient support from a separate entity, why would there be any need to tell or involve their parents? As I said earlier, enabling parents access to confidential information that their children might not want them to know is quite a dangerous game, and could worsen problems, not make them better.

Of course parents are going to be concerned, I understand that...but surely you'd rather them receive necessary advice/help than hide it all?

They sh0uld be informing their parents because their parents are legally responsible for the child until the child is old enough to be responsible for themselves.

But thats the problem with the modern playstation generation, fast food instant gratification, then when the going gets tough they hide behind the fact they are still children.

They want to be treat like adults have all the rights but none of the responsibilities. Sorry but life doesnt work like that, once you are out on your own in the real world you will understand, especially if you do one day become a parent, that may sound patronising, I apologise if it does, thats not my intent. Lots of youngsters think they know how life works, but believe me even at my age and experience some areas of life dont come easy.

Enjoy your childhood while you can, do childish things dont be in too much of a hurry to grow up and become an adult, sex will still be there when your body and emotions are capable of enjoyig it to its fullest extent with minimal risks.

[Patrick]

I blame Bebo.. that's where all the scummy kids hung out :hmph:

:joker::joker::joker::joker:

[Pyramid*]

They sh0uld be informing their parents because their parents are legally responsible for the child until the child is old enough to be responsible for themselves.

But thats the problem with the modern playstation generation, fast food instant gratification, then when the going gets tough they hide behind the fact they are still children.

They want to be treat like adults have all the rights but none of the responsibilities. Sorry but life doesnt work like that, once you are out on your own in the real world you will understand, especially if you do one day become a parent, that may sound patronising, I apologise if it does, thats not my intent. Lots of youngsters think they know how life works, but believe me even at my age and experience some areas of life dont come easy.

Enjoy your childhood while you can, do childish things dont be in too much of a hurry to grow up and become an adult, sex will still be there when your body and emotions are capable of enjoyig it to its fullest extent with minimal risks.

That's actually an incredibly sensible advice. Too many children are far too keen on wanting to be seen as grown up, far too early. It's not till the time has passed that some will look back with regret I think.

It's called childhood for a very good reason.

[Jack_]

They sh0uld be informing their parents because their parents are legally responsible for the child until the child is old enough to be responsible for themselves.

But thats the problem with the modern playstation generation, fast food instant gratification, then when the going gets tough they hide behind the fact they are still children.

But when you include parents in such personal, private issues, many children find that they are scared or embarrassed to speak out, it's a well-known problem. That's why these services are set up, to allow them to go and talk to a stranger about their issues in complete confidence, in the knowledge that everything they discuss will remain confidential. If that's not available, then the only other choice for said children would be to remain quiet about it, and the consequences of that could be quite significant. What if there's a serious problem that needs to be addressed?

They want to be treat like adults have all the rights but none of the responsibilities.

But I absolutely agree with that, my example about children being overly protected when it comes to false accusations of sexual assault from teachers would've shown that I would've thought? I agree that children need to learn their responsibilities...everybody does. You can't have one or the other, you have to have both. I'm a firm believer in that. I suppose in some ways some of my points in this thread might not display that, but that is actually something that I believe in.

Sorry but life doesnt work like that, once you are out on your own in the real world you will understand, especially if you do one day become a parent, that may sound patronising, I apologise if it does, thats not my intent. Lots of youngsters think they know how life works, but believe me even at my age and experience some areas of life dont come easy.

Enjoy your childhood while you can, do childish things dont be in too much of a hurry to grow up and become an adult, sex will still be there when your body and emotions are capable of enjoyig it to its fullest extent with minimal risks.

Believe me, over the last year or so I've realised how much I don't want to grow up. That age old saying that I once laughed off, that your childhood are the best years of your life is actually starting to seem like it may be the case now. I'm in no hurry to grow up anymore, trust me :joker:

[arista]

Just debated on ITV1HD Daybreak
with Dr. Hilary

A Mother of a 14 year of Girl
Emailed them saying she wished they had the implant,
as her Child is 4 months pregnant
she is in Berks - not under this new implant zone.

Not every Girl can talk to there parents.

[Livia]

Just debated on ITV1HD Daybreak
with Dr. Hilary

A Mother of a 14 year of Girl
Emailed them saying she wished they had the implant,
as her Child is 14 months pregnant
she is in Berks - not under this new implant zone.

Not every Girl can talk to there parents.

She's not 14 months pregnant, arista. Unless she's an elephant.

[Niamh.]

:laugh2: was just about to say Livia!

[arista]

She's not 14 months pregnant, arista. Unless she's an elephant.

corrected


should be 4 months

[Livia]

corrected


should be 4 months

Top man.

I didn't live a particularly sheltered life but I was kind of supervised when I was that young. Jesus, I have teeshirts older than her.

[Kizzy]

Shes lucky the only thing she caught is a baby... It just goes to show that the 13 to14's that are having sex cannot be trusted to use other forms of contraception such as condoms or the pill, therefore the girls are being advised in some areas to have these implants.

[Pyramid*]

Shes lucky the only thing she caught is a baby... It just goes to show that the 13 to14's that are having sex cannot be trusted to use other forms of contraception such as condoms or the pill, therefore the girls are being advised in some areas to have these implants.

Spot on. A matter that Shasown raised very early in the thread. There's a lot more at stake than just an unwanted pregnancy (which can be aborted). Cervical cancer can be fatal, and all manner of STD's, some of which are there for life (and to be passed on) - but as long as they can have sex and not get pregnant - some blinkered folk think the implant is the way forward.

[Kizzy]

It is a cop out, the responsibility is on young womens shoulders, its young men that need educating that contraception is not just an issue affecting females. I also worry for the adolescents with these implants, what are the long term health implications?