U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-20-2016, 10:11 AM
Status: ""Undeclared"" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Posting from my space yacht.
6,932 posts, read 2,592,633 times
Reputation: 12911

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
I think we are more on the same page then not.

I all for a young,sexually active woman, of really any age CHOOSING to be on birth control. As part of the responsibility that goes along with reproductive rights is to assume the responsibility for potential risk, which despite being minimal are real never the less.

What I disagree with is the notion that parents have the right to "put" their daughters on birth control when it is against their will. No one should be forced to take a medication with known risks against their will when it is not life saving or medically necessary.

Of course once a child is 18 nobody can "put" them on anything, although there are other ways of gaining leverage. Before emancipation of course it is a different story. When one is financially and legally responsible for another person, their obligations towards that person also imply a certain amount of authority and decision making ability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2016, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Finland
6,319 posts, read 5,252,765 times
Reputation: 10156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Wow! Hopefully, there is some scientific basis for that!
Hmm turns out there is, thought it was just a cost-cutting measure Age-specific effectiveness of the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme. - PubMed - NCBI Should women under 25 be screened for cervical cancer? | Débora Miranda | Science | The Guardian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,601 posts, read 9,459,495 times
Reputation: 9211
I've missed a LOT of pages in this thread but I just read through the last two. It is veering into a dangerous but, sadly, predictable tangent. First one is that BC pills are safe and that they might be preferable to other methods. BC pills are not really all that safe. 60 years ago they were a game changer and because of that their manufacturers made huge amounts of money. Enough to be able to buy the patents to any competing technology that is introduced and lock it away where it never sees the light of day.

When BC pills were introduced, and for a couple of decades afterwards, the usage curve was something like 5 to `10 years. Now it is as many as 20 to 30 years. Some women even take them into menopause to ameliorate the effects of reduced natural estrogen levels. If you don't think this has bearing on the incidence of a number of illnesses major and minor that affect women today, you would be wrong.

A teen-ager going on BC pills is going to have untoward health complications from them in the far future. They were never intended for very young women to use for decades on end. An IUD has a far lower dose of hormones and some have none at all. But even if you disregard the hormonal effects. The fact that a woman must take BC each and every day, without fail, or risk pregnancy... ... birth control pill literature tells you about the pregnancy risk in one year of use. Like 0.5% right? Sounds pretty darn good. Over 20 years the risk goes up into the 30 something percents! Even over 5 years there are significant risk increases, and a sexually active woman will have 'scares' even though she is on the pill.

For a young woman in 2016, the responsible strategy for BC should be some form of long acting contraception like a patch or pellet or injection or IUD. Condoms should be in there somewhere. Personally I hate them and am glad not to have to use them anymore but since this thread is pitched towards the female specific side of things I have to mention female condoms again. As a guy I always resented women who didn't derive much pleasure from penetrative sex insisting on male condoms. It might take some of the bias out of it and end any arguments before they begin if she simply takes ownership of the barrier method issue. Female condoms don't break. Period. Male condoms break all the time. Even as a very infrequent condom user I have broken several.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,601 posts, read 9,459,495 times
Reputation: 9211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bully View Post
When one is financially and legally responsible for another person, their obligations towards that person also imply a certain amount of authority and decision making ability.
If you were right, America would not have the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the developed world.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 11:23 AM
 
15,809 posts, read 13,245,149 times
Reputation: 19710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bully View Post
Of course once a child is 18 nobody can "put" them on anything, although there are other ways of gaining leverage. Before emancipation of course it is a different story. When one is financially and legally responsible for another person, their obligations towards that person also imply a certain amount of authority and decision making ability.
You are actually incorrect.

In most states teens are in charge of their reproductive health. That includes being able to consent to their own health choices, and being able to say no to reproductive choices as well

For example:

California
Teen Health Law: Minor Consent

Ohio
Minors' Access to Reproductive Healthcare in Ohio
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.bGQ

Colorado
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...cWGvG5U98CytaA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 11:28 AM
 
15,809 posts, read 13,245,149 times
Reputation: 19710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I've missed a LOT of pages in this thread but I just read through the last two. It is veering into a dangerous but, sadly, predictable tangent. First one is that BC pills are safe and that they might be preferable to other methods. BC pills are not really all that safe. 60 years ago they were a game changer and because of that their manufacturers made huge amounts of money. Enough to be able to buy the patents to any competing technology that is introduced and lock it away where it never sees the light of day.

When BC pills were introduced, and for a couple of decades afterwards, the usage curve was something like 5 to `10 years. Now it is as many as 20 to 30 years. Some women even take them into menopause to ameliorate the effects of reduced natural estrogen levels. If you don't think this has bearing on the incidence of a number of illnesses major and minor that affect women today, you would be wrong.

A teen-ager going on BC pills is going to have untoward health complications from them in the far future. They were never intended for very young women to use for decades on end. An IUD has a far lower dose of hormones and some have none at all. But even if you disregard the hormonal effects. The fact that a woman must take BC each and every day, without fail, or risk pregnancy... ... birth control pill literature tells you about the pregnancy risk in one year of use. Like 0.5% right? Sounds pretty darn good. Over 20 years the risk goes up into the 30 something percents! Even over 5 years there are significant risk increases, and a sexually active woman will have 'scares' even though she is on the pill.

For a young woman in 2016, the responsible strategy for BC should be some form of long acting contraception like a patch or pellet or injection or IUD. Condoms should be in there somewhere. Personally I hate them and am glad not to have to use them anymore but since this thread is pitched towards the female specific side of things I have to mention female condoms again. As a guy I always resented women who didn't derive much pleasure from penetrative sex insisting on male condoms. It might take some of the bias out of it and end any arguments before they begin if she simply takes ownership of the barrier method issue. Female condoms don't break. Period. Male condoms break all the time. Even as a very infrequent condom user I have broken several.
The part in bold is opinion and not based on anything scientific. And your statistics are not cited and are not correctly interpreted any way. Even if it went up to 30% over 20 years. That means 70% will not have that effect.

Second, the drugs in the injections, and many of the IUDs that use a chemical supplement, are the same as those in most BC pills.

Third the failure rate of condoms is not "all the time". If you are going to throw around statistics you have na obligation to make sure they are correct.

The reality is BC usage long term may have an effect, they may not. And that is something all women should discuss in detail with their health care provider when deciding on a birth control method.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 11:56 AM
Status: ""Undeclared"" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: Posting from my space yacht.
6,932 posts, read 2,592,633 times
Reputation: 12911
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
You are actually incorrect.

In most states teens are in charge of their reproductive health. That includes being able to consent to their own health choices, and being able to say no to reproductive choices as well

For example:

California
Teen Health Law: Minor Consent

Ohio
Minors' Access to Reproductive Healthcare in Ohio
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.bGQ

Colorado
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...cWGvG5U98CytaA


The first link was just to a website, not to any specific information regarding the issue of a doctor denying a BC prescription when a parent gives consent. The second link is a PDF that is 84 pages long. Maybe info on this subject is in there, maybe it isn't. The third link is more user friendly and the section on consent involves children getting birth control behind their parents' back when they do not give consent. This is what most of these laws/rules are focused on. My kids will get consent from both myself and my wife.


Also, I do not live in any of the states in the links, not that it matters. The state I live in allows parents to make birth control decisions barring extenuating circumstances. That means if I wanted to I could even deny consent...not that I ever would. Even if I lived in a state with rules written more to your liking it would not make a difference. Consent on my part or the part of my children would not be an issue because I would not make it an issue. Just as it would never be an issue with antibiotics or asthma medicine, it won't be an issue when fertility issues come in to play either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,601 posts, read 9,459,495 times
Reputation: 9211
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
The part in bold is opinion and not based on anything scientific. And your statistics are not cited and are not correctly interpreted any way. Even if it went up to 30% over 20 years. That means 70% will not have that effect.
That is a completely unacceptable way of interpreting that result. 30% is catastrophic when what you are talking about is unwanted pregnancy. If Americans had a more rational attitude towards BC failure that would be one thing. But we don't (mostly, the o.p. happily is not in that category) so any failure has to be understood to mean that a child is going to result from BC failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Second, the drugs in the injections, and many of the IUDs that use a chemical supplement, are the same as those in most BC pills.
I am aware that the drugs in patches and pellets are the same as in BC. The advantage is that you cannot forget to take it. This is HUGE when you are talking about a teen-ager, new to everything and who will also be dependent on the technology working for many, many years. Also as I mentioned the dosages of estrogen and progesterone in IUD's is many times lower than in BC pills. There are cervical rings that do not have to be inserted into the uterus (very painful as I understand it) and the hormone dose with these is also much lower than pills. That's all to the good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Third the failure rate of condoms is not "all the time". If you are going to throw around statistics you have na obligation to make sure they are correct.
This is City-Data, not a peer reviewed medical journal. I completely outlined the parameters of my level of information. The reader can do with it what they will. Pregnancy is like air travel vs all other forms of human locomotion. The bar is very, very high for airlines. GM won't go out of business, and doesn't, because people crash cars with depressing frequency. One crash and an airline is finished. Over and done. So they don't. And as a result flying is the safest form of transportation by a wide margin. The price of an uwanted pregnacy is immense. Americans remain strangely resistant to the really effective methods of BC and continue to put their trust in condoms and BC pills. Condoms are 3,000 years old and BC pills are around 60. We can do better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
The reality is BC usage long term may have an effect, they may not. And that is something all women should discuss in detail with their health care provider when deciding on a birth control method.
What does the bolded part even mean? And no health care provider can know what will happen in five years. There are way too many Fundie Christians with medical certifications staffing clinics and steering young people away from really effective methods of contraception because of their own queasiness or antipathy to the whole premise of teen sexuality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,063 posts, read 99,087,775 times
Reputation: 31544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
If you were right, America would not have the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the developed world.
And the teen pregnancy rate has dropped significantly.
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/...364464311.html
Teen birth rate drops 57 percent in New Mexico | KOB.com
(This is a huge drop)
Bustle
Let's hear it for MTV!
US Women Delaying Pregnancy: Average Age Of First Time Moms Steadily Increases : LIFE : Tech Times
Now if my almost 32 yo daughter would just get pregnant!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,063 posts, read 99,087,775 times
Reputation: 31544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
I've missed a LOT of pages in this thread but I just read through the last two. It is veering into a dangerous but, sadly, predictable tangent. First one is that BC pills are safe and that they might be preferable to other methods. BC pills are not really all that safe. 60 years ago they were a game changer and because of that their manufacturers made huge amounts of money. Enough to be able to buy the patents to any competing technology that is introduced and lock it away where it never sees the light of day.

When BC pills were introduced, and for a couple of decades afterwards, the usage curve was something like 5 to `10 years. Now it is as many as 20 to 30 years. Some women even take them into menopause to ameliorate the effects of reduced natural estrogen levels. If you don't think this has bearing on the incidence of a number of illnesses major and minor that affect women today, you would be wrong.

A teen-ager going on BC pills is going to have untoward health complications from them in the far future. They were never intended for very young women to use for decades on end. An IUD has a far lower dose of hormones and some have none at all. But even if you disregard the hormonal effects. The fact that a woman must take BC each and every day, without fail, or risk pregnancy... ... birth control pill literature tells you about the pregnancy risk in one year of use. Like 0.5% right? Sounds pretty darn good. Over 20 years the risk goes up into the 30 something percents! Even over 5 years there are significant risk increases, and a sexually active woman will have 'scares' even though she is on the pill.

For a young woman in 2016, the responsible strategy for BC should be some form of long acting contraception like a patch or pellet or injection or IUD. Condoms should be in there somewhere. Personally I hate them and am glad not to have to use them anymore but since this thread is pitched towards the female specific side of things I have to mention female condoms again. As a guy I always resented women who didn't derive much pleasure from penetrative sex insisting on male condoms. It might take some of the bias out of it and end any arguments before they begin if she simply takes ownership of the barrier method issue. Female condoms don't break. Period. Male condoms break all the time. Even as a very infrequent condom user I have broken several.
First of all, I tend to dismiss this conspiracy talk and everything that goes after it.

Examples, please.


Just what was the intent? Where is this written?

You are aware that the patch and injectable hormones are still hormones, no? IUDs have their own problems, though I know they've improved over the years, since I last had one.

Well, yes, the OP's child is a female. That's who she's responsible for!

For some reason, female condoms have never caught on! And it's not because women are such wusses. We put up with all kinds of side effects from other types of BC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top