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.
And yet we feed children chemical laeden food full of hormones in plastic....so in reality are the extra hormones really going to kill them?
you are going to have to explain the chemical laden food full of hormones in plastic to me, but what I don't understand if you are against chemical laden food full of hormones, why would you want to put more into your child's body?
IMO b/c pills are pretty powerful, they can completely turn around a woman's period, regulating it, making it lighter or shorter, stopping cramps, symptoms of PMS, makes for something pretty potent. FWIW I loved being on the pill, made my life so much better and when at 17 my daughter finally went on it, made her periods much more tolerable, so I am not against the pill, just more perplexed about people wanting to start it so early in a girls life.
I understand the points of view that have been posted on here, most simply want to see all these teen pregnancies stop, and I agree just not sure if putting our girls on b/c just in case is the answer.
I would like to see the pharmaceutical companies develop a form of birth control, beyond condoms, which would be safe (as possible) and aimed specifically at young girls - taking into account that they are still developing, starting around 13 - 14. We've got to remove the stigma that surrounds putting your daughter on birth control at a young age. It's really, IMO, the most effective way to prevent teen pregnancy.
We've got to, as parents, face up to the idea that most 16 -17 year olds are going to start their sexual lives, whether we want them to or not.
I agree with you. However, in this day and age...the kids are doing lots and lots at younger and younger ages.
Ask any junior high teacher how many of their students are having sex...and if not vaginal intercourse are doing oral, anal etc. Yeah...12-13yos...not 16-17 yos.
I saw a 13-14 year old girl at an amusement park the other week and based upon comments she made to her friends in line behind me it was pretty clear she was just waiting around until she got old enough to start her career in stripping and porn. Well, at least she knew her strong suit and had goals.
There are small but real heath risks to hormonal contraception, particularly in women who smoke (which is a lot of teens).
Your food comment is off topic.
There is a risk to just living or walk down the street.I think the risk is outweighed by the benefit though. And no it's really not off topic because the argument about not giving hormones to growing girls is a common one.
Jill Murray, a psychotherapist in California who has worked with victims of teen dating abuse, says almost all her new cases in the past three years involve technology. In some instances, the victims, usually teenage girls, receive as many as 40 texts a day with negative messages from their partner.
This article hits many different topics, but what I was trying to get across in how sexual education has to expand. Teenage girls have got to have it pounded into their head, somehow or the other, that they do not HAVE to have sex. I am not saying this means no b,c,, but again, there has too be more to it all than one exteme or the other.
I am so grateful to not be a girl in this day and age, not only are they getting bombarded from boyfriends but from the friends, somewhere along the way having teenage sex has become a cool thing.
When I was growing up, it wasn't cool and if someone found out you were having sex, you were called a ***** or a ****. Now if you are not having sex you are called a prude and made fun of.
There is a risk to just living or walk down the street.I think the risk is outweighed by the benefit though. And no it's really not off topic because the argument about not giving hormones to growing girls is a common one.
The risk/benefit ratio is stacked more toward risk if the person is not having sex very often, e.g. less than once every three months as this study asked. These people are not at high risk for pregnancy.
If you want to discuss hormones in food, start a thread.
This is a good point. Teens/young adults have a much higher incidence of STDs than older adults. According to the link I posted from the Kaiser Family Foundation,
"Compared to older adults, adolescents (ages 10-19) are at higher risk for acquiring STDs for a number of reasons, including limited access to preventive and regular health care and physiologically increased susceptibility to infection.
Approximately 1 in 4 sexually active teens contracts an STD every year."
This includes guys, so STDs are a more prevalent problem than teen pregnancy, which only occurs in girls (to state the obvious).
The only birth control method that offers even a modicum of protection against STDs is condoms (and abstinence, but that's not what we're talking about here).
Putting girls on hormonal birth control could have the paradoxical effect of increasing STDs. Hormonal BCPs have small, but real side effects and health effects. People who don't have sex as often as every three months do not need daily birth control. Condoms work just fine, and when combined with foam are quite effective.
Have you ever run across any link in girls who have used birth control on a regular basis at an early age having difficulty getting pregnant later in their life?
. I told her she can get BC on her own without her parents and even my DD seemed shocked that this could be done.
Kids cannot get bc in every state without parental consent or notification. Some states restrict it to minors who are married. Twenty-one states explicitly allow all minors to consent to contraceptive services without parental permission. The southern states tend to have more restrictions.
I am so grateful to not be a girl in this day and age, not only are they getting bombarded from boyfriends but from the friends, somewhere along the way having teenage sex has become a cool thing.
When I was growing up, it wasn't cool and if someone found out you were having sex, you were called a ***** or a ****. Now if you are not having sex you are called a prude and made fun of.
I bet if you asked most girls, they would rather have the stigma that they are virgins more than that they are sluts. I know either route is an extreme rollercoaster.
But in some circles, and most times the circle w/ the highest teen pregnancy rate, having sex is how they fit in to their family, who are their peers. Their home life is not the best, so they find solace in their peers. And amongst those peers, there are the very real issues that they face. Getting a hug from their boyfriend is what holds them together. They have sex to keep getting the hug. The boyfriend has sex in order to keep climbing up the pecking order in his group of buddies or else is afraid to be the one known as not having sex. I know in a group of boys in our city, it was a race to see how many girls they could have unprotected sex w/ before one got pregnant. Back to the concept that they are invincable & reality will not effect them.
I mean, yes, we can preach b.c. all we want, but unless we get to the real cause of teen pregnancy, there is not going to be a decrease.
This is a good point. Teens/young adults have a much higher incidence of STDs than older adults. According to the link I posted from the Kaiser Family Foundation,
"Compared to older adults, adolescents (ages 10-19) are at higher risk for acquiring STDs for a number of reasons, including limited access to preventive and regular health care and physiologically increased susceptibility to infection.
Approximately 1 in 4 sexually active teens contracts an STD every year."
This includes guys, so STDs are a more prevalent problem than teen pregnancy, which only occurs in girls (to state the obvious).
The only birth control method that offers even a modicum of protection against STDs is condoms (and abstinence, but that's not what we're talking about here). Birth Control Methods: How Well Do They Work?
Putting girls on hormonal birth control could have the paradoxical effect of increasing STDs. Hormonal BCPs have small, but real side effects and health effects. People who don't have sex as often as every three months do not need daily birth control. Condoms work just fine, and when combined with foam are quite effective.
I agree, condoms would be the perfect solution, combined with foam, as you point out. Abstinence is, I think we all agree, the ultimate solution. I just don't think it's totally realistic, for everybody. Condoms, however, should be routine regardless of whether the girl is on any sort of BC. This is an important precedent to set for young people, as it needs to remain a part of sexual health into adulthood.
Still, in the case of teenagers, you have to rely on a boy to use it effectively, when it's quite likely he's not, well... thinking straight. (Grown men have been known to have difficulty ).
In the Kaiser Family Foundation report, it also states that:
Quote:
Nearly all (98%) teens 15-19 who have had sex report using at least one method of birth control. The most common methods were
condoms (94%) and birth control pills (61%).7
So while nearly all teens use them, there's obviously a problem here somewhere, as a third are still getting pregnant regardless.
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.
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.
).
