To think 13 is too young to go on the pill

[toni76]

A report says girls as young as 13 should get the pill without a prescription. I just think 13 is sooo young (have two little girls). AIBU to think there must be a better way to stop 13 year olds getting pregnant?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17847069

I suppose the question for me re STIs is:

Are young girls who are on the pill as likely to use/insist on (and win the argument) condoms than their counterparts who are not, when having sex?
I don't know the answer but I suspect it's no

But they are pretty big differences and very important ones!

And nowhere has anything suggested there will be any monitoring of this, logic says that would be pretty hard to do!

13 is too young to be on the pill. But 13 is also far too young to have a baby. Of course it would be better if kids this age didn't have sex or if they did, if they used condoms. But I would prefer a 13 year old to be on the pill than have a baby.

And in these situations I think we tend to think of our own kids and if how we bring them up to have self esteem and look after them so this doesn't happen. We tend to forget about the seriously shit parents where things aren't bad enough to take their kids into care, but where the kids get no real guidance around stuff like this.

Stealth even if mine hadn't been on it for medical reasons I wouldn't of had a problem with it but not at 13 their still children at that age but then we have a fabulous relationship, I'm well aware lots don't have that may be in care or whatever. I went on it at 16 and hid it because I would of been called everything under the sun and giving a hiding probably why I'm more relaxed and open with mine.

stealth - I don't think it will lead to more risky behaviour. And boys who would pressure girls, because they are on the pill, would pressure girls if they weren't e.g. you don't get ptregnant if you do it standing up. Things like this are still said to girls by boysand sadly some girls still believe this kind of stuff.

Actually sirzy thatsenough has given some quite interesting insights into the proposed scheme if you have a read.

I know the technical differences, it wasn't the question I asked. The question I asked had to do with attitudes towards the two forms of contraception being available.

Are you against the pill generally sirzy? You seem to feel it's quite a bad thing, just going from the term I keep seeing of "pumping full of hormones."

I have been on the pill for 14 years, my doctor hasn't ever said anything to me about risks in terms of being able to carry a child to term. It also says nothing about this on my pill leaflet.

Yon - my point was that you seemed to accept that porn is accessible to children and that children at this age will have sex. That was what I was taking you up on, this acceptance that it just happens so let's deal with it.

To me that's like saying, ok, paedophilia happens so let's just find ways to deal with it. After all, if someone over the age of 16 has sex with a 13, 14 or 15yo girl it IS classed as just that, an adult having sex with a child.

Many posters seem to accept that children that age are willing to have sex. Which is why one of my first questions was, if you [general] accept that this happens then surely you wouldn't have any objections to them lowering the age of consent to 13?

How do people feel about that?

If you are uncomfortable with that proposal then ask why.

And yes Yon, I know your stance on condoms and as I stated, we do seem to be going round in circles with that one because it's a topic that new posters keep arguing about - the availability of condoms and why the emphasis is not placed on them. So sorry if I'm repeating myself, many of my comments are not directly aimed at you.

The pill at 13 is fine if it is properly monitored by a doctor, if family are aware the child is on the pill and what they need to look for in the way of side effects side effects which can be life threatening.

And so many people here keep bringing up the same old point, which is that they'd prefer their dds to be taking artificial hormones than get pregnant.

This is surprising on a forum populated mainly by empowered women. I would have thought those women would tell their kids all about condoms, even to the point of getting packets themselves and making them available to their kids if they need them. Not accepting that their dds may take synthetic hormones because the contraception is completely their responsibility (which is the implication when you talk about putting young girls on the pill).

I would far rather have a 13yo dd who is not pregnant and does not have an STI which may make her infertile. Therefore I'd rather she used condoms and I would hope that I would empower her to refuse to have sex with any boy who did not want to use a condom.

Yon - my point was that you seemed to accept that porn is accessible to children and that children at this age will have sex. That was what I was taking you up on, this acceptance that it just happens so let's deal with it.

It does happen, it does need dealing with, I have made many proposals as to how. I have never claimed it's right, and that it should happen, and it doesn't mean I think the legal age should be lowered.

Because I can accept it happens, and that there should be support in place for those youngsters, is a better attitude than shouting from the rooftops that it's wrong, shouldn't happen, and denying access to contraception. That's burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problem.

It doesn't mean I support or condone underage sex, porn, paedophilia or whatever you are going to accuse me of next.

I agree the rhubarb. Giving the pill doesn't tackle the bigger issue at all.

I would not accuse you of any of those things Yon. It's one thing accepting that this happens but another condoning it. I would never say that you condone any of those things because I know you don't.

However accepting that it happens, imo, does not help either. I understand your point about not burying your head in the sand that it DOES happen but that's why a lot of posts are asking WHY.

Why would 13yo girls want to have sex?
Why would so many mothers prefer their dds to take the pill than use condoms?
Why does the government want to make it easier for girls to take the pill rather than grown women?
Why are children having sex?

TheRhubarb- I agree. But not all parents are responsible parents. So do we just ignore the needs of those kids whose parents wouldn't act this way?

Brings me back to my original question. If you accept that some girls this age will have sex. Would you support lowering the age of consent and if not why not? (to everyone)

Zombie that is why schools (together with local NHS services) should be educating young people on such issues as well.

why is it assumed that all 13 year olds want to have sex?? i went on the pill behind my parents back at 14, mostly to regulate my periods but also as a precaution as i did have a boyfriend at the time
i obtained the pill from my local sexual health clinic, they were very informative and discussed all the alternatives and my family history.....the same as my GP would have done
i think more pressure should be put on parents to provide this information and educate their children when it comes to sex periods etc, why do some parents believe that schools will teach them everything they need to know....it may be embarrassing to have the discussion with your child (my mum could barely get her words out) but its more embarrassing to have a pregnant 13 yr old
oh and btw i went on the pill at 14 but didnt have sex untill 17....

I too am feeling really sad that the girls bear the burden of responsibility. First the HPV jabs, now the pill. Our DDs shouldn't be the only ones having to protect themselves - what about the boys?

I had a dodgy smear test shortly after DS1 was born and had to have a procedure due to cell changes caused by HPV, so I understand why girls should be protected.

I wasn't always as careful as I should have been, partly because at Uni the nurses liked to put everyone on the pill to prevent them having to use emergency contraception, which had an unproven history.

But by being protected against pregnancy, I was able to shut my mind off to the possibility of STIs.

I think we all agree that education is a problem area, and massively so.

I also personally believe that too many people have kids willy nilly and don't give a shit about them, to put it bluntly (in terms of those end up as troubled teens having under age sex).

It's no secret that the area this was trialed in was such an area.

Why not because sex with a child under 13 is statutary rape very thin line between the ages IMO, also most girls aren't physically mature enough and leads them open to abuse by older males.

No the age of consent should not be lowered and yes we should be encouraging kids to wait until they are older.

Sirzy - Yes schools do this, but they can't in all honestly replace what a good parent should be doing. I don't think for a minute this is ideal. But I would rather a 13 year old on the pill, than a 13 year old having a baby. And with some girls, I do think this is the choice.

That doesn't mean that we can't alongside this encourage kids to wait, encourage them to use condoms and to have some self esteem to say no.

therhubarb....a lot of European countries such as Spain have a lower age limit for sex, drinking etc however you don't see a lot of teen pregnancies or teenagers drunk on street corners or falling out of clubs
i think for a lot of teenagers here its rebelling against authority and wanting to know whats so great about all these things they're not allowed to do until they're 16/18

But that non preganant 13 year old is still leaving herself wide open to STIs though and that's the biggest issue with this proposal.

Yes far from ideal I agree.

It's not just education that is the problem. Look at the attitude that exists on this thread alone.

Mothers would rather have their dds take synthetic hormones because presumably being pregnant is worse than getting an STI which could seriously damage their dds reproductive health. I hate to say it, but you can do something about a pregnancy whereas if you are infertile, well your choices are very limited.

The fact that posters would rather have a dd on the pill implies that they accept that their dd is fully responsible for her own contraception. Where are the talks about condoms? Where are the empowered, worldy-wise women making sure their kids have access to condoms, even if they have to buy them themselves?

And this acceptance that some 13yos will have sex. Well if you accept this happens then are you doing to accept that this is just the way it is? Without doing anything about it? Are you doing to question why these 13yo girls feel the need to enter into a sexual relationship?

Parental attitude and responsibility must also change. FGS if you think your dd is going to be sexually active then get some condoms in, don't force her to go behind your back to get the bloody pill! Those things have HUGE side effects!

Why is it always the girl needs to say no? Could she not be the one to instigate it and go on the pill on her own accord?

I sure did!