5 year contrception for teens ?

Nevyn

I saw this article and after some of the posts in the contraception thread wondered if any of the ladies here if offered free contraception at the age of 15 which would last 5 years would they have took it ? and would do ye all think of such a scheme ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514542

Why we should sterilise teenage girls ... temporarily at least
By FAY WELDON -

Last week, an intriguing proposition was mooted by Government minister Dawn Primarolo.

Teenage girls, she said, could be steered towards what is described as "long-term contraception".

This is now possible thanks to the development of contraceptive jabs and implants which can last up to five years.

In other words, there is a way of effectively sterilising girls for a lengthy period of time.

At what age? Well, doesn't 12 until 17 sound rather sensible?

This would have the advantage of bringing down the teenage pregnancy rate, so high in this country it makes us a disgrace among the nations - the worst offenders in Europe.

The abortion rate would fall sharply. And silly young girls could get on with the education that is meant to produce serious, responsible taxpayers, not benefit recipients.

Now, many people will see this modest proposal as little short of horrific - nothing less than state interference in our reproductive lives.

But think about it: it might not be such a bad idea.

We are moving into a science fiction age in which life itself can be created in a test tube, and it seems that, before long, perfect babies could be bred at will, largely free of hereditary disease and illness.

So, in my view, there is little point any more in feeling shock-horror at the idea of mass sterilisation.

Neither do I believe it will encourage "promiscuity" because girls will feel they have nothing to fear in sleeping around. In truth, they seem to be doing that already. I'm afraid we are now in a time when sex is mere recreational pleasure to thousands of young women.

The trouble is that pregnancy no longer holds the fear for teenagers it once did. The social stigma has gone.

Indeed, for many, it seems, a child has actually become a kind of perverse badge of honour.

Obviously, there are millions of sensible young girls, but for many, having a baby seems to be the logical, and even desirable, result of their teenage flings.

It it wasn't, they'd stir themselves to do something to prevent themselves getting pregnant, like taking the morning-after pill.

But they don't. Because the benefits of doing nothing to stop it are obvious.

Suddenly, they can give birth to someone who will offer unconditional love in a bleak, busy, money-grubbing world.

The council will offer a free home away from nagging parents. They will have independence, sexual freedom and no more humiliating exams to try to pass - because, more than likely, their education will fall by the wayside.

Nowadays, ask some girls why they want a baby so badly and they will say vaguely: "Oh, I want to fulfil myself."

Once, they would have confidently said of the father: "I love him. And I want a bit of me, a bit of him, to go on for all eternity."

It's not like that any more. Love is seen as little more than a neurotic dependency to the young.

The fear of pregnancy used to stop girls having sex. To be pregnant and unmarried was a major life disaster (as it is still in some of our ethnic communities.)

You were disgraced, soiled goods: the child was removed, no one would marry you.

I had a great aunt locked up for life in an asylum from the age of 20 until she died. She had been declared a "moral imbecile" because she had a baby out of wedlock.

My mother tried to rescue her - but to no avail. The rest of the family was against it. After 30 years, she was so institutionalised, anyway, that she didn't want to leave.

This condemnation of the sexually imprudent was not meant to be unkind. People were poor, babies without fathers suffered and there was no way women could earn money if they had a child.

It was a moral issue but the stigma was born out of necessity: a desperate attempt to stop girls from doing what came naturally until a father and a home could be provided.

But for all that, unwelcome babies went on being born - the human impulse to procreate being what it is.

How to have sex without getting pregnant was in those days a real mystery. Now we know everything there is to know about preventing babies, yet still girls take risks.

Understanding how the body works and what happens next seem to make no difference.

Currently, our teenage pregnancy rate is twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands.

Is this because, in this country, getting pregnant while still at school has become a status symbol for the girls, as ASBOs have for the boys?

In spite of all the efforts of the Government's Teenage Pregnancy Unit, and millions of pounds spent on initiatives to persuade girls that having babies young is a bad, bad thing, the rates stay sky-high.

In 2005, there were 39,804 conceptions by under-18s in England - a rate of 41.3 per thousand.

The trouble for those who would tackle the pregnancy problem is that the very act of warning against pregnancy can be unproductive.

A certain proportion of teenagers like to defy fate - and the more you warn them not to smoke, drink, have sex, stay up late, join gangs, the more they will.

Defying authority, not doing what you're told, is, for many, part of growing up - the search for your own identity, a necessary preparation for leaving the nest. Persuasion doesn't work. The instinct to rebel goes too deep.

Boys have always wanted to have sex and notch up "scores" on the bedpost.

The trouble now is that the girls - who once wanted just to be loved by someone, anyone - are under intense peer pressure, don't want to be outdone or be seen to be 'square', and so behave like the boys.

So much for gender equality in the classroom!

It seems that many of today's girls just like being pregnant, and emotionally and physically - not just practically - have more to gain than lose if they are. Sex education hasn't helped, and may indeed have harmed.

Freud's view of the psychosexual development of the child has been ignored. His opinion was that you interfere with the "latency" phase of ages nine to 12 at your peril, for fear of stopping further development.

In Freud's theory, the latency phase is when a child unconsciously denies the facts of life until he or she is ready to face them. If unpalatable facts are forced down the child's throat it's traumatising, and progression to sexual maturity is halted.

In other words, if you start teaching the birds and the bees too early, all that the nine, ten or 11-year-olds will do is want to experiment with what they have been taught before they have the emotional capability to deal with the fallout.

The Government says it has tried everything to stop pregnancy rates rising - from school matrons to a blizzard of sex education, to free condoms and morning-after pills.

But it's not working. That's why I think sterilising girls for a few years isn't such a bad idea after all - and, when you think about it, it's a tempting solution for the State, too.

Once you stop your under-20s having babies, there's no end to the social improvements you could make.

If girls go on to college instead of minding babies, fewer children overall will be born. The more educated a girl, the fewer babies she is likely to have - education and fertility rates being in inverse proportion.

The maternity services, now so very over-stretched, would be better able to cope. Young mothers would not have the priority they now do when it comes to housing, and accommodation would be set free for those unfortunates clamouring on the waiting lists.

Education would benefit, too. Classrooms would be less plagued by fatherless lads whose ambition it is to cause nothing but trouble.

I suppose there are other ways we could try to tackle the problem. We could make it a lot less convenient for girls to get into trouble - and one obvious way is to overhaul the benefits system.

When it comes to receiving welfare, girls of 16 are treated as adults (though legally they can't vote or drink), and their parents have no legal obligation to house or support them.

If they won't or can't, then the State must. Putting that age up by a year or two might work wonders.

Then again, the recent law that allows a mother to claim benefits only until her child is six could be repealed because at present it can only encourage her to have another baby in order to keep on claiming benefits. And who wouldn't?

"Getting a job" sounds good - but what kind of local minimum wage job is the unfortunate mother likely to get anyway?

Theory and practice are so different. Another issue is that though many young girls "love babies", they dislike the children they grow up to be. Rearing a child is a lot more difficult than "having a baby".

Watch young mothers slap their troublesome offspring in the supermarket and see what I mean. Because you wanted a baby does not mean you wanted a child - with its separate, possibly difficult personality.

So the children of teenage mothers can suffer, too.

Not having babies takes intelligence, planning, prudence and boring appointments with doctors. The morning-after pill helps, but still means an inquisition from your friendly (or not-so-friendly) neighbourhood pharmacist.

So what do we do? Deprive potential children of life by sterilising a few hundred thousand girls society has decided are "too young" to breed, regardless of their biological capabilities?

Go for the quality of child they might produce in their 20s or 30s, rather than the quantity they could create if they start at 14? That, let's face it, is what's up for discussion.

There is, I admit, a dreadful gender unfairness in the suggestion that teenage girls should be sterilised. Shouldn't boys under 17 have their tubes tied, too? It takes two to make a baby.

What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Perhaps the Government should start thinking about how that would work.

I wonder what birthday cards for 18-year-olds will look like in future? "I've got the key of the door, never been able to breed before!"

Since science has now devised a way of stopping girls getting pregnant without damaging their longterm reproductive health, the idea of enforcing sterility on girls under 17 seems to me a least worst option.

If the mods think this is better suited to humanities then I guess it could be moved and I will just hope people would contribute there, but like I said the topic spawned in my head via the contraception thread in this forum.

ztoical

I wouldn't go for it I have to say, at the extreme end it can be seen as moving towards eugenics and compulsory sterilization programs like they had in the US before world war 2 and in germany under the Nazis.

The quoted piece talks alot about pregnancy and the issues associated with it but pregnancy is a natural result of sex and while yes its a shame to see young girls lives cut short by a baby I don't think its as big a burden or social stigma as it once was. I would be more worried about disease as I doubt these jabs wouldn't protect against STI's. I'd rather see money spent on decent sex education and better access to condoms then this option. Also if the contraception thread showed anything it showed every women reacts differently to hormonal contraception and it would take alot of time, money and man power to make sure each girl was on medication that suited her.

Also why the focus on girls? why not chemically castrate the boys - would stop them wanting sex at all and maybe make them more docile

Nevyn

wow that is extreme ztoical, if the contraceptive is not harmful to the young women and is completely reversible that is a far cry from eugenics.

The article toward the end talks about clamping of the tubes from the testicles for teenage boys as that is reverible as well.

This is not about eugenics but about for a period of 5 years cutting out or down the possiblity of young women having a child until they become an adult.

I do agree that it should go hand and hand with eduction about stds and safer sex.

WindSock

I used to think it would be a good idea. Now the idea actually scares me a bit. I am in two minds. It seems to make sense, but why does it have to come to this?

Nightwish

If it was by choice and not compulsory I'd be all for it. I would love to have had something like that from 15-20. It wouldnt have made me promiscuous or have even started having sex earlier, as I was an incredibly shy insecure teenager, but to have the piece of mind when I did sleep with someone, even at 19-20 in college would have been pretty nice.

If something like this were to be introduced, the promotion of condom use would have to be reinforced to prevent the spread of STI's.

Jules

I don't see an issue, but wont stop them having underage sex. I actually heard a conversation once from a group of 15/16 year olds, and one of them stated that she had anal sex cuz she couldn't get preganant, ok she didnt phrase it like that, but it was what she ment.

I think we need to educate more tbh.

watna

The article is very interesting but like windsock, I'm in two minds about it. I would imagine that while it would stop teenage pregnancies STD would seriously rise. A lot of teenagers are undereducated about it anyway and if they feel they could be promiscous without getting pregnant (which, lets face it is what teenagers really worry about when having sex, not STds) they might be less inclined to use condoms and protect themselves. As Jules said, it would need a serious education programme to go with it i.e. you get it after a day course or somthing.

I use the Depo provera injection. i had to come off it 2/3 years ago because of it reducing your bone density. I went back on it again after my gynae told me that it is safe to use and your bone density increses back to normal once you stop using it. She said there had been a lot of research done in to Depo provera and it's effect on bone density after the original scare as it was being touted as a wonder drug that could be given to teens to dramatically reduce teenage pregnancies. So it looks like this is the direction preventing teen pregnancies is going in.

ztoical

Thaedydal wrote: »

wow that is extreme ztoical, if the contraceptive is not harmful to the young women and is completely reversible that is a far cry from eugenics.

i did say at an extreme level it could be seen that way. Just thinking of some of the arguments that could rise if this was put officially on the books. Lots of people screaming 1984 spring to mind.

To me it reeks of laziness on behalf of the government - why have some countries managed to bring their teenage pregnancy rates down without resorting to something like this? It could also potentialy breed complacency in the girls taking it.

My worry with suggestion like this is where do you draw the line? If we are willing to allow such control over our reproductive organs why not fat kids as well - forced gastro bypass surgery if they don't get their weight down ASAP - it would nipping future health risks in the bud and saving money in the long run as you wouldn't have to pay for their health care later on.

Yes we do allow the government to administer certain jabs in schools at the moment but they are for disease, pregnancy is not an illness its a natural part of life - As someone already said if this was a personal choice and not compulsory then maybe it might work, if parents want to talk with their kids and let them speak with a doctor and get all the facts and get the jab privately then thats their choice but the government should be focusing on education first and foremost.

Theres also alot of grey area with this - what if a girl gets the jab but still ends up pregnant? It can happen no contraception can claim 100% effectiveness. Could she then sue the government?

Nevyn

ztoical wrote: »

To me it reeks of laziness on behalf of the government - why have some countries managed to bring their teenage pregnancy rates down without resorting to something like this? It could also potentialy breed complacency in the girls taking it.

Sweden and Holland have done it with education and free contraception for those under the age of 25. They have fostered the culture only idiots don't take precautions.

Crazy Catlady

In a country like Ireland, we need to stop the culture of "having sex=getting pregnant". There is so much more going on, and so many worse things that can happen.
Yes, pregnanacy is the immediate concern of most girls and i'd say too some women. STD's still aren't seen as a reality.
They are something that happen to older/more promisicous/ other people.
I think we need to focus more on that than pregnancy.
I personally don't think sterilisation is the way to go. Plenty of young girls will go and see about the pill, or condoms.
If there is that much forethought and planning, I think maybe , that they would put a bit more thought into having a sexual relationship in the first place.
Yes, sometimes it "just happens" but if you've gone and had the reality check of getting contracpetion, its less likely to "just happen" as its something you've thought through already.
The vunerable people are the people who choose not to think about it. Or take responsiblity for it, and are they not the poeple who don't have that open communication with parents or teachers? And if that's the case, who is going to see that they are brought in for the procedure? Its about responsiblity.
These are people, not animals. I can understand wanting to protect vunerable or immature or even careless people, but I think longterm we may be doing them a disservice.
We're not crediting them with a choice. We're not crediting them with being mature or emotionally resposible enough.
I feel its immoral to encourage a culture where these things are enforced, taking all thought and personal resposbility out of it.
My apologies for the rambliness, I just went with my gut instinct here.

John Mason

That is a brilliant idea and it should be compulsory. better then my idea of putting contraception in the water supply for a few years

Dragan

Nightwish wrote: »

If something like this were to be introduced, the promotion of condom use would have to be reinforced to prevent the spread of STI's.

And there in lies the problem. If kids are currently not using them to prevent pregnancy then i can't see it happening to prevent disease either.

Reku

Another potential problem would be ensuring that parents have no ability to coerce their kids into getting them, which is impossible to stop really as some would find a way if they were truely serious about it.
Also there could be long term health concerns regarding this which we may not see for decades to come.

Catari Jaguar

I 100% agree with the idea. Please introduce it in Ireland...

ztoical

Lil Kitten wrote: »

I 100% agree with the idea. Please introduce it in Ireland...

just as is or with better sex education and more access to condoms?

cuckoo

You know when you go bowling as a kid? And they put the inflatable bumpers in the sides of the lane so you can't miss the pins....? And, newspapers like the Daily Mail print stories about the craziness of schools banning running in the playground because it's dangerous?

That's what this feels like to me. I agree with Crazy Catlady on this one, by enforcing this the assumption is being made that teenagers are not capable of making responsible choices, so the State will step in and control their fertility for them.

It also trivialises sex - and almost makes the assumption for teenagers that they will be sexually active and that it is expected, that it's normal.

On paper it makes sense, temporarily sterilise the masses for the benefit of the State System, but it robs girls of individual choice. It treats teenagers as baby machines that can be switched into hibernation mode. And, should it go ahead does it leave teenage girls in a weaker position to insist on condom use with their partners, "sure you've had the jab - we don't need no condoms"?

Also, when an article quotes Freud i get a little sceptical as well...

Freud's view of the psychosexual development of the child has been ignored. His opinion was that you interfere with the "latency" phase of ages nine to 12 at your peril, for fear of stopping further development.

In Freud's theory, the latency phase is when a child unconsciously denies the facts of life until he or she is ready to face them. If unpalatable facts are forced down the child's throat it's traumatising, and progression to sexual maturity is halted.

In other words, if you start teaching the birds and the bees too early, all that the nine, ten or 11-year-olds will do is want to experiment with what they have been taught before they have the emotional capability to deal with the fallout.

Anyone with a psych-y background know anything about this?

Reku

cuckoo wrote: »

Also, when an article quotes Freud i get a little sceptical as well...



Anyone with a psych-y background know anything about this?

Eh... to be honest Freud was a bit obsessed with sex so perhaps not the best person to reference here I feel, e.g. according to him if toilet trained too soon you'll develop a pee/poop fetish.

Catari Jaguar

ztoical wrote: »

just as is or with better sex education and more access to condoms?

Well who would disagreee with better sex ed or condom access? But I doubt that'l make a difference because it's already a practice in place in Britain and it's not reducing teen pregnancies.

I DEFINITELY think the implant idea is worth investigating further. I mean, once most women hit 18 they are on the pill/ injection/ implant etc so why not make them go on it at say, 14?

spinandscribble

i think its not too extreme. i think many girls would like the safety this would provide would feel ashamed to ask their parents, say at the age of 17. if it was a health measure, admissoned by the secondary school.
tbh i'd prefer a different attitude towards sex in general. education starting at the end of primary school.

ztoical

Lil Kitten wrote: »

I DEFINITELY think the implant idea is worth investigating further. I mean, once most women hit 18 they are on the pill/ injection/ implant etc so why not make them go on it at say, 14?

Britain has very poor sex education and limited access to condom compared to countries like Holland which has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates.

A 14 year old is still growing, the long term effects of hormonal drugs in girls that young hasn't been tested enough. Look at the up roar over babies getting MMR jabs when it was claimed it could cause autism in some children. Its a lawsuit waiting to happen all you need is for a few girls to have bad reactions or end up pregnant [the jab is not 100% effective]. And as their bodies are still developing we don't know what damage the jab could do long term to their reproduction organs. Science can get things wrong -In the 50's thalidomide was prescribed to combat morning sickness and it resulted in a number of birth defects - so just cus they say it won't have any long term effect on the girls health doesn't make it so.

Spyral

Firstly in case everyone is thick or maybe hasn't been paying attention to the Uk the last 40 or so years their sex situation is dire.
Their approach of contraception contraception and if it all goes tits up abortion approach has just lead to tonnes of STDs and tonnes of pregancies and tonnes of abortions.

In a country like Ireland, we need to stop the culture of "having sex=getting pregnant". There is so much more going on, and so many worse things that can happen.

bottom line if you are having sex sooner or later (generally later if using contaception tho) you *WILL* get pregnant.

Crumble Froo

farohar wrote: »

Eh... to be honest Freud was a bit obsessed with sex so perhaps not the best person to reference here I feel, e.g. according to him if toilet trained too soon you'll develop a pee/poop fetish.

and infants breastfeeding were deriving sexual pleasure because there were boobs involved. freud is important because he developed the theory of subconscious influences ( or soemthing like that, i can't remember the proper wrods), but most of his actual theories were pretty crap. in psychology, we never actually learnt any of his theories as they weren't relevant at all. my freind did an english degree, and learnt lots of freudian theories, which i found quite odd.

tallaght01

I guess it depends on whether we're arguing about whether this would be an effective thing to do, or whether it would be the right thing to do.

It would be effective, insofar as it would reduce teenage pregnancy. No doubt about it.

But, to my mind, it would be ethically very questionable.

A LOT of 15 year olds would struggle with the responsibility of that kind of decision. I believe that, in many cases, the choice to have this implant or whatever it is would not be an informed choice.

This may be particularly pertinent when we think about how often they will receive depot injections, or implants. The implication is that there will be a once-off injection given. Now, any drug, and hormones i particular, are not free of side effects. Can a 15 year old fully evaluate and understand the risks of a drug that lasts for 5 years?

It would be open to abuse by parents. Someone has mentioned this above. I think that would be a very real concern.

I also wonder about the effect it would have on condom use. Condoms often seem to be used as simply an anti-pregnancy strategy, without much thought given to STDs. They all know people who've become pregnant, so it's more real. Most teenagers wouldn't know anyone who's told them they've had an STD. There's conflicting opinon about whether hormonal contraception leads to a more relaxed approach to barrier contraception, though.

Having said that, the article shouldn't be treated particularly serious. It's in the daily mail. That newspaper is cover to cover right-wing diatribe. Nobody in the (labour) govt in the UK will listen to what is basically a right-wing opinion piece. Also, the medical profession (obs+gyn and paeds in particular) seem to be made up of what you might describe as "liberals", and this kind of thing won't find much favour there either.

In Ireland, if the technology exists, you'll be able to pay for it. But i'd imagine you'd find very few docs who'd administer it, though I'm sure some would. But, ethics aside, no-on wants to be responsible for possible long term effects of an implant in people so young.

As an aside, people have mentioned making this implant compulasory. That, in my opinon, would contravene the convention on human rights, so I doubt it would be possible. Legality aside, it would be against the hippocratic oath, and i would be astounded if you could find a doctor or a nurse who would give this drug against the will of the child.

litup

Should this be mandatory? No, not a hope in hell. I can't even begin to address the moral and ethical reasons against this, many have already been alluded to above.

An alternative may be offer the 5 year implant to those that want it free of charge and without the requirement for parental consent. Possibly as part of a sex ed program in schools the implant, and the implications of getting it, could be explained to girls and they would be given to opportunity to get it. As suggested above a requirement could be to complete an awareness program on STIs.

This may help reduce teenage pregnancies which are as a result of girls who have taken the oral pill incorrectly or were too embarrassed/couldn't afford to go to the doctor themselves. This will not reduce the level of teenage pregnancies which are a result of girls being stupid/not giving a damn.

tallaght01

litup wrote: »

Possibly as part of a sex ed program in schools the implant, and the implications of getting it, could be explained to girls and they would be given to opportunity to get it.

I agree with most of what you say, except for the above here.

I don't think the issue is just getting the info to these kids. It's all about whether they have the capability to use the info to make an informed decision.

I reckon those who would be mature enough to seriously think about contraception would have been mature enough to get regular depot injections. I don't see the need for a 5 year implant.

Very good point about making it free. I'm a big advocate for free healthcare, but it's particularly important in this case (not that it's made a huge difference in the UK, but there are other factors at play there).

litup

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't think the issue is just getting the info to these kids. It's all about whether they have the capability to use the info to make an informed decision.

I reckon those who would be mature enough to seriously think about contraception would have been mature enough to get regular depot injections. I don't see the need for a 5 year implant.

That is why I said it would not reduce the cases of teenage pregnancy where the girl was being stupid or didn't care, it would just make the ones who take some interest in not getting pregnant use more effective contraceptives.

For example, many teenage girls may be embarrassed/afraid to go to their local GP or cannot afford it. Or some girls are using oral contraceptives but take them incorrectly etc.

seamus

tallaght01 wrote: »

I reckon those who would be mature enough to seriously think about contraception would have been mature enough to get regular depot injections. I don't see the need for a 5 year implant.

As I thought about it, this is kind of the conclusion I came to also.

There is no way in hell we should make something like this mandatory. It's allowing the state far too much control over people's actions.
The problem is that we've increasingly taken to trying to prevent people from being able to take actions instead of telling them how their actions will turn out and then leaving them to deal with the consequences.

Long-term contraceptive treatments are already available (though can teenage girls avail of them?), so it's only those women already with the good sense to take contraceptives, who would avail of such a treatment being available. Net result = no change.

For those girls who couldn't be arsed with contraception, all this will do is create a false sense of security in them and cause a rapid surge in STD transmission and may even increase the number of teenage pregnancies - more promiscuity = more chance of pregnancy despite contraception.

Education is the key - for parents and children. Parents need to make sure their kids are not afraid to discuss this stuff with them and with doctors and we need to make kids aware of the risks of unprotected sex. I would hazard a guess that if you're sleeping around, you have a much higher chance of contracting a bad itch than you do of getting pregnant.

Piste

All hormonal contraception -especially the injection has side effects, if anyone tried to force me to take a drug which resulted in altered periods, painful cramps, weight gain, awful skin and terribly mood swings they'd get their ass sued. I would be much happier if contraception was free for the under 18s.

Also as has been previously mentioned, if everyone was sterilised in their teens for five years condoms would still need to be promoted and made availible to protect agains STIs...so why not cut out the sterilisation altogether and go with promoting and distributing and informing people about condom use?

Catari Jaguar

Piste wrote: »

All hormonal contraception -especially the injection has side effects, if anyone tried to force me to take a drug which resulted in altered periods, painful cramps, weight gain, awful skin and terribly mood swings they'd get their ass sued. I would be much happier if contraception was free for the under 18s.

Also as has been previously mentioned, if everyone was sterilised in their teens for five years condoms would still need to be promoted and made availible to protect agains STIs...so why not cut out the sterilisation altogether and go with promoting and distributing and informing people about condom use?

You know what else gives you all those above mentioned side effects? PREGNANCY. I know what I'd prefer. Aren't you on depo anyways? And in school? What difference would it make if a hypothetical government gave it to you for free and told you to be on it?

Anyways, the implant has a much lower, safer dose than depo and the side effects are pretty minimal. If anything, Implanon reduces risk of blood clot (that you can get with the pill) and cervical cancer. Also stops painful periods and clears up acne. Anyways you can't be on depo for more than 3 years in a row because it damages bone density.

They give out free condoms all the time in colleges, doesn't make much difference. If so called mature college students aren't using them then what chance do 13 - 17 year olds? Kids can't (generally) use them properly (and are prob drunk and don't remember to use them), would be too embarrassed to get them or be scared of having them found by a parent etc. And how many young fellas use the "I can't feel anything when I have one on" line???

I'm all for condom use, but it's just not being done by too many people. Education, free condoms etc.. it's being implemented. Why isn't it working?

I know I'd rather these kids were on contraception too. They may get crabs or herpes but a trip to the chemist can clear that up. You can't say the same about being knocked up.

Nevyn

Cos everyone goes to college and has access to free condoms :rolleyes:

Catari Jaguar

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cos everyone goes to college and has access to free condoms :rolleyes:

Doesn't make a much of a difference to level of chicks going into their SU doctors office for morning after pill or an STD check.. EVEN THOUGH condoms and packs are handed around for free there and these people are educated about sex and there are leaflets everywhere during SHAG week and in the clinic etc etc.

It's a microcosm for society.

BTW this symbol :rolleyes: is annoying and retarded.

What's your solution, genius?