FDA to allow 'morning-after' pill for 17-year-olds

Quote:

---

FDA to allow 'morning-after' pill for 17-year-olds
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR


Women's groups cheered the government's decision to allow 17-year-olds to buy the "morning-after" emergency contraceptive without a doctor's prescription, but conservatives denounced it as a blow to parental supervision of teens.

The Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday it would accept, not appeal, a federal judge's order that lifts Bush administration restrictions limiting over-the-counter sales of "Plan B" to women 18 and older. U.S. District Judge Edward Korman ruled last month in a lawsuit filed in New York that President George W. Bush's appointees let politics, not science, drive their decision to restrict over-the-counter access.

Women's groups said the FDA's action was long overdue, since the agency's own medical reviewers had initially recommended that the contraceptive be made available without any age restrictions.

Korman ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds get the birth control pills. He also directed the agency to evaluate clinical data to determine whether all age restrictions should be lifted.

The FDA's latest action does not mean that Plan B will be immediately available to 17-year-olds. The manufacturer must first submit a request.

"It's a good indication that the agency will move expeditiously to ensure its policy on Plan B is based solely on science," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit.

Conservatives said politics drove the decision.

"Parents should be furious at the FDA's complete disregard of parental rights and the safety of minors," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Plan B is emergency contraception that contains a high dose of birth control drugs and will not interfere with an established pregnancy. It works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus.

If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.

Critics of the contraceptive say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Recent research suggests that's possible but not likely.

The battle over access to Plan B has dragged on for the better part of a decade, through the terms of three FDA commissioners. Among many in the medical community, it came to symbolize the decline of science at the agency because top FDA managers refused to go along with the recommendations of scientific staff and outside advisers that the drug be made available with no age restrictions.

"The FDA got caught up in a saga, it got caught up in a drama," said Susan Wood, who served as the agency's top women's health official and resigned in 2005 over delays in issuing a decision. "This issue served as a clear example of the agency being taken off track, and it highlighted the problems FDA was facing in many other areas."

The treatment consists of two pills and sells for $35 to $60. Women must ask for Plan B at the pharmacy counter and show identification with their date of birth. The drug is made by a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israeli company. It does not prevent sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV/AIDS.

Supporters of broader access argued that Plan B is safe and effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy and could help reduce the number of abortions.

Opponents, including prominent conservatives, counter that it would encourage promiscuity and might even become a tool for criminals running prostitution rings, as well as for sexual predators.

Early in the Bush administration, more than 60 organizations petitioned the FDA to allow sales without a prescription. But according to court documents, the issue quickly became politicized.

In 2003, a panel of outside advisers voted 23-4 to recommend over-the-counter sales without age restrictions. But top FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions.

In his ruling, Korman said that FDA staffers were told the White House had been involved in the decision on Plan B. The government said in court papers that politics played no role.

In 2005, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other organizations sued in federal court to force an FDA decision.

The following year, the FDA allowed Plan B to be sold without a prescription to adults. But the controversy raged on over access for teens

---

At least conservatives are being more honest about their motives for being against this. It was never about abortions it is rather about not wanting teens to have sex.

So if conservtaives were successful in keeping this away from teens there would actually be more abortions.

Nice job guys.

In general, is it a good thing for teens to be having sex? It's not like many parents are that responsible themselves. (Yes, I know, they'll do it no matter, etc...) I'm just wondering why the thought that teens having sex isn't a good thing is a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

In general, is it a good thing for teens to be having sex? It's not like many parents are that responsible themselves. (Yes, I know, they'll do it no matter, etc...) I'm just wondering why the thought that teens having sex isn't a good thing is a bad thing.

---

I think teens NOT having sex is a good thing. My progressive thinking ass preaches abstinence at home and I've got a 15 yr. old daughter who has blossomed and it scares the hell out of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

In general, is it a good thing for teens to be having sex? It's not like many parents are that responsible themselves. (Yes, I know, they'll do it no matter, etc...) I'm just wondering why the thought that teens having sex isn't a good thing is a bad thing.

---

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions. But at some point you have to take a look outside, realize teens are doing it, and you need to address the issue regardless of what you believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I think teens NOT having sex is a good thing. My progressive thinking ass preaches abstinence at home and I've got a 15 yr. old daughter who has blossomed and it scares the hell out of me.

---

Right. Should it be the business of the state to educate your daughter about sex? It seems to be that it's your family's business and not that of the state (no matter what 'education' it wants to deploy - i.e. abstinence programs or handing out condoms).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions. But at some point you have to take a look outside, realize teens are doing it, and you need to address the issue regardless of what you believe in.

---

I concur. I just sometimes think that teens take that as a "it is okay to do it" message just make sure he wears a condom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions. But at some point you have to take a look outside, realize teens are doing it, and you need to address the issue regardless of what you believe in.

---

Why does the state have to address it?

Teenage pregnancy is one of the reasons abortion has the support it does. Of course, the poor and non-whites account for a disproportionate share of abortions in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Right. Should it be the business of the state to educate your daughter about sex? It seems to be that it's your family's business and not that of the state (no matter what 'education' it wants to deploy - i.e. abstinence programs or handing out condoms).

---

Well I don't have any issues with sex education when it is about the life cycle but I don't want anyone else giving my kids condoms. That being said I do think it is good for young kids to have a place to go if they don't have parents or guardians they can go to to talk about sex and STD's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Why does the state have to address it?

Teenage pregnancy is one of the reasons abortion has the support it does. Of course, the poor and non-whites account for a disproportionate share of abortions in the US.

---

While that may be true the non-poor get many abortions too but then again they probably are not going to a clinic to get it taken care of. And many whites too.

I am against emergency contraceptives. They are for the sexually immoral. For example, the 17-year-old I'm seeing in the Virginia suburbs.

With no scientific backup or research on this whatsoever, I have to wonder if teenage sex - assuming those teens still live with their parents and under SOME form of rule structure - might ease the entry into sexual maturity a little more healthily than the sudden burst of no-holds-barred promiscuity that some kids experience when they get to college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

While that may be true the non-poor get many abortions too but then again they probably are not going to a clinic to get it taken care of. And many whites too.

---

Sure, whites get it done too, but there seems to be an unspoken notion in our society that abortion is good as it culls the number of 'unwanted' children in certain demographic groups. It's a sad commentary that children would be unwanted in our society, particularly when the pregnancy is otherwise normal and not due to rape or incest.

As for abortion itself, the fetus is an individual. The question is, to what extent should the state interfere to protect that individual, while respecting the rights of the mother and father? It's often heard that abortion should be prohibited except in cases of rape and incest. Well, how does a woman sufficiently establish that the pregnancy is due to rape? That seems to be the point at which it gets hazy for the anti-abortion argument, at least in the first trimester.

In a roundabout way, this country may have gotten it right, with abortion available in the first trimester. Count on the parents to make a wise decision with minimal state involvement. Still, there are 800k abortions per year in the US (though it has declined somewhat over the last decade).

The morning-after pill does reduce the time and effort for an abortion, which would seem to reduce the penalty for not being more cautious in practicing safe sex. Though, obviously, it would make it much easier for a woman who has been raped, and I don't have a problem with that.

A majority of Americans oppose abortion and a majority think that it should be legally available in some form. I think we generally have it right, but I do have a problem with it when it's used as a form of birth control more so than in those sad situations of rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Sure, whites get it done too, but there seems to be an unspoken notion in our society that abortion is good as it culls the number of 'unwanted' children in certain demographic groups. It's a sad commentary that children would be unwanted in our society, particularly when the pregnancy is otherwise normal and not due to rape or incest.

As for abortion itself, the fetus is an individual. The question is, to what extent should the state interfere to protect that individual, while respecting the rights of the mother and father? It's often heard that abortion should be prohibited except in cases of rape and incest. Well, how does a woman sufficiently establish that the pregnancy is due to rape? That seems to be the point at which it gets hazy for the anti-abortion argument, at least in the first trimester.

In a roundabout way, this country may have gotten it right, with abortion available in the first trimester. Count on the parents to make a wise decision with minimal state involvement. Still, there are 800k abortions per year in the US (though it has declined somewhat over the last decade).

The morning-after pill does reduce the time and effort for an abortion, which would seem to reduce the penalty for not being more cautious in practicing safe sex. Though, obviously, it would make it much easier for a woman who has been raped, and I don't have a problem with that.

A majority of Americans oppose abortion and a majority think that it should be legally available in some form. I think we generally have it right, but I do have a problem with it when it's used as a form of birth control more so than in those sad situations of rape.

---

I concur. Well said and I agree that abortion is used as a form of birth control and that is sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

With no scientific backup or research on this whatsoever, I have to wonder if teenage sex - assuming those teens still live with their parents and under SOME form of rule structure - might ease the entry into sexual maturity a little more healthily than the sudden burst of no-holds-barred promiscuity that some kids experience when they get to college.

---

True, but all children face other significant limitations due to their childhood, be it economic, social, and/or emotional. At what point should the state not meddle with the family?

And, is teens experimenting with sex, even under some structure, desirable? Yes, parents should be open and honest about sex with their children, but if the price of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is low, why bother?

It's been said increased abortion was the main reason crime decreased during the 90's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I concur. Well said and I agree that abortion is used as a form of birth control and that is sad.

---

So then we should all agree to try and limit as many abortions from happening as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

True, but all children face other significant limitations due to their childhood, be it economic, social, and/or emotional. At what point should the state not meddle with the family?

And, is teens experimenting with sex, even under some structure, desirable? Yes, parents should be open and honest about sex with their children, but if the price of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is low, why bother?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

True, but all children face other significant limitations due to their childhood, be it economic, social, and/or emotional. At what point should the state not meddle with the family?

And, is teens experimenting with sex, even under some structure, desirable? Yes, parents should be open and honest about sex with their children, but if the price of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is low, why bother?

---

What are you trying to get at? The state should not be meddling in personal matters is what I am gathering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

With no scientific backup or research on this whatsoever, I have to wonder if teenage sex - assuming those teens still live with their parents and under SOME form of rule structure - might ease the entry into sexual maturity a little more healthily than the sudden burst of no-holds-barred promiscuity that some kids experience when they get to college.

---

I hear that there is this college culture wherein people who don't view having sex with other people as something akin to playing Yahtzee with them or watching Star Wars are considered strange and are pressured to put out no-holds-barred. Where does this exist? It didn't exist when I went to college 15 years ago, and it doesn't exist today in the Texas colleges or those in surrounding states as far as Illinois where the children of my friends and loved ones go.

I mean, yes, there were copious opportunities to have sex, of which many people took ample advantage, but having an attitude of "gee, I really don't want to deal with the relational, emotional, and possibly physical consequences of having sex with this person" was considered entirely normal and acceptable. It was not a four-year orgyfest. Most people spent most of their time, um, studying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Why does the state have to address it?

Teenage pregnancy is one of the reasons abortion has the support it does. Of course, the poor and non-whites account for a disproportionate share of abortions in the US.

---

Because the state ends up footing the bill for a lot of this unwanted kids. I'm not saying they need to address the moral aspect, but it's undeniable there's an economic aspect to it that needs to be addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Because the state ends up footing the bill for a lot of this unwanted kids. I'm not saying they need to address the moral aspect, but it's undeniable there's an economic aspect to it that needs to be addressed.

---

That's part of the logic, but I thought the state was supposed to serve us, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I hear that there is this college culture wherein people who don't view having sex with other people as something akin to playing Yahtzee with them or watching Star Wars are considered strange and are pressured to put out no-holds-barred. Where does this exist? It didn't exist when I went to college 15 years ago, and it doesn't exist today in the Texas colleges or those in surrounding states as far as Illinois where the children of my friends and loved ones go.

I mean, yes, there were copious opportunities to have sex, of which many people took ample advantage, but having an attitude of "gee, I really don't want to deal with the relational, emotional, and possibly physical consequences of having sex with this person" was considered entirely normal and acceptable. It was not a four-year orgyfest. Most people spent most of their time, um, studying.

---

The first time I experienced "hook-up" sex was back in 1980 when I was in the service and I really didn't want to deal with relationship BS because I just wanted to screw around and enjoy my youth. During college I also had a hook-up for sex and it was no big deal. From what I hear today regarding kids in their early teens hooking up and that oral sex is no big deal shocks me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

What are you trying to get at? The state should not be meddling in personal matters is what I am gathering.

---

Well, generally. But I do concern myself with the rights of the individual. A fetus is an individual. I'm not going to pretend that this is some black and white matter, nor am I going to color it with faith as I'm not sure that serves anyone well.

I'd prefer the state to leave it up to the family to deal with matters of sex, much like many would prefer to leave it up to them to decide what's the appropriate sex life. Though I do think it's best that teens not engage in sex when they aren't ready to deal with the consequences (though that shouldn't be a state matter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

That's part of the logic, but I thought the state was supposed to serve us, not the other way around.

---

The state isn't *replacing* one service with another. It's merely providing an additional service for those that do not wish to carry on with the pregnancy.
In the long run, it's in the state's best interest that this service is provided, economically speaking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Well, generally. But I do concern myself with the rights of the individual. A fetus is an individual. I'm not going to pretend that this is some black and white matter, nor am I going to color it with faith as I'm not sure that serves anyone well.

I'd prefer the state to leave it up to the family to deal with matters of sex, much like many would prefer to leave it up to them to decide what's the appropriate sex life. Though I do think it's best that teens not engage in sex when they aren't ready to deal with the consequences (though that shouldn't be a state matter).

---

But the state does leave it up to the family to deal with matters of sex. They're merely allowing a certain demographic to have access to a certain contraceptive if they choose to use it. The state isn't forcing anybody to make decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

The first time I experienced "hook-up" sex was back in 1980 when I was in the service and I really didn't want to deal with relationship BS because I just wanted to screw around and enjoy my youth. During college I also had a hook-up for sex and it was no big deal. From what I hear today regarding kids in their early teens hooking up and that oral sex is no big deal shocks me.

---

Your experience is not what I was talking about. Yes, there was plenty of hook-up sex in the mid-'90s. What I'm referring to is an alleged culture where people who don't routinely have hook-up sex are treated like they have a third arm growing out of their forehead, and people who have personal moral qualms against it make about as much sense as people who morally object to using the letter 'Q.'

Meanwhile, I hope you understand that the difference between the sexual mores of your youth and those of young teens today is qualitative and slight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

But the state does leave it up to the family to deal with matters of sex. They're merely allowing a certain demographic to have access to a certain contraceptive if they choose to use it. The state isn't forcing anybody to make decisions.

---

Sure. I was questioning the notion that saying teens engaging in sex is a bad thing was a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Sure. I was questioning the notion that saying teens engaging in sex is a bad thing was a bad thing.

---

We don't have anything to discuss then. I agree everyone is entitled to their opinions. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

The state isn't *replacing* one service with another. It's merely providing an additional service for those that do not wish to carry on with the pregnancy.
In the long run, it's in the state's best interest that this service is provided, economically speaking.

---

Sure, we must serve the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Sure, we must serve the state.

---

How are we serving the state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Sure, we must serve the state.

---

The state has to have a compelling reason to restrict access to a product. Under the laissez-faire model, vendors could peddle whatever wares they wanted, caveat emptor. The existence of the FDA represents a statist departure from that model.

The idea behind the FDA is that the state can regulate products that have medical impacts upon the consumer. The science says that Plan B apparently has insufficient adverse medical impacts upon 17-year-olds (and ostensibly those even younger) to restrict its access.

The latter-day "conservative" notion is that the state can regulate products based upon their moral impacts on the consumer. This is ironic, since in the pre-New Deal days, this would have been a Pietist "progressive" position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

The state has to have a compelling reason to restrict access to a product. Under the laissez-faire model, vendors could peddle whatever wares they wanted, caveat emptor. The existence of the FDA represents a statist departure from that model.

The idea behind the FDA is that the state can regulate products that have medical impacts upon the consumer. The science says that Plan B apparently has insufficient adverse medical impacts upon 17-year-olds (and ostensibly those even younger) to restrict its access.

The latter-day "conservative" notion is that the state can regulate products based upon their moral impacts on the consumer. This is ironic, since in the pre-New Deal days, this would have been a Pietist "progressive" position.

---

I agree. We're supposed to open up the champagne since the feds broke us off a crumb of personal liberty after deciding that we wouldn't hurt ourselves with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I hear that there is this college culture wherein people who don't view having sex with other people as something akin to playing Yahtzee with them or watching Star Wars are considered strange and are pressured to put out no-holds-barred. Where does this exist? It didn't exist when I went to college 15 years ago, and it doesn't exist today in the Texas colleges or those in surrounding states as far as Illinois where the children of my friends and loved ones go.

I mean, yes, there were copious opportunities to have sex, of which many people took ample advantage, but having an attitude of "gee, I really don't want to deal with the relational, emotional, and possibly physical consequences of having sex with this person" was considered entirely normal and acceptable. It was not a four-year orgyfest. Most people spent most of their time, um, studying.

---

:lol

I wasn't suggesting that there aren't a significant number of college students who don't view their freshman year as a series of 24-hour Girls Gone Wild videos. I wasn't talking about those kids. I'm talking about the sexually curious kids who go from having no freedom at home to having all kinds of freedom at college. If they want to have sex when they're 16, maybe it's better to go ahead and figure out the physical and psychological effects at that point in their lives. Hell, maybe you could say the same about kids and beer...

And I've also known people who practiced chastity through high school AND college, gotten married, had kids and lived happily ever after. Even while outside influences seem to have the end goal of homogenizing us all, we are still very unique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

In general, is it a good thing for teens to be having sex? It's not like many parents are that responsible themselves. (Yes, I know, they'll do it no matter, etc...) I'm just wondering why the thought that teens having sex isn't a good thing is a bad thing.

---

What's wrong with teens having protected sex? I guess you could bring up things like self-esteem issues, but that's more on the our cultural obsession with sex as sin in labeling sexually active women as sluts and whores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I guess you could bring up things like self-esteem issues, but that's more on the our cultural obsession with sex as sin in labeling sexually active women as sluts

---

thats cause they are, whores get paid though

Anyway :td to this decision, there's nothing more awesome then the look on a teen's face when you tell them you can't sell plan b to them cause they are too young to buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

What's wrong with teens having protected sex? I guess you could bring up things like self-esteem issues, but that's more on the our cultural obsession with sex as sin in labeling sexually active women as sluts and whores.

---

How many are ready for the responsibility that comes with raising a child? That's kind of the part of the story that's left out for those who think sex is just about fucking without any repercussions. And that does matter for society ultimately as either more charity is needed to raise those unwanted children or, of course, greater state involvement to take care of the unwanted byproduct of a quick fuck. Not to mention that those individuals who start out life unwanted may not end up to be great adults themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

How many are ready for the responsibility that comes with raising a child? That's kind of the part of the story that's left out for those who think sex is just about fucking without any repercussions. And that does matter for society ultimately as either more charity is needed to raise those unwanted children or, of course, greater state involvement to take care of the unwanted byproduct of a quick fuck. Not to mention that those individuals who start out life unwanted may not end up to be great adults themselves.

---

That is why I explicitly qualified my statement with protected sex. Of course unprotected sex is highly irresponsible for those with no ability to raise an unwanted child.

We're expecting 14 year olds to act with the sexual maturity of 34 year olds. I don't think that's reasonable or a great idea, jimmy covered or not.

I think some of the adults on this forum have selectively forgotten their own teenage years.

How many of you were virgins by the age of 20?

The fact is, whether or not we chose to admit it w/ regard to our own children, kids want to have sex. We wanted to have sex, we had sex, our parents wanted to have sex (and they did too--they just had shotgun weddings afterwords and spent the rest of their lives in miserable relationships).

Do you honestly think the morning after pill's availability (or lack thereof) will stop kids from having sex?

Some kids want to have sex, yes.

But you're at the other end of the spectrum... "All teens want to have sex and most of them do" vs. "teens shouldn't be having sex." I don't really agree with either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Some kids want to have sex, yes.

But you're at the other end of the spectrum... "All teens want to have sex and most of them do" vs. "teens shouldn't be having sex." I don't really agree with either.

---

I was a virgin until I was 18 but that was just because I acted like a kid and matured later than some of my other friends and was a nerd. But things WERE different and while I'm sure there were kids having sex in HS it was not the norm as much as some stud wannabe's had you believe. Girls weren't giving out BJ's left and right like they do today. Casual sex has become, well....more casual than it was even back in my day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I was a virgin until I was 18 but that was just because I acted like a kid and matured later than some of my other friends and was a nerd. But things WERE different and while I'm sure there were kids having sex in HS it was not the norm as much as some stud wannabe's had you believe. Girls weren't giving out BJ's left and right like they do today. Casual sex has become, well....more casual than it was even back in my day.

---

I think that really depends more on where you were and what you were doing. When I was in high school it was pretty damn common. By my freshman year in college, just about everyone had had sex.

I think people were a little less talkative about it back in the day, but I don't think that much has changed.

Think about it, how different were the big "teen movies" of the 70s and 80s than the previews you see for teen movies today?

I'm not an advocate for teen promiscuity, I'm just a realist. Kids in high school will want to have sex. Not all of them, but a lot of them, and not all of them will make the smartest decisions in the heat of the moment.

To me that means having contraceptives available to teenagers isn't necessarily a bad thing, because teens are just as likely to have sex w/ or w/o them.

--------------------------------

And just for the record, I was a virgin until my junior year in college--and that was a secret I would have taken w/ me to the grave. You know why? Because like every other horny teenager on the planet I realllllly wanted to have sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan

I think that really depends more on where you were and what you were doing. When I was in high school it was pretty damn common. By my freshman year in college, just about everyone had had sex.

I think people were a little less talkative about it back in the day, but I don't think that much has changed.

Think about it, how different were the big "teen movies" of the 70s and 80s than the previews you see for teen movies today?

I'm not an advocate for teen promiscuity, I'm just a realist. Kids in high school will want to have sex. Not all of them, but a lot of them, and not all of them will make the smartest decisions in the heat of the moment.

To me that means having contraceptives available to teenagers isn't necessarily a bad thing, because teens are just as likely to have sex w/ or w/o them.

--------------------------------

And just for the record, I was a virgin until my junior year in college--and that was a secret I would have taken w/ me to the grave. You know why? Because like every other horny teenager on the planet I realllllly wanted to have sex.

---

Having sex on the mind and actually having sex are not the same thing. Well, duh. But you know what I mean. I went to HS in Ohio in the 70's and casual sex was not a common thing. Did it happen? Yes, but not at the level it is today with "hooking up" being common and oral sex being done at a drop of a dime. But maybe things were different in the mid-west. But I also think there were many who talked about having sex but that's all it was..talk. That is what I believe.

Of course teens want to have sex. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Of course teens want to have sex. That doesn't make it a good idea.

---

I concur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

We're expecting 14 year olds to act with the sexual maturity of 34 year olds. I don't think that's reasonable or a great idea, jimmy covered or not.

---

Are we? I really don't have that expectation at all. As a matter of fact, you have 34 year olds acting with the sexual maturity of a 14 year old. And THAT I definitely have a problem with.

I think it all boils down to what is more reasonably achievable, to prevent teenagers from having sex at all, or to educate them about the perils of unprotected sex and make birth control readily available. I'm going with the latter.

The thing is, it's all about parenting, and parenting is shit right now. So we're stuck depending on the government to teach and promote sex through contraception, or to shun it with abstinence-only education.

How many minutes of real father-son/mother-daughter dialogue could make all of this so much less important?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

The thing is, it's all about parenting, and parenting is shit right now. So we're stuck depending on the government to either promote sex through contraception and education, or to shun it by teaching abstinence.

---

I really don't see how teaching about contraception = promoting sex... nobody is teaching these kids that they SHOULD be having sex, but rather that if they choose to, they should do it safely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

I really don't see how teaching about contraception = promoting sex... nobody is teaching these kids that they SHOULD be having sex, but rather that if they choose to, they should do it safely.

---

Depends on how it's done. It's one thing if it's handed out on an "ask for it" basis by the school councelor... It's another thing if they're being handed out in Science class to everyone, including the kids who hadn't been considering sexual activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

I really don't see how teaching about contraception = promoting sex... nobody is teaching these kids that they SHOULD be having sex, but rather that if they choose to, they should do it safely.

---

But that is not how most teens see it, IMO. They think it is okay to have sex as long as they use a condom. It IS all about parenting and too many want to be "friends" with their kids instead of being a parent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Depends on how it's done. It's one thing if it's handed out on an "ask for it" basis by the school councelor... It's another thing if they're being handed out in Science class to everyone, including the kids who hadn't been considering sexual activity.

---

I suppose you're right. Except then you have to tackle the very real problem that is kid's reaction to sex as a taboo. A lot of kids won't go ask for condoms because they don't want people to know they are having sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

But that is not how most teens see it, IMO. They think it is okay to have sex as long as they use a condom. It IS all about parenting and too many want to be "friends" with their kids instead of being a parent.

---

If its all about parenting, then what's the problem with the distribution of condoms? After all, you're the parent, teach your kid to abstain from using them (as in not to have sex).

My concern with the existence of this pill in general is that teenagers may forget about disease control and figure they can just take a pill the next day to prevent a possible pregnancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

My concern with the existence of this pill in general is that teenagers may forget about disease control and figure they can just take a pill the next day to prevent a possible pregnancy.

---

that is a reasonable fear. Hence why the existence of that pill should always go hand in hand with the existence of the proper education of its uses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

I suppose you're right. Except then you have to tackle the very real problem that is kid's reaction to sex as a taboo. A lot of kids won't go ask for condoms because they don't want people to know they are having sex.

---

I agree. There's no fool-proof answer, which goes back to my point about good parenting making all of this unnecessary.

Ideally these kids could talk to their parents about sex and if they decide they're ready for it, Mom could grab some condoms on her next trip to the grocery store.

"It's been said increased abortion was the main reason crime decreased during the 90's."

demographics trumps everything. The late 80s and 90s saw the baby boomlet of boomers kids getting past the 15 - 25 age segment, which is a high-crime segment for the lower class, and less so for higher classes.

I remember one politician saying something like, abortion (of blacks and latinos) was an excellent crime control method. :)

transvestite Julie-Annie's claim that he alone was responsible for NYC crime dropoff has been thoroughly debunked. pure bunkum. The crime rate decline was well under way before he was elected mayor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

If its all about parenting, then what's the problem with the distribution of condoms? After all, you're the parent, teach your kid to abstain from using them (as in not to have sex).

---

Good point and as a parent I should be able to decide when to distribute condoms to my kids but I can see both sides and yes, as a parent I would hope that my kids make the right decision, which is actually mine, when it comes to having sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

The thing is, it's all about parenting, and parenting is shit right now.

---

Sure. Why is it my responsibility since Sam and Sue can't take care of their own?

The problem is that you are expecting children to handle themselves with a certain level of maturity. Our society today is not turning out mature 14 year olds in the way it did 'once upon a time.' Extended childhood is the reality today (and, yes, lasts well beyond the teen years for some).

I feel like people are missing the forest for the trees.

The morning after pill is not causing the problems all of you are describing. The morning after pill is not likely to change (for the better or worse) what you're worried about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan

I feel like people are missing the forest for the trees.

The morning after pill is not causing the problems all of you are describing. The morning after pill is not likely to change (for the better or worse) what you're worried about.

---

That pill has not been the real subject of the thread thusfar.