Plan-B OK for Teens?

[Mokele]

However, that's the same basic logic as the sanctimonious morons who seek to artificially restrict birth control access. Who are you to say who's mature or not? What if you're just shy?

 

Point is, you shouldn't be imposing judgement on other people's sex lives. If they want to have sex, that's up to them, and it's not your place to try to manipulate their behavior, either directly or indirectly.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

"Hmmm. We've got all these 'Just Say No' buttons left over from the failed war on drugs. Let's use them for the war on teen pregnancy."

 

A fair fraction of Americans view sex as evil or dirty, and can't tolerate people with differing viewpoints. Unfortunately, if they hold a lot of political power they can force the landscape to their will. The fact that education works elsewhere won't sway them, because they don't care about facts when emotion is in play. At the same time, you have parents that aren't holding kids accountable for anything else, so the accountability for sex is something to which they are unaccustomed. But they aren't even given the tools necessary to be accountable (like education and birth control), just the anti-nike "Just don't do it" slogan. It's a matter of people basing actions on how they want people to behave, but not facing the reality of how people do behave.

[ParanoiA]

It seems like most people just don't have any issues with legislating behavior. Congratulations to those of you who have the sense to not promote the regulation of this drug based on how teens are likely to react rather than freedom of access.

 

Seems like we're getting more socialist everyday.

[Sisyphus]

Seems like we're getting more socialist everyday.

 

That's kind of a non-sequitor, isn't it?

[mooeypoo]

my sex education at school was basically 'don't do it ever, even when your a grown up'

 

You know, this is interresting. My sex-ed (Israel again) was quite embarassing, as the topic of the classes ranged from type of deseases that should be avoided, safe sex, to how sex works and what the G-Spot is (and how to have an enjoyable sex WHILE using birth control).

 

It was really embarassing on one hand, but we didn't come out thinking adults want us to avoid sex altogether (which is quite stupid to teach a teen.. they're not idiots), just that it is important to be careful.

 

Did it affect everyone? I guess not, but it affected most of us.

 

I have no idea how Sex-ED in america works, but if the ultimate message the teens get from it is "dont do it ever", then no wonder they're uneducated about the risks and consequences and become parents at young age..

 

~moo

 

EDIT:

 

btw, I don't think the legislation in Israel is different. The only "Sex Laws" we have are preventing 'abuse', or are MEANT to at least (if a minor is having sex with a legal adult, it is illegal, like in america, but two minors having sex is not illigal, etc). So I would again guess that the reason Israel has such a low rate of teen pregnancies is the education.

And I would also have to add that if America changed its way of sex education (and I'm not only talking about in the school.. parents awareness aswell, and parents not throwing responsibility around), it might get things better here. "The Pill" shouldn't be what educates a teenager against the risks of unsafe sex.

~moo

[ParanoiA]

That's kind of a non-sequitor, isn't it?

 

Are you saying that socialism is a logical consequence? Socialism may have it's personal freedom side, but it also has a nasty oppressive side as well.

 

Oddly enough, the UK seems to be more socially liberal. I don't understand why our free country isn't more progressive. We've got the right approach in terms of the 1st and 2nd amendment, but we're still archaic in our civil liberties.

[mooeypoo]

I think that America has a lot of groups opposing the constitution - perhaps not saying it out loud, but they do fight against it by trying to find laws that go around it to preserve their status quo or to oppress others with their own beliefs.

 

An example would be the anti abortions. If you think about it, (and I'm not intending to start a pro/con abortion debate right now) FREEDOM means the right to decide for oneself whether they should have an abortion. The groups that oppose it, and rule against it with constitution-bypassing laws, are - in their core - against the core-freedom of the constitution.

America has many groups that would preffer to see this country run by THEIR laws, even if it would mean an oppressive regime, than to just sit idly by and watch the constitution give people the freedom to ignore them..

 

This is only my 2 cents, I am throwing an idea since Israel has more or less the same type of system as the British one, so I am trying to answer ParanoiA's question.. if I got things in America wrong, I do appologize.. I am speaking out of general experience, and I don't quite know all the details in America's system. Yet

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

I think that America has a lot of groups opposing the constitution - perhaps not saying it out loud' date=' but they do fight against it by trying to find laws that go around it to preserve their status quo or to oppress others with their own beliefs.

 

An example would be the anti abortions. If you think about it, (and I'm not intending to start a pro/con abortion debate right now) FREEDOM means the right to decide for oneself whether they should have an abortion. The groups that oppose it, and rule against it with constitution-bypassing laws, are - in their core - against the core-freedom of the constitution.

America has many groups that would preffer to see this country run by THEIR laws, even if it would mean an oppressive regime, than to just sit idly by and watch the constitution give people the freedom to ignore them..

 

This is only my 2 cents, I am throwing an idea since Israel has more or less the same type of system as the British one, so I am trying to answer ParanoiA's question.. if I got things in America wrong, I do appologize.. I am speaking out of general experience, and I don't quite know all the details in America's system. Yet

 

~moo[/quote']

 

That's true. But I always have to remind myself that's the reason why we have courts.

 

The conservatives say the same thing about the liberals. Like the "under god" thing in our pledge of allegiance. The majority of americans are cool with it, but a small number of liberals are not. So, they took the issue to court. The conservatives get all bent out of shape about it because they're basically ignoring the majority rule. The thing is, the majority rule doesn't give the majority the right to trample on the rights or dream up any law they want - as long it's agreed by the majority.

 

Just because the majority of americans believe OJ is guilty doesn't give them the right to create a law to lynch him. We have courts to safeguard that wacky majority crowd.

 

So, I agree with you about going around the constitution to enforce things, but sometimes it's necessary, and that's probably why that channel is there.

[Sisyphus]

Are you saying that socialism is a logical consequence? Socialism may have it's personal freedom side' date=' but it also has a nasty oppressive side as well.

 

Oddly enough, the UK seems to be more socially liberal. I don't understand why our free country isn't more progressive. We've got the right approach in terms of the 1st and 2nd amendment, but we're still archaic in our civil liberties.[/quote']

 

I say it's a non-sequitor because, as far as I can see, socialism has nothing to say one way or the other about anything we've been talking about.

 

Mooeypoo, where I grew up (in New York), the sex education was very much like what you describe it as like in Israel. And sure enough, the rate of teen pregnancy is MUCH lower there than the national average. I've also come to understand that that type of education is the exception, rather than the rule in America. It varies hugely from state to state, and the more conservative states tend to take the "don't have sex ever ever ever or you will DIE HORRIBLY" approach. As you say, most teens are smart enough to realize that's B.S., and would be better off with some actual information.

[Drug addict]

Emergency hormonal contraception has been available from pharmacies in the UK for at least 7 years I believe. It can be sold to women over 16 (as 16 is the age of consent in the UK), and costs approx £25. Many areas have set up special schemes, where clients under 20 can get EHC free of charge ( i.e. at NHS expense), as part of a government drive to reduce teenage pregnancies. Although there was some negative publicity to start with which led to some Tesco and Asda (Walmart) pharmacies refusing to sell it. It is now widely accepted and I haven't seen any stories about it for a long time.

 

As for effectiveness, the figure I have from a training pack for community pharmacists in the UK is that treatment with EHC can be expected to prevent 7 out of 8 preganancies that would have occured without treatment.

 

The most important thing with EHC is the need to use it as soon as possible after unprotected sex. if taken within 12 hours, the pregnancy rate is 0.5%. If left to 61-72 hours after sex the pregnancy rate is 4%. (again this is from the training pack for community pharmacists in the uk - I can dig the references out if needed.) This is why it is so important that EHC is available from pharmacies, to enable rapid access.

[CPL.Luke]

If i can be responsible so can you. You can cry all you want and blame peer pressure but you made the decision and you have to deal with the consequences. And people get mad at the government after they've messed up and say that they should have to help them.

 

what makes you say that having sex when your a teen is irresponsible? or that the risk of pregnancy is somehow reduced when your outside of your teenage years?

[Sisyphus]

what makes you say that having sex when your a teen is irresponsible? or that the risk of pregnancy is somehow reduced when your outside of your teenage years?

 

That's a good point. It's only irresponsible if you don't know what you're doing (practically or emotionally) and/or you don't have access to contraceptives.

[mooeypoo]

So, I agree with you about going around the constitution to enforce things, but sometimes it's necessary, and that's probably why that channel is there.

 

Oh I completely agree, I am just saying that the good thing is being accompanied by a 'bad thing' -- just like your example, there are examples of non-free rules (whatchamacall it the terrorism-law thing where the government can listen to everyone.. is another example).

 

In any case, it's the same in Israel and England, it wasn't my point as much as trying to think if maybe the fact that both england and israel are semi-socialistic have something to do with the fact there are little to no teen pregnancy..

 

I'm trying to figure out what it is that causes it.

It might be the size, of course, but I don't even think Israel has the similar percentage of American pregnant teens..

Interresting.

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

what makes you say that having sex when your a teen is irresponsible? or that the risk of pregnancy is somehow reduced when your outside of your teenage years?

 

Cpl. Luke, I completely agree, but I think that the risk is not of having sex, it's of getting pregnant. And the risk of teen pregnancy is higher than adult pregnancy. I think that if teenagers had more awareness of safe sex, perhaps, then the "plan" was not really needed.

 

It's not the sex itself that this plan is supposed to fight, it's the unsafe sex, and I would fight that regardless of age, it's just a lot more dangerous and harmful (to society aswell..) with teens.

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

Oh I completely agree' date=' I am just saying that the good thing is being accompanied by a 'bad thing' -- just like your example, there are examples of non-free rules (whatchamacall it the terrorism-law thing where the government can listen to everyone.. is another example).

 

In any case, it's the same in Israel and England, it wasn't my point as much as trying to think if maybe the fact that both england and israel are semi-socialistic have something to do with the fact there are little to no teen pregnancy..

 

I'm trying to figure out what it is that causes it.

It might be the size, of course, but I don't even think Israel has the similar percentage of American pregnant teens..

Interresting.

 

~moo[/quote']

 

I think it's this taboo mentallity here in the states that causes alot of the problems. We have pop culture glorifying sexuality while the legislative side won't allow it to be discussed as openly in educational settings, and parents are scared to death of it, so the end result is an imbalance in the message...IMHO.

 

And I can't help but to put part of the blame on society's influence by christianity as well, since it has quite an unhealthy relationship with sex. I really think this is what sets the tone of it being "dirty" and forbidden here, being the dominate religion. So, yeah, there isn't alot of open discussion about it compared to other more socially progressive societies.

 

 

I say it's a non-sequitor because, as far as I can see, socialism has nothing to say one way or the other about anything we've been talking about.

 

Text book socialism, no. But practical socialism, most certainly. Most of the more socialist countries tend to be more socially judgemental, yet liberal. It's odd, to me. It seems like socialism comes from the vein of regulating behavior while still seemingly encouraging tolerance. It's basically the government legislating behavior. I like the latter whereas I despise the former. That's what I see my country doing more and more everyday.

 

And that has everything to do with this issue. This drug should be available because of our rights to accessibility - not regulated to promote certain public behavior.

[CPL.Luke]

I don't think that the risk of pregnancy reduces dramatically for unprotected sex between the teen years and early 20's. It would seem far more likely to me that adults are just more likely to practice safe sex, possibly have fewer partners.

[Sisyphus]

I think it's this taboo mentallity here in the states that causes alot of the problems. We have pop culture glorifying sexuality while the legislative side won't allow it to be discussed as openly in educational settings, and parents are scared to death of it, so the end result is an imbalance in the message...IMHO.

 

I think that captures the problem pretty well. The U.S. has this paradoxical culture that simultaneously glorifies sex at every turn and yet also turns it into a huge taboo. So we have these bizarre situations where most of what we see on television (especially what teenagers see) is in one way or another motivated by or about sex, and yet there's no nudity whatsoever, because it's considered offensive. Kids are implicitly taught both that they're nobodys if they don't have sex, and that they should be ashamed if they do. Both, in my opinion, are ridiculous, and the combination of the two leads to all kinds of crazy trouble.

 

Text book socialism, no. But practical socialism, most certainly. Most of the more socialist countries tend to be more socially judgemental, yet liberal. It's odd, to me. It seems like socialism comes from the vein of regulating behavior while still seemingly encouraging tolerance. It's basically the government legislating behavior. I like the latter whereas I despise the former. That's what I see my country doing more and more everyday.

 

And that has everything to do with this issue. This drug should be available because of our rights to accessibility - not regulated to promote certain public behavior.

 

I hate to drag this more off topic, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What kind of socialist regulation of behavior is at work here? For that matter, what do you mean in general? How are more socialized nations (that is, democratic, industrialized ones, like Sweden) more socially judgemental, and in what ways are behavior regulated because of that. (Maybe this needs a new topic...)

[ParanoiA]

I hate to drag this more off topic' date=' but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What kind of socialist regulation of behavior is at work here? For that matter, what do you mean in general? How are more socialized nations (that is, democratic, industrialized ones, like Sweden) more socially judgemental, and in what ways are behavior regulated because of that. (Maybe this needs a new topic...)[/quote']

 

Yeah, I don't want to poison this thread either. And I think I misinterpreted the intent in the first place. There's really no talk of laws and legality going on. I misunderstood.

[john5746]

I don't think that the risk of pregnancy reduces dramatically for unprotected sex between the teen years and early 20's. It would seem far more likely to me that adults are just more likely to practice safe sex, possibly have fewer partners.

 

Yes, that is the point. Teenagers are more likely to do stupid, irresponsible things. Especially if they are not educated. Since most are not able to take care of themselves, much less a child, it is a big problem for them to become pregnant. Since sex is the primary cause of pregnancy, it behoves us to let teenagers know that sex is something more than an orgasm.

 

I think kids should abstain from sex until they finish high school, but I am not stupid enough to think laws or banning contraception will make it so. Just as banning slim fast will not make fat people quit eating too much.

[CPL.Luke]

my point was that the risk of pregnancy remains the same between the teenage and adult years, as long as the same contraceptive measures are in place. When contraceptives are available and there is a solid educational backing for their use, then there is no reason to think that teenagers having sex is irresponsible in and of itself.

[zyncod]

When contraceptives are available and there is a solid educational backing for their use, then there is no reason to think that teenagers having sex is irresponsible in and of itself.

 

Except that there are many, many people out there that do think that teen sex is irresponsible in and of itself. So they try to ban things like Plan B, the HPV vaccine, and abortions. But if push came to shove, they would rather their daughter took Plan B than an abortion than died in an alley with a coathanger. And they would sure as hell wish that they had given their good little Christian girl a vaccine at age 12 than she dies at age 50 from a cancer that she got from a moments' indiscretion (or her husbands' indiscretion).

 

What we really need is a heterosexually transmitted STD that primarily affects males. Then we might actually see a push toward responsible sexual policy and education. Because all of our politicians would have it.

[ParanoiA]

my point was that the risk of pregnancy remains the same between the teenage and adult years, as long as the same contraceptive measures are in place. When contraceptives are available and there is a solid educational backing for their use, then there is no reason to think that teenagers having sex is irresponsible in and of itself.

 

I agree. I've always questioned the wisdom in holding teenagers back about sex in the first place. They have such a natural urge to do it with all of that hormonal activity, it seems abstinence is doomed to fail. And since that teaches basically nothing and at its best, just postpones their sexual discovery, I really don't see the sense in it. And I'm not so sure adults aren't even more casual about sex than teens, with more sexual partners - but definitely better educated about it.

 

I've also been kicking around the idea of condensing schooling, so that kids are graduating from high school at 14. We challenge our children so little, in terms of scholastics, so keeping them busy and forcing the 12 year curriculum into 8 years doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

Then, when teens are exploring their sexuality and the reproductive hormones begin to take over, they're at least done with the fundamentals of education. At that point, teen pregnancy jeopardizes their college future, not their high school future.