students 11-13 years of age given bir...

students 11-13 years of age given birth control ?

Created by Just Curious on Oct 17, 2007

1,390 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

NO

Only with parent permission

Yes,and should be kept private

Of course,keeps kids safe!

NO! what is America coming to?

Who cares!

Not sure

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#548 Nov 2, 2007
Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam - I asked the question because you hadn't
said how you felt about the key issue in this
debate .... what of parental knowledge and consent? In your previous posts you implied
what your opinion was but did not say it out-
right, so I asked in order not to assume any-
thing that wasn't fair. Now you have answered
it.
You see, Liam, as sad as it is that an 11 year
old might become sexually active, what is even
more disturbing is the realization that there
are people such as yourself who believe them-
selves justified in removing parents and/or
guardians from the discussion and the formula
for dealing with the problem in and out of the
school.
An 11 year old girl contemplating sexaul activity
needs far more than birth control pills, as she
is incapable of understanding the full ramifica-
tions of her decision. The most important part
of the "treatment" is the person(s) who feeds,
clothes, and gives her shelter. You may, in your
commendable notion of "helping" the child, wish
to make sure she does not get pregnant, but it
is not your right nor your responsibility to
interject yourself into the equation except to
play a supporting role if you are a school nurse
who becomes aware of the issue. Without parental
knowledge and consent the entire process becomes
one of secrecy ... keeping the parent from
knowing and understanding what is going in their
girl's life.
If I were the parent and had not given informed
consent, I would understandably conclude that the
school district is not my ally in raising my
child, but a presumptive meddler that has chosen
to deliberately circumvent my trust and my right
to have a hand in one of the most important
decisions in a girl's life.
First off, my appologies, I snapped a bit more than the situation warrented.

I am looking not so much at the typical middle school child (who is NOT having sex) but at the atypical child that is already in a bad place. Damage mitigation... preventing or minimizing any furhter damage. For a child to be having sex at that age indicates a child that is not getting love from the home environment. That is a child that is trading the use of their body for a semblance of affection.

What does that tell us about the home environment? A child that age should never have to seek love from anyone other than their parents. But what happens when that child is getting no love at home? Raising a child takes more than a stack of rules, three squares and a warm dry bed for the night.

Beyond that, children today go to schools that are far, far more diverse than ever before. The differences can be staggering: socio-economic, ethnic, religious, country of origin, immigration status, just to scratch the surface. Families can be nuclear, extended, mixed, single parent, homosexual parents, and I have even known families with poligamous parents. It is just not a Wonder white bread world any more.

End result... some kids know a lot more about sex than others, and they might be willing to share that info. Now thereare basically two ways to treat your children: cocoon them, which is harmful in its own way, or take the risk of them being exposed to sexuality too early. In the long run, it is far better to take the risk, but prepare them for it. Give them all the info they may ever need, give them the love they need and make damn sure that you will always listen to them openly, no matter what they bring up.

If (and only if) all parents could do that, then there would never be a reason for middle schools, or even high schools to hand out any form of contraceptives. Until then, it is all about damage control and mitigation.
Bill R

Lebanon, OR

#549 Nov 3, 2007
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, my appologies, I snapped a bit more than the situation warrented.
I am looking not so much at the typical middle school child (who is NOT having sex) but at the atypical child that is already in a bad place. Damage mitigation... preventing or minimizing any furhter damage. For a child to be having sex at that age indicates a child that is not getting love from the home environment. That is a child that is trading the use of their body for a semblance of affection.
What does that tell us about the home environment? A child that age should never have to seek love from anyone other than their parents. But what happens when that child is getting no love at home? Raising a child takes more than a stack of rules, three squares and a warm dry bed for the night.
Beyond that, children today go to schools that are far, far more diverse than ever before. The differences can be staggering: socio-economic, ethnic, religious, country of origin, immigration status, just to scratch the surface. Families can be nuclear, extended, mixed, single parent, homosexual parents, and I have even known families with poligamous parents. It is just not a Wonder white bread world any more.
End result... some kids know a lot more about sex than others, and they might be willing to share that info. Now thereare basically two ways to treat your children: cocoon them, which is harmful in its own way, or take the risk of them being exposed to sexuality too early. In the long run, it is far better to take the risk, but prepare them for it. Give them all the info they may ever need, give them the love they need and make damn sure that you will always listen to them openly, no matter what they bring up.
If (and only if) all parents could do that, then there would never be a reason for middle schools, or even high schools to hand out any form of contraceptives. Until then, it is all about damage control and mitigation.
Liam - I am not arguing with you regarding your
assessment of the wide range of "home environ-
ments" that are out there and present in almost
any community. What we are debating here is
whether the parent or guardian has a right to
know of an impending change in a girl's life
that will be incomprehensible to them and quite
likely result in an even more chaotic situation
at home UNLESS they are made a part of the
decision.

You underscore the existence of bad home situa-
tions, but that in itself presumes some contact
with the parent or guardian .... so why exclude
them at this point? Apart from the secrecy issue,
which is fundamentally dishonest and questionable
from a legal standpoint, how does the parent or
guardian not knowing make things better? Who is
going to be there for the girl when, let us say,
her mother asks the girl about her period and
the girl finally tells her about being on the
pill? Can you honestly see a positive, cooperative
working relationship between the school and the
parent coming out of that? I can't. I see an
ugly situation in which the child's whole educa-
tion is thrown into doubt so that more than her
sexual activity is put at risk.

Liam, from postings elsewhere I know that is
not what you want for a child.

Since: Oct 07

Tampa, FL

#550 Nov 3, 2007
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, my appologies, I snapped a bit more than the situation warrented.
I am looking not so much at the typical middle school child (who is NOT having sex) but at the atypical child that is already in a bad place. Damage mitigation... preventing or minimizing any furhter damage. For a child to be having sex at that age indicates a child that is not getting love from the home environment. That is a child that is trading the use of their body for a semblance of affection.
What does that tell us about the home environment? A child that age should never have to seek love from anyone other than their parents. But what happens when that child is getting no love at home? Raising a child takes more than a stack of rules, three squares and a warm dry bed for the night.
Beyond that, children today go to schools that are far, far more diverse than ever before. The differences can be staggering: socio-economic, ethnic, religious, country of origin, immigration status, just to scratch the surface. Families can be nuclear, extended, mixed, single parent, homosexual parents, and I have even known families with poligamous parents. It is just not a Wonder white bread world any more.
End result... some kids know a lot more about sex than others, and they might be willing to share that info. Now thereare basically two ways to treat your children: cocoon them, which is harmful in its own way, or take the risk of them being exposed to sexuality too early. In the long run, it is far better to take the risk, but prepare them for it. Give them all the info they may ever need, give them the love they need and make damn sure that you will always listen to them openly, no matter what they bring up.
If (and only if) all parents could do that, then there would never be a reason for middle schools, or even high schools to hand out any form of contraceptives. Until then, it is all about damage control and mitigation.
I agree with you about alot of what you say, but if a child goes to a teacher, counciler, etc., the job of that particular person would be to try, to the best of their ability, to *help* the child deal with that particular problem, whatever that problem be, not take total control, as if they were the parent. The fact is, no one knows for sure if the parent is good or bad, which is a matter of oppinion anyway. But regardless of that, what about the fact that these girls are going through, or are on the vurge of going through, puberty? Drugs of any kind are just not a good idea for childre, especialy at that stage of life.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#551 Nov 3, 2007
nothingucanc wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you about alot of what you say, but if a child goes to a teacher, counciler, etc., the job of that particular person would be to try, to the best of their ability, to *help* the child deal with that particular problem, whatever that problem be, not take total control, as if they were the parent. The fact is, no one knows for sure if the parent is good or bad, which is a matter of oppinion anyway. But regardless of that, what about the fact that these girls are going through, or are on the vurge of going through, puberty? Drugs of any kind are just not a good idea for childre, especialy at that stage of life.
Not positive, but I think that the BC pills are less harmful to a pubescent girl than a pregnancy would be.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#552 Nov 3, 2007
Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam - I am not arguing with you regarding your
assessment of the wide range of "home environ-
ments" that are out there and present in almost
any community. What we are debating here is
whether the parent or guardian has a right to
know of an impending change in a girl's life
that will be incomprehensible to them and quite
likely result in an even more chaotic situation
at home UNLESS they are made a part of the
decision.
You underscore the existence of bad home situa-
tions, but that in itself presumes some contact
with the parent or guardian .... so why exclude
them at this point? Apart from the secrecy issue,
which is fundamentally dishonest and questionable
from a legal standpoint, how does the parent or
guardian not knowing make things better? Who is
going to be there for the girl when, let us say,
her mother asks the girl about her period and
the girl finally tells her about being on the
pill? Can you honestly see a positive, cooperative
working relationship between the school and the
parent coming out of that? I can't. I see an
ugly situation in which the child's whole educa-
tion is thrown into doubt so that more than her
sexual activity is put at risk.
Liam, from postings elsewhere I know that is
not what you want for a child.
I skipped over a few steps that I assumed were obvious.

Yes, before handing out drugs to a child, there should be counseling, ideally involving the parents. With any luck, the need for contraceptives could be stopped here, and the child will wait until a more appropriate age before having sex.

But what is the perscribing doctor supposed to do when the child in question refuses counseling and plans sexual enounters? When they are told by the child taht any attempt to communicate with the parents will result in child abuse?

Ultimately, my concern in all this is not the child that might be having simple teen angst and wants sex for comfort. They can be reached through counseling and parental involvement. Rather, I am concerned for the child that has a rotten home, bad parents, and an already screwed up life. I want to do what ever it takes to insure that that child doesn't end up with a pregnancy that will drag her down for the rest of her life.

Also, I think that preventing a pregnancy is much better than terminating one. The best way to stop abortions it to insure than every girl that wants it has access to addequate contraceptives.

Since: Oct 07

Tampa, FL

#553 Nov 3, 2007
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not positive, but I think that the BC pills are less harmful to a pubescent girl than a pregnancy would be.
There's no telling what kind of effects they would have, which means it's experimental. Do you think it's a good idea to experiment on children? That is ludicris. How can you say something unproven one way or the other is more dangerous, and why take the chance? If this was something that was done 20 years ago, and women were having childre with birth-defects as a result, you and all the other people supporting this would likely be saying, "how could people have been so stupid, putting children on birth control, someone needs to pay". There is something wrong with you.

Since: Oct 07

Tampa, FL

#554 Nov 3, 2007
If anyone who supports this crap ever has a daughter get messed as a result of it, they should be put in jail for child endangerment, child neglect, and child abuse. This is bullshit!!!
Bill R

Lebanon, OR

#555 Nov 3, 2007
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
I skipped over a few steps that I assumed were obvious.
Yes, before handing out drugs to a child, there should be counseling, ideally involving the parents. With any luck, the need for contraceptives could be stopped here, and the child will wait until a more appropriate age before having sex.
But what is the perscribing doctor supposed to do when the child in question refuses counseling and plans sexual enounters? When they are told by the child taht any attempt to communicate with the parents will result in child abuse?
Ultimately, my concern in all this is not the child that might be having simple teen angst and wants sex for comfort. They can be reached through counseling and parental involvement. Rather, I am concerned for the child that has a rotten home, bad parents, and an already screwed up life. I want to do what ever it takes to insure that that child doesn't end up with a pregnancy that will drag her down for the rest of her life.
Also, I think that preventing a pregnancy is much better than terminating one. The best way to stop abortions it to insure than every girl that wants it has access to addequate contraceptives.
Not "ideally involving the parents," Liam. Unless
the child is removed from the home for other
reasons, there must be parental/guardian involve-
ment. Frankly, what you think or feel or believe
has nothing whatever to do with it for the simple
reason that the girl is not YOUR child. Other
parents have no obligation to fulfill your
righteous expectations of competency and no
school nurse has the right to make such a judgment
either. The capacity to do so is not in their
training or expertise.

One of the most astonishing parts of your reason-
ing is your presumption that children, particular-
ly an 11 year olds with exploding hormones, have
not learned the skills of manipulation and have
also not acquired a gift for melodrama. Thus,
when a child conveys fears of "child abuse," you
seem ready to accept it at face value, not
appreciating the fact that you are most likely
dealing with an overwrought child whose emotions
are running wild. For God's sake, get a grip.

By the way, just because a parent may not meet
your expectations doesn't mean they don't know a
good lawyer.
Darwin

Port Huron, MI

#556 Nov 3, 2007
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not positive, but I think that the BC pills are less harmful to a pubescent girl than a pregnancy would be.
You can make that assumption after you have had a hysterectomy caused by excessively large tumor growth spurred by be given too much hormone at a young age (happened to me). Forced on birth control by a demented mother and her boyfriend at 11. My female organs have been butchered because of these too a**es. As I see from your profile you have a beard and balls I don't think you will be able to experience this for yourself anytime soon.

Nothing I hate more than males who make assumptions about something they can never experience. I would never pretend to tell you what pills your sons would or should take because I can't know what it is like. Which brings up another topic. Why is it always the femals the doctors and liberals shove this crap off on? I am referring to the new innoculation for HPV that doctors want to give to girls. Since the males can get HPV and are carriers. Why don't they get the shots for once? Oh, no, society never tampers with the male bodies, only females.

Since: Sep 07

Toledo, OH

#557 Nov 3, 2007
I have one question, well actually two. Are people against the birth control or that they have access from school?

How do you handle the situation when young children are having sex?

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#558 Nov 3, 2007
nothingucanc wrote:
<quoted text>There's no telling what kind of effects they would have, which means it's experimental. Do you think it's a good idea to experiment on children? That is ludicris. How can you say something unproven one way or the other is more dangerous, and why take the chance? If this was something that was done 20 years ago, and women were having childre with birth-defects as a result, you and all the other people supporting this would likely be saying, "how could people have been so stupid, putting children on birth control, someone needs to pay". There is something wrong with you.
I think that you are refering to thalidamide. Thalidamide was used as an anti-nausea drug during pregnancy for a while. It was later discovered that women that were expossed to thalidamide in the womb were having babies born with severe birth defects, like no legs or no arms.

Thalidimide is stil availabe as an anti-nausea medicine.

Birth control pills are based on the body's own hormones. While it is possible that they can cause harm in some cases, it is highly unlikely that they would cause harm to the level of thalidimide, either to the girl taking them or to any subsequent progeny.
Bill R

Lebanon, OR

#559 Nov 3, 2007
pamiety wrote:
I have one question, well actually two. Are people against the birth control or that they have access from school?
How do you handle the situation when young children are having sex?
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do
not believe the schools have ever been given a
mandate to become medical clinics. They may
provide sex education and attend to first aid
matters due to incidents at school, calling
paramedics/911 when the situation dictates
that.

A school does not possess the medical history
of their children, so I have serious questions
regarding the competency of any nurse to
prescribe or administer a controlled substance.
Note that birth control pills are NOT medication
in the sense of alleviating pain or mitigating
the effects of an illness. They interfere with
the natural cycles of a woman to prevent a
natural occurance. No one has the right to
deliberately interfere in the natural processes
of minor child without access to her medical history, a physical examination, and the consent
of the legal parents(s) or guardians(s) as long
as they have legal custody and responsibility
for her.

I fail to see how or why this is so controversial,
given that it is how any parent ... including those posting here ... would expect to be
treated by the school they otherwise trust for
a child's education. I find it odd that any
parent would be so willing to surrender their
moral responsibility to a school nurse. Truly
odd and a bit creepy.
Bloodranye

Lakewood, WA

#560 Nov 3, 2007
JGP123 wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you do? Not everyone (including great parents) can just trust the fact that children are not going to have sex until marriage, and that they know all the options out there. Yes as parents we need to talk to them, and that includes letting them know that there are contraceptives out there if they need them. Remeber, the sex also may not have been the child's choice in the first place, the schools just want them to know that they can talk to nurse and be comfortable.
Your reaction to the thought of a child having sex is normal(and I do feel similar), but it is the exact reason why young children do not speak up and talk about it. They are scared of their parents reacton...the same reaction you are giving in this forum.
Different time, different era. I'm so very happy that I raised mine and they have their own children. I would not want to have the responsibility of having to go through that. 10-11-12 year olds?? I mean, how low has the world sunk, to have to worry about such things! People are different, times are different, but why should good old fashioned morals have to be thrown out the window. Is it because people will put up with more than people used to? Is it because they will allow more to be permitted?
I'm sorry, I still believe that parents should be a little more concerned about what their kids are doing today. So they may be a little more strict, is that such a crime?, but maybe by today's standards, it is, the poor little baby will turn out the be the next Jeffery Dahmer! No, I still am against giving or allowing the schools, to give those kids, birth control pills. It is NOT up to the schools, it is up to the parents to know, teach and bring up those little ones. Just because the old refrain comes up "Well, why not, everyone else is doing it", is no reason at all for all the permissivness.

Since: Oct 07

Tampa, FL

#561 Nov 4, 2007
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that you are refering to thalidamide. Thalidamide was used as an anti-nausea drug during pregnancy for a while. It was later discovered that women that were expossed to thalidamide in the womb were having babies born with severe birth defects, like no legs or no arms.
Thalidimide is stil availabe as an anti-nausea medicine.
Birth control pills are based on the body's own hormones. While it is possible that they can cause harm in some cases, it is highly unlikely that they would cause harm to the level of thalidimide, either to the girl taking them or to any subsequent progeny.
Again, why take that chance? First, get the parents involved. Next, find the problem (e.g.- find out just who it is that is bringing sex to the child at that age). School councilers are supposed understand child psychology, and because of this, should
be able to, with the aid of the parents, get to the core of the problem.

Since: Oct 07

Tampa, FL

#562 Nov 4, 2007
Darwin wrote:
<quoted text>
You can make that assumption after you have had a hysterectomy caused by excessively large tumor growth spurred by be given too much hormone at a young age (happened to me). Forced on birth control by a demented mother and her boyfriend at 11. My female organs have been butchered because of these too a**es. As I see from your profile you have a beard and balls I don't think you will be able to experience this for yourself anytime soon.
Nothing I hate more than males who make assumptions about something they can never experience. I would never pretend to tell you what pills your sons would or should take because I can't know what it is like. Which brings up another topic. Why is it always the femals the doctors and liberals shove this crap off on? I am referring to the new innoculation for HPV that doctors want to give to girls. Since the males can get HPV and are carriers. Why don't they get the shots for once? Oh, no, society never tampers with the male bodies, only females.
When I started to read this post you wrote, I thought you were making sense, then, you start going into the suggestion that somehow, it is actually a sexual issue. Give the boys a pill? Are you serious? NO CHILD SHOULD BE GIVEN ANY KIND OF "DRUG", especially without the parents knowledge, especially at such a critical stage of developement. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. Do you have a son? If so, would you really want something like that given to him?

Since: Sep 07

Toledo, OH

#563 Nov 4, 2007
Bill R wrote:
<quoted text>
Liam - I am not arguing with you regarding your
assessment of the wide range of "home environ-
ments" that are out there and present in almost
any community. What we are debating here is
whether the parent or guardian has a right to
know of an impending change in a girl's life
that will be incomprehensible to them and quite
likely result in an even more chaotic situation
at home UNLESS they are made a part of the
decision.
You underscore the existence of bad home situa-
tions, but that in itself presumes some contact
with the parent or guardian .... so why exclude
them at this point? Apart from the secrecy issue,
which is fundamentally dishonest and questionable
from a legal standpoint, how does the parent or
guardian not knowing make things better? Who is
going to be there for the girl when, let us say,
her mother asks the girl about her period and
the girl finally tells her about being on the
pill? Can you honestly see a positive, cooperative
working relationship between the school and the
parent coming out of that? I can't. I see an
ugly situation in which the child's whole educa-
tion is thrown into doubt so that more than her
sexual activity is put at risk.
Liam, from postings elsewhere I know that is
not what you want for a child.
The issue about menstruation is a little off topic but I hope anyone with a female child talks about the changes their body is going to go through before it happens. I have a twelve year old daughter who hasn't gone through her change but is fully aware of what is going to happen to her.

I think any parent who waits until their child cycle starts to discuss what is going on, is wrong. I think people who hide this from their children start their children having an unhealthy relationship with sex.

Again I think if children have these types of issues and have someone to talk to at school I am all for it. I'm not in anyway saying that this is your stance on the situation. I enjoy reading your opinions because believe it or not I agree with some of them.:) JMO
Darwin

Port Huron, MI

#564 Nov 4, 2007
nothingucanc wrote:
<quoted text>When I started to read this post you wrote, I thought you were making sense, then, you start going into the suggestion that somehow, it is actually a sexual issue. Give the boys a pill? Are you serious? NO CHILD SHOULD BE GIVEN ANY KIND OF "DRUG", especially without the parents knowledge, especially at such a critical stage of developement. Think about what you are suggesting for a minute. Do you have a son? If so, would you really want something like that given to him?
See you make my point. Certain members of our society are always wanting to give a pill to the girls but mention the boys and all of a sudden you call me a crackpot. Of course, I don't think the boys should be given a pill either. I was trying to illustrate the sexism in our society as well as the obsession with our society to oversex our girls to the point of promoting what in my opinion is a backdoor for male pedophiles.

Since: Oct 07

United States

#565 Nov 5, 2007
pamiety wrote:
I have one question, well actually two. Are people against the birth control or that they have access from school?
How do you handle the situation when young children are having sex?
I am personally against using certain forms of birth control for myself.

But the school should never be the ones issuing birth control.
scott

Conwy, UK

#566 Nov 5, 2007
i agree
sarah

Midlothian, VA

#567 Nov 5, 2007
whats soo bad about it? if it will protect your kid and keep her fromhaving a kid a 11... GO FOR IT!. i would rather have a child on birth control at 11 than have her come home say shes pregnant and shes getting an abortion or something. wouldnt you? unless you wanna be a grandma whats the problem here. yeah you people dont wanna believe sex at 11 years old but believe me. the world HAS DEFINATELY changed since you were teens. besides it should even be up to the parents.

when you go to get an abortion they dont even ask what the parents think do they? NO!! they ask the kid no matter how old they are.

birth control should be THE CHILDS CHOICE.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min Catcher1 855,632
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 6 min June VanDerMark 596,639
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 15 min Freebird USA 177,217
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 20 min WRM4 365
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 27 min DebraE 100,766
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 27 min WasteWater 6,155
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 28 min WasteWater 664
The Christian Atheist debate 39 min Lbj 1,054
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr New Age Spiritual... 612,646
More from around the web